United States v. Paradise
480 U.S. 149, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 934, 94 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In cases of persistent and egregious past discrimination, a court may order a temporary, race-conscious remedy, such as a one-for-one promotion requirement, if it is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling government interest of remedying the discrimination and compelling compliance with court orders.
Facts:
- For 37 years, from its creation until 1972, the Alabama Department of Public Safety (Department) had never employed a single Black state trooper.
- Following a 1972 court finding of blatant discrimination, the Department engaged in practices to delay and frustrate compliance with hiring orders, such as artificially restricting the size of the trooper force.
- In 1979 and again in 1981, the Department entered into consent decrees, promising to develop and implement a promotion procedure for the rank of corporal that would have little to no adverse racial impact on Black candidates.
- By 1983, over four years after the first decree, the Department had still failed to develop a valid promotion procedure. The test it proposed was found to have a severe adverse impact on Black candidates, with none ranking in the top half of the eligibility list.
- At the time of the dispute, no Black trooper had ever been promoted to the rank of corporal or above through a standard procedure. The Department's upper ranks—major, captain, lieutenant, and sergeant—remained entirely white.
- The Department communicated to the court an urgent need to promote at least 15 new troopers to the rank of corporal.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1972, the NAACP and Phillip Paradise, Jr. sued the Alabama Department of Public Safety in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for racial discrimination; the United States joined as a plaintiff.
- The District Court found a blatant pattern of discrimination and ordered the Department to hire one Black trooper for every white trooper until the force was 25% Black.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the hiring order.
- In 1979 and 1981, the parties entered into consent decrees in the District Court in which the Department agreed to develop fair promotion procedures.
- In 1983, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the District Court to enforce the decrees after the Department failed to comply, requesting a one-for-one promotion remedy.
- The District Court granted the motion, ordering that, as an interim measure, 50% of promotions to corporal must go to qualified Black troopers until a valid promotion plan was implemented.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's promotion order.
- The United States was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court-ordered, temporary one-black-for-one-white promotion requirement, imposed as a remedy for a public employer's long-term, egregious, and persistent history of racial discrimination, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. The one-for-one promotion requirement does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The relief survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The compelling interest is remedying the Department's pervasive, systematic, and obstinate history of discrimination and compelling its compliance with court decrees. The remedy is narrowly tailored because: (1) it was necessary given the Department's consistent resistance to court orders and the inefficacy of alternatives; (2) it is flexible, temporary, and waivable, as it applies only when qualified Black candidates exist and ceases upon the implementation of a valid promotion procedure; (3) the 50% figure represents the speed at which the 25% goal (reflecting the relevant labor market) is achieved, compensating for years of delay; and (4) the burden on innocent white troopers is diffuse and temporary, merely postponing promotions rather than causing layoffs.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. The promotion requirement is constitutional because it is a narrowly drawn remedy for persistent and egregious constitutional violations. Applying a five-factor test, the remedy is justified because there was no effective alternative to meet the Department's urgent promotion needs, the order is temporary and flexible, and its effect on innocent white troopers is relatively diffuse and does not rise to the level of a layoff. The Department's longstanding resistance to court orders justified the District Court's stringent action.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. Strict scrutiny is the incorrect standard for reviewing a judicial remedy for a proven constitutional violation. A district court has broad and flexible equitable power to fashion a remedy, and the burden is on the defendant—the proven violator—to show that the court's remedy is unreasonable. Given the Department's egregious and persistent violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the District Court acted within its discretionary powers to craft an effective, race-conscious remedy to correct the wrong.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
Yes. The court's order violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not narrowly tailored. The order's singular purpose was to coerce the Department into developing a valid promotion test, and less intrusive alternatives were available but not considered. The court could have appointed a trustee to develop a test or held the Department in contempt and imposed substantial fines. By imposing a rigid one-for-one racial quota without any consideration of available alternatives, the District Court failed to meet the demands of strict scrutiny.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. Agreeing with Justice O'Connor, the District Court exceeded its equitable powers in fashioning this remedy.
Analysis:
This case is significant for affirming the broad remedial power of federal courts to combat entrenched, systemic discrimination. It established that even a rigid, numerical quota can withstand strict scrutiny when a defendant has a long and defiant history of non-compliance with court orders. The decision provides a powerful, albeit last-resort, tool for courts to enforce their decrees and remedy the lingering effects of discrimination, distinguishing such judicial remedies from voluntary affirmative action plans which are subject to greater constraints.
