Personnel Administrator of
Massachusetts v. Feeney case brief summary
442 U.S. 256 (1979)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant, the Personnel Director for
the State of Massachusetts, challenged an order of a United States
district court, which held that the veterans' hiring preference
statute, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 31, § 23, violated the Equal
Protection Clause of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV by
discriminating against women. Appellee, a female who was not a
veteran, had lost civil service positions to male veterans despite
her high test scores.CASE FACTS
Appellee was a female civil service worker who had lost several positions to male veterans despite her high test scores. She filed a claim against appellant, the State of Massachusetts, and twice argued successfully before the district court that Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 31, § 23, the veterans' hiring preference statute, violated the Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV by discriminating on the basis of sex.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the Court reversed. After a close examination of the statute, the Court found that although the result of the statute had a disproportionate impact on women, it had not been enacted in order to discriminate against women.
- The statute contained gender neutral language.
- Because the statute was gender-neutral on its face, the Court considered first whether the statutory classification was neutral and then whether the adverse effect reflected invidious gender-based discrimination.
- The statutory classification was neutral because it was intended to discriminate against non-veterans, not against women.
- Female veterans were entitled to its benefits.
- Moreover, the legislative purpose had not been to invidiously discriminate against women.
The Court reversed the district court's order and held that appellee, a female civil service worker who was not a veteran, had not suffered a civil rights violation under the veterans' hiring preference statute of appellant, the State of Massachusetts. Although the statute had a disparate impact on women, it did not have a discriminatory intent.
No comments:
Post a Comment