## Facts

- A county transportation agency adopted a voluntary affirmative action plan addressing hiring and promotions of women and minorities in job classifications where they were significantly underrepresented.
- The plan permitted consideration of sex as one factor among others for promotions within traditionally segregated job classifications; it set no quotas or set-asides and used annually adjusted short-range goals.
- A road dispatcher vacancy arose within a Skilled Craft Worker classification in which none of the 238 positions were held by women.
- Paul Johnson (male) and Diane Joyce (female) applied; both were rated “well qualified,” and Johnson scored slightly higher on the oral interview.
- The agency promoted Joyce, citing the affirmative action plan and the underrepresentation of women in the job classification.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII forbids an employer from considering sex as one factor in a promotion decision under a voluntary affirmative action plan.
2. Whether the plan was a permissible remedial measure aimed at correcting a manifest imbalance in a traditionally segregated job category.
3. Whether the plan improperly burdened male employees by creating an absolute bar or otherwise “unnecessarily trammel[ing]” their interests, or by operating as a non-temporary preference.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the agency in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held that the agency could consider Joyce’s sex as one factor in the promotion decision consistent with Title VII.
- Applying the Title VII affirmative action framework used for race-conscious plans to sex-conscious plans, the Court upheld the plan as a moderate, flexible, case-by-case method to improve representation where women were significantly underrepresented.
- The Court found a manifest imbalance in the relevant job category because women held none of the Skilled Craft positions.
- The Court concluded the plan did not create an absolute bar to men’s advancement, did not impose quotas, and was sufficiently limited by its remedial aim and periodic goal adjustments.

## Legal Principles

- Once a plaintiff shows that sex was considered in an employment decision, an employer may justify the decision by articulating a legitimate rationale, including reliance on a valid affirmative action plan.
- A voluntary affirmative action plan under Title VII may consider sex to address a manifest imbalance in a traditionally segregated job category.
- A valid plan must not “unnecessarily trammel” the rights of nonbeneficiaries; it may not impose quotas or an absolute bar to advancement.
- A plan’s permissibility is supported when it is flexible, applied on a case-by-case basis, and directed to measurable underrepresentation with periodic reassessment rather than permanent preferences.

## Conclusion

Title VII permits an employer, under a voluntary affirmative action plan, to consider sex as one factor in promotion decisions to remedy a manifest imbalance in a traditionally segregated job classification, so long as the plan is flexible, non-quotational, and does not unduly limit opportunities for male employees.


Johnson v. Transp. Agency, Santa Clara Cnty., 480 U.S. 616 (1987)