Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Taxman v. Board of Education

91 F.3d 1547 (1996)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Taxman v. Board of Education

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

91 F.3d 1547 (1996)

Facts

Sharon Taxman (plaintiff) and Debra Williams were the only teachers in the business department at Piscataway High School. The Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, New Jersey (board) (defendant) accepted a recommendation from its superintendent to reduce the teaching staff in the business department by one. Under state law, layoffs had to proceed in reverse order of seniority; however, Taxman and Williams had equal seniority. Historically, in decisions involving the layoff of employees with equal seniority, the board had broken the tie through a random lottery process. However, the board had previously implemented an affirmative-action policy, which provided that if candidates appeared to be of equal qualification, those who were members of racial, national origin, or gender groups identified as minorities by the New Jersey State Department of Education would be recommended. The board opted to follow the affirmative-action policy and discharged Taxman, who was White, in order to retain Williams, who was Black. The board’s affirmative-action policy was not adopted to remedy the results of prior discrimination and, thus, did not have a remedial purpose. In fact, during the relevant times, Black teachers were neither underrepresented nor underutilized in the school district’s work force. Specifically, the percentage of Black employees in the district’s job category that included teachers exceeded the percentage of Black employees in the available work force. In addition, the board president stated that he voted to apply the affirmative-action policy for the purpose of promoting diversity and tolerance. Taxman brought a claim against the board under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Taxman on the question of liability. The board appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mansmann, J.)

Dissent (Sloviter, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership