PDA

View Full Version : California State Supreme Court upholds affirmative action ban



Apparition
2nd August 2010, 07:51 PM
(08-02) 17:34 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court rejected San Francisco's constitutional challenge to California's ban on race-conscious affirmative action programs today, saying the government is not required to allow racial preferences.

But the court gave the city another chance to defend a now-suspended program that gave bidding advantages to minority and female contractors.

The 6-1 ruling was a flashback to the once-burning controversy over Proposition 209, the 1996 initiative that outlawed considerations of race and sex in state and local government employment, contracting and education.

A federal appeals court upheld Prop. 209 in 1997. But the state's high court, which is not bound by that ruling, had never considered the validity of the measure until now. The justices raised the issue in the San Francisco case, a suit by two white-owned companies that said they lost contracts because of the city's bidding preferences.

The city's argument was that Prop. 209 stacks the deck against minorities and women by passing restrictions that can be dislodged only by another ballot measure, while groups like veterans and local businesses remain free to lobby lawmakers for preferential treatment.

Attorney General Jerry Brown endorsed the argument, saying in a court filing that Prop. 209 fosters the discrimination it was supposed to eliminate. But the justices were unpersuaded.

The U.S. Supreme Court considers all racial preferences, including those that favor minorities, "presumptively unconstitutional" and valid only in exceptional circumstances, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in the majority opinion. That means California can legally ban them, she said.

Although the nation's high court has struck down laws that imposed special burdens on minorities - those that required voter approval for fair-housing or school-desegregation programs - measures like Prop. 209 that "broadly forbid preferences and discrimination" are permissible, Werdegar said.

The only dissent came from Justice Carlos Moreno. He said Prop. 209 imposes a "unique burden on the ability of women and racial minorities to achieve beneficial legislation" and - despite its sponsors' claims of promoting equality - was aimed at dismantling programs that aided minorities.

Attorney Sharon Browne of the Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the contractors that sued San Francisco, called the ruling "a powerful victory for equal justice under law" and described Prop. 209 as "a civil rights measure that benefits everyone."

But Deputy City Attorney Sherri Kaiser found something to cheer in the court's decision to let San Francisco defend its contracting ordinance before a Superior Court judge, rather than invalidating it as a violation of Prop. 209.

The ordinance, passed in 2003, gave minority and female contractors an advantage of 5 to 10 percent in competitive bidding, and required general contractors to make good-faith efforts to recruit female and minority subcontractors.

City lawyers argued that the measure was needed to combat long-standing bias in local contracting. They said the city's Human Rights Commission had found persistent race and sex disparities in contract awards and rules violations by city staffers that made it harder for minorities and women to compete.

Werdegar indicated the court was skeptical about some of the findings but said San Francisco could try to show that it had intentionally discriminated in the past and that the bidding preferences were needed to level the playing field. Kaiser said the ordinance, suspended by a judge in 2004 and drafted to expire in 2008, could be revived or rewritten if the city won its case.

"This is the first time the court has ever held that Prop. 209 is anything other than a solid barrier to local government programs that are trying to correct discrimination," the city's lawyer said.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/02/BAQ81ENOE6.DTL

Wow. I'm surprised in addition to being extremely happy!

Suck on that you racist collectivists. :D ;D

Saul Mine
2nd August 2010, 08:11 PM
A few years back there was a story about a guy who sued Hooters for a job as a waitress, gender discrimination being against the law. I never heard any more about him. I often wonder if he got the job.

zap
2nd August 2010, 08:14 PM
You better be able to speak Spanish if you want a job in Ca.

sirgonzo420
3rd August 2010, 05:56 AM
A few years back there was a story about a guy who sued Hooters for a job as a waitress, gender discrimination being against the law. I never heard any more about him. I often wonder if he got the job.


I believe he got a hefty settlement.