Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionAffirmative ActionEqual Protection Clauseracial classificationsstrict scrutinyaffirmative actionpublic employment

Facts

A school board and teachers' union adopted a layoff provision that limited the percentage of minority teachers who could be laid off, thereby protecting some minority teachers from layoffs over more senior nonminority teachers. The board asserted that the provision was part of a voluntary affirmative action effort to remedy its own apparent prior employment discrimination and to preserve gains from minority hiring goals. The hiring goal the layoff provision protected was tied to the percentage of minority students in the district, rather than to the percentage of qualified minority teachers in the relevant labor pool. The lower courts upheld the plan based on interests in remedying societal discrimination and providing minority role models.

Issue

Whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, a public school board may extend preferential protection against layoffs to minority teachers as part of a voluntary affirmative action plan. More specifically, the case asks whether this layoff provision was supported by a sufficient remedial purpose and was narrowly tailored to that purpose.

Rule

A public employer's racial classification is subject to strict scrutiny. Remedying the employer's own apparent past discrimination may justify voluntary affirmative action even without a contemporaneous formal finding of discrimination, so long as the employer has a firm basis for concluding remedial action is warranted; however, interests in remedying societal discrimination or providing role models are insufficient, and the means chosen must be narrowly tailored to the remedial objective.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The school department in Dayton, Ohio signs a collective-bargaining agreement providing that during budget cuts, at least 18% of retained counselors must be Latino, even if some non-Latino counselors with greater seniority are dismissed first. Several dismissed counselors sue the district under the Equal Protection Clause.

What standard should a court apply to evaluate the district's layoff policy?

Explanation. A public employer's use of race triggers strict scrutiny. The fact that the policy was adopted for assertedly remedial reasons or through collective bargaining does not lower the level of review. Under the majority/lead opinion, the key question is whether the government has a sufficiently weighty remedial purpose and whether the means are narrowly tailored.