time approved an affirmative action program con-
taining a racial quota. The issue was the constitution-
ality of a provision in the federal Public Works Em-
ployment Act of 1977 that required that 10 percent
of all public works grants by the Department of Com-
merce be awarded to minority business enterprises.
The Court upheld the statute and rejected a white
contractor’s claim that the law violated the Four-
teenth Amendment. The decision effectively autho-
rized Congress to exercise broad discretion to legis-
late racial preferences based on the principle of
proportional representation for racial groups.
The Supreme Court almost always approved of
quotas ordered as remedies for proven instances of
illegal discrimination. InLocal 28 Sheet Metal Workers
International v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion(1986), the Court upheld a lower court’s imposi-
tion of a 29 percent membership quota on a union
found guilty of racial discrimination. Likewise, in
Paradise v. U.S. (1987), based on a finding of egre-
gious discrimination, the Court upheld the constitu-
tionality of a lower court’s order that 50 percent of
promotions in the Alabama state police be awarded
to African Americans until their representation
among officers corresponded to their percentage of
the population.
The threat of legal suits based on statistical dispar-
ities induced employers to institute preferential pol-
icies, but such policies exposed employers to claims
of reverse discrimination. InJohnson v. Santa Clara
County(1987), the Court examined an instance in
which a white woman had been promoted over a
white male with slightly higher qualifications. Going
beyond the idea of affirmative action as a remedy for
illegal discrimination, the Court held that prefer-
ence was justified by the existence of a “manifest im-
balance” in the numbers of women “in traditionally
segregated job categories.” The decision presented
employers with a green light to continue their self-
instituted preference programs.
Limits on Preferences Although endorsing most
race-conscious programs until late in the 1980’s, the
Supreme Court always recognized some limits on
how far the programs might proceed, particularly
when the issue was labor contracts that instituted se-
niority systems. InFirefighters Local Union v. Stotts
(1984), the Court ruled that the lower courts did not
have the authority to overturn seniority agreements
in order to protect the jobs of recently hired black
workers. Likewise, inWygant v. Board of Education
(1986), the Court struck down an affirmative action
program that protected minority teachers from lay-
off by requiring the layoff of more senior white
teachers. In a 5-4 decision, the majority concluded
that the program violated the principles of equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
President Ronald Reagan’s administration at-
tempted to stop the spread of affirmative action
programs. Although President George H. W. Bush,
elected in 1988, was more moderate, he opposed
aggressive programs. While their administrations
sought remedies for victims of invidious discrimina-
tion, they took a stand against all quotas, as well as
most racial preferences. Among their appointments
to the Supreme Court, David Souter was the only lib-
eral justice on affirmative action issues, but Associ-
ate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor would eventually
endorse some limited preferences if they included
individual assessments of qualifications.
In 1989, the Supreme Court issued two rulings that
dismayed proponents of racial preferences. Over-
turning a city’s mandate for a 30 percent set-aside
for minority contractors inRichmond v. J. A. Croson
Co., the Court held that the plan violated the consti-
tutional rights of white contractors. Applying “strict
scrutiny” review for the first time to an affirmative ac-
tion program, the decision required that set-asides
be justified by a showing of past discrimination. In
Ward’s Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, the Court reversed
an earlier decision and required plaintiffs to assume
the burden of proof in disparate-impact cases, or
claims that unnecessary employment qualifications
disproportionately harmed the opportunities of mi-
norities. This decision produced a great political de-
bate, until it was largely undone by the Civil Rights
Act of 1991.Impact During the decade of the 1980’s, affirma-
tive action programs became more widespread than
at any time before or after. Preferences were com-
mon, and some educational and employment op-
portunities were available only to members of mi-
nority groups and women. Given the resentments of
many white males, the emergence of a strong back-
lash was not surprising. Beginning in 1989, the Su-
preme Court began to show more consideration
for claims of reverse discrimination. Although the
Court would move in a zig-zag course on preferences
during the 1990’s, the general direction was toward24 Affirmative action The Eighties in America