considering the Title VII claims of a white male plaintiff regarding an affirmative-action plan adopted to promote women and racial minorities at a time when 75% of the firefighters in the department were white and 99% were male
How later courts described this case
- considering the Title VII claims of a white male plaintiff regarding an affirmative-action plan adopted to promote women and racial minorities at a time when 75% of the firefighters in the department were white and 99% were male
- white male denied position as firefighter challenged affirmative action plan that resulted in hiring of 57 minority or female applicants with lower examination scores
- noting the diversity of views expressed in Supreme Court opinions leading up to Croson
- “In Croson, a majority of- the Court finally agreed that the constitutionality of a state or local public minority preference program must satisfy a strict scrutiny standard.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with Judge Brown’s conclusion that the district court’s judgment for the defendant, Metropolitan Dade County, on the plaintiff’s Title VII claim should be affirmed. However, in my opinion, the plaintiff’s claim that the affirmative action program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should be remanded to the district court for consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company, 488 U.S. 469 , 109 S.Ct. 706 , 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989).