William L. and Marsha G. Kidd - Page 4

                                         -4-                                          
               While the lawsuit was pending in superior court, the U.S.              
          Supreme Court decided in Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S.              
          469 (1989), that a State government must have strong evidence of            
          past discrimination before it can employ racial or gender                   
          classifications.  On the basis of this decision, the board                  
          reexamined the department’s supplemental certification program              
          and concluded that it was improper.  The board suspended the                
          department’s use of that program in December 1989.  Shortly                 
          thereafter, the superior court dismissed the lawsuit as moot in             
          that the department was essentially then in compliance with the             
          plaintiffs’ request in the lawsuit that it abandon its                      
          supplemental certification program.  The superior court declined            
          in connection with the dismissal to grant the plaintiffs’ request           
          to discharge the individuals employed through the supplemental              
          certification program.                                                      
               The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit to the            
          California Court of Appeal for the Third District (court of                 
          appeal).  The court of appeal reversed the dismissal and remanded           
          the case to the superior court with instructions to declare that            
          the plaintiffs’ rights under the California Constitution and                
          California Government Code were violated by the use of                      
          supplemental certification, to enjoin the defendants from using             
          supplemental certification, and to “fashion an equitable remedy             
          to redress the violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional and                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011