ng under representation in the workplace and a documented history of the disparate treatment of a protected class are the key elements of a validated affirmative action plan. Without these key components, an affirmative action plan can be ruled in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (as has been demonstrated by this case and many others, especially in police and fire positions) and ultimately unconstitutional, which opens all employers (public especially) to a wide array of lawsuits.In Dallas, TX, the fifth circuit struck down the city’s affirmative action plan for the fire department when white and Native American male firefighters sued for being passed over for promotions. The affirmative action plan called for promoting back, Hispanic, and female firefighters ahead of those others who had scored higher on examinations. The only evidence of racial discrimination to justify the affirmative action plan was a 1976 consent decree between the city and the U.S. Justice Department and a statistical analysis showing that minorities had been underrepresented in higher ranks. Given the minimal evidence of discrimination, the court held the plan to be invalid. (Champagne 1)The state of California has passed Proposition 209, which prohibits the state from using racial or gender preferences in public employment, public education, or public contracting. The legality of this proposition was tested in the ninth circuit court of appeals by The Coalition for Economic Equity in 1997. The lawsuit was dismissed in 1998 and the court held that Proposition 209 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and is not prohibited by Title VII. (Champagne 1)The Legal Debate: Title VII LawsuitsGenerally when one hears “Title VII” and “lawsuit” in the same sentence the thought of discrimination against a protected class comes to mind. This is not so much the case anymore. As of 1996, reve...
