Reverse+Discrimination+Cases

=__**Reverse Discrimination**__ =

==== **Definition:** The unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities. ====

Court Cases: //Bakke v California//

=
 -  Allan Bakke was a thirty-five year old man who had applied to UC Davis on two separate occasions, but had been rejected both times. Although he had been rejected the university had 16 spots reserved for minorities like Bakke, which led to which led to Bakke concluding that he had been rejected based on his race. ======

=
  - T   here was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices had contended that any racial quota used by the government is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell was the deciding vote, and had stated that the college needed to accept Bakke into the medical school based on the fact that the racial quota used in this case had violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment as well. The other justices for Bakke had simply stated that the use of race is permissible in accepting student into medical school. ======

 //Richmond v Croson//

=
- In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city. ======

=
- The court held that "generalized assertions" of past racial discrimination could not justify "rigid" racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts. Justice O'Connor had noted that the 30 percent quota could not be tied to "any injury suffered by anyone," and was an impermissible employment of a suspect classification. She had further noted that allowing claims of past discrimination to serve as the basis for racial quotas would actually subvert constitutional values. ======

//United Steelworkers v Weber// //-// The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. Half of the available positions were reserved for blacks, and Weber, who was white, was passed over for the job and had claimed to that he was a victim of reverse discrimination. The question had been if United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. - The vote had been 5 votes for the United Steelworkers of America and 2 votes against. - The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement the goals of Title VII. Since the program sought to eliminate archaic patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy while not prohibiting white employees from advancing in the company, it was consistent with the intent of the law 