## Facts

- A public school board and teachers’ union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement governing teacher layoffs.
- The agreement generally required layoffs by seniority but added a race-based exception: minority teachers could not be laid off in a higher percentage than their representation in the workforce at the time of the layoff.
- The provision aimed to preserve gains from earlier efforts to increase minority faculty amid community racial tensions.
- During layoffs, the board applied the clause, resulting in some nonminority teachers being laid off while less senior minority teachers were retained.
- Displaced nonminority teachers challenged the layoff scheme as racial discrimination by a public employer.
- The district court upheld the provision, accepting “societal discrimination” and minority “role model” rationales without requiring a finding of the board’s prior discrimination.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court reversed in a divided decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a public school board’s race-based layoff protection for minority teachers violates the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether “societal discrimination” or a “role model” objective can qualify as a compelling interest supporting racial classifications in public employment.
3. Whether a public employer must have a strong evidentiary basis of its own prior discrimination and use narrowly tailored means before adopting race-conscious layoff measures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and held the layoff provision unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
- A majority agreed that strict scrutiny governs race-based employment actions by public employers.
- The Court rejected “societal discrimination” and “role model” rationales as insufficient to justify the racial classification.
- The Court required objective support for remedial action—i.e., a strong basis in evidence that the employer had engaged in prior discrimination warranting a remedy.
- The layoff scheme was not narrowly tailored because it imposed a direct, severe burden on identifiable individuals through loss of existing jobs, rather than using less harmful alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- Racial classifications by public employers are subject to strict scrutiny and must serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored.
- Generalized assertions of societal discrimination do not, by themselves, justify race-based state action; remedial use of race requires convincing evidence tied to the governmental unit’s own past discrimination.
- A voluntary race-conscious remedy by a public employer requires a strong basis in evidence that remedial action is necessary.
- Narrow tailoring requires attention to the degree of harm imposed on nonbeneficiaries; discharging incumbent employees based on race is a particularly weighty burden and demands strong justification and careful fit.
- A remedial plan must relate to the identified injury; justifications untethered to specific prior discrimination cannot sustain race-based layoffs.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated a collectively bargained layoff provision that preserved minority employment levels by displacing more senior nonminority teachers, holding that public employers may not use race-based layoffs absent a strong evidentiary basis of their own prior discrimination and a narrowly tailored remedy that limits harm to individuals who lose existing jobs.


Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267 (1986)