Abstract
Purpose
When implementing affirmative action programs involving race and gender, human resource practitioners must balance efforts to increase workforce diversity against the need to avoid illegal reverse discrimination. The tension between non-discrimination law and preferential treatment is explored. In reverse discrimination case law, affirmative action plans are evaluated by judges along two dimensions: remedial need and limiting harm. The legal literature specifies certain factors such as statistical imbalance, employee qualification, and duration of plan that are usually examined within these two dimensions.
Methodology
A content analysis of 80 federal court cases was conducted to quantitatively analyze the weight and importance of these factors within judicial rulings as well as contextual factors (e.g., judge’s political affiliation, beneficiary of program) that may influence the outcome of affirmative action lawsuits.
Results
It was found that remedial need can be demonstrated by large statistical disparities in the workforce, and was also more likely to be found by Democratic than Republican judges. Limiting harm is more likely to be supported by plans that are of limited duration and do not use reserved slots, or quotas.
Implications
The study provides empirically based recommendations for the design of legally defensible affirmative action plans that involve preferential treatment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aliotta, J. M. (1988). Combining judges’ attributes and case characteristics: An alternative approach to explaining Supreme Court decision-making. Judicature, 71, 277–281.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
Biddle, D. A. (2006). Adverse impact and test validation: A practitioner’s guide to valid and defensible employment testing (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Carrell, M. R., & Mann, E. E. (1993). Defining workforce diversity programs and practices in organizations. Labor Law Journal, 44, 755–764.
Coil, J. H., & Rice, C. M. (1993). Managing work force diversity in the nineties: The impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Employee Relations Law Journal, 18(4), 547–565.
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58, 93–115.
Dallas Fire Fighters Association v. City of Dallas, Tex. 1995. N.D. Tex. 885 F. Supp. 915.
Day, J. C. (2001). Retelling the story of affirmative action: Reflections on a decade of Federal Jurisprudence in the public workplace. California Law Review, 89, 61–126.
Doverspike, D., Taylor, M. A., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2000). Psychological perspectives on affirmative action. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Doverspike, D., Taylor, M. A., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2006). Psychological perspectives on affirmative action. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Fuller, J.A., Freeman, S., Kurowski, R.M. (2007). Leadership and career development programs for women at PepsiCo. E. I. Desrosiers (Chair). Focusing on women: Workplace initiatives that develop women leaders. Symposium presented at the 22nd annual conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.
Gray, J. A. (1992). Preferential Affirmative Action in Employment. Labor Law Journal, Januray, 23-30.
Gutman, A. (2000). EEO law and personnel practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Haley, R. B. (1990). Back to the future: An economic approach to affirmative action. Labor Law Journal, 41, 808–820.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589–617.
Kilberg, W. J. (1995). Adarand, affirmative action and diversity. Employee Relations Law Journal, 21(3), 1–4.
Kleiman, L. S., & Faley, R. H. (1988). Voluntary affirmative action and preferential treatment: Legal and research implications. Personnel Psychology, 41, 481–496.
Kravitz, D. A. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Beyond selection—the role of affirmative action. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 173–193.
Kravitz, D. A., Harrison, D. A., Turner, M. A., Levine, E. L., Chaves, W., Brannick, M. T., et al. (1997). Affirmative action: A review of psychological and behavioral research. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Local No. 93, Intern. Association of Firefighters. 1986. AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland, 106 S. Ct. 3063.
Robinson, R. K., Fink, R. L., & Allen, B. M. (1997). Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena: New Standards Governing the Permissibility of Federal Contract Set-Asides and Affirmative Action. Labor Law Journal, 46, 661–668.
Robinson, R. K., Fink, R. L., & Allen, B. M. (1998). Affirmative action in the public sector: The increasing burden of “Strict Scrutiny”. Labor Law Journal, 49, 801–809.
Robinson, J. P., & Fleishman, J. A. (2001). Ideological identification: Trends and interpretations of the liberal-conservative balance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 134–145.
Roehling, M. V. (1993). “Extracting” policy from judicial opinions: The dangers of policy capturing in a field setting. Personnel Psychology, 46, 477–502.
Siskin, B. R., & Trippi, J. (2005). Statistical issues in litigation. In F. J. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives (pp. 132–166). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, E. R., & Kleugel, J. R. (1984). Beliefs and attitudes about women’s opportunity: Comparisons with beliefs about blacks and a general perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 81–95.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
United States v. Paradise, 1987. 107 S. Ct. 1053.
Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 U.S.C. § 4212.
Walworth, C. R., & DiChristina, W. D. (1994). The long road back to Birmingham: Race-conscious affirmative action and reverse discrimination. Employee Relations Law Journal, 20(3), 407–419.
Weisberg, A.C. & Carey, L.B. (2007). Women’s initiatives: Today’s business case for retaining and advancing women. E. I. Desrosiers (Chair). Focusing on women: Workplace initiatives that develop women leaders. Symposium presented at the 22nd annual conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Psychology Research Fund from the Institute of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology, and FDCP Complex Faculty Grant from The Chicago School. We are also grateful to Richard Gonzalez for his assistance and support, as well as Roya Ayman and Nambury Raju. We thank Shani Austin,Angela Bartels, Porcia Beasley, Sarju Bharucha, Katie Cisneros, Justin Greenfield, Hatton Greer, Eunseon Ha, Rebecca Kohn, Suzanne Seiler, Phillip Terrazzino and Tyler Vandermeeden for their invaluable assistance with the coding of cases.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, J.L., Morris, S.B. What Factors Influence Judges’ Rulings About the Legality of Affirmative Action Plans?. J Bus Psychol 28, 411–424 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9292-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9292-y