## Facts

- The Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway adopted an affirmative action program requiring preference for designated minority candidates when applicants appeared equally qualified.
- Budget constraints required elimination of one position in the high school Business Education department.
- Two tenured teachers in that department, Sharon Taxman (white) and Debra Williams (Black), had identical seniority, qualifications, and performance records.
- In prior equal-seniority ties, the Board had used a random lottery to decide layoffs.
- Instead of a lottery, the Board applied its affirmative action policy to retain Williams and lay off Taxman to maintain faculty racial diversity.
- In the job category including teachers, Black representation in the district exceeded Black representation in the relevant available workforce; the Board did not identify a remedial imbalance or prior discrimination to be corrected.
- Taxman filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination under Title VII; the EEOC sued, and Taxman intervened as a plaintiff.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment on liability for Taxman and awarded full back pay after trial on relief; it denied punitive damages for lack of malice or reckless indifference.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII permits an employer, absent a remedial objective, to use race as the deciding factor to break a tie between equally qualified, equally senior employees in order to promote workforce diversity.
2. Whether the Board’s affirmative action plan, as applied, satisfied the standards for voluntary affirmative action recognized under Title VII.
3. Whether the evidence supported punitive damages for the discriminatory layoff decision.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit (en banc) affirmed summary judgment for Taxman on Title VII liability.
- The court held the Board’s race-based layoff decision was unlawful because the plan, as applied, lacked a remedial purpose and imposed an impermissible burden on a non-minority employee.
- The court affirmed the award of full back pay.
- The court affirmed denial of punitive damages because the record did not show the requisite malice or reckless indifference.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII is violated when an employer makes an adverse employment decision because of an employee’s race unless the action fits within the limited scope of permissible voluntary affirmative action recognized by precedent.
- A voluntary affirmative action plan must (1) pursue objectives consistent with Title VII’s remedial aims (such as addressing a manifest imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories) and (2) avoid unnecessarily trammeling the interests of non-beneficiaries.
- “Diversity” alone, without a remedial justification tied to correcting underrepresentation or the effects of discrimination, does not satisfy Title VII’s recognized affirmative action rationale.
- Terminating employment (or imposing job loss) based solely on race is a severe burden and may constitute unnecessary trammeling, particularly where the plan is not temporary, narrowly defined, or aimed at a specific remedial goal.
- Punitive damages under Title VII require proof of malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights; a mistaken belief that conduct was lawful may defeat that showing.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Title VII prohibited the Board from laying off a white teacher rather than an equally qualified Black teacher solely to preserve racial diversity, where the workforce was not shown to be imbalanced and the policy imposed job loss on the non-beneficiary; back pay was affirmed and punitive damages were denied.


Taxman v. Board of Educ. of Twp. of Piscataway, 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc)