This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary" to "|source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=June 5, 1979 | |date=June 5, 1979 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|facts=Federal and state governments grant a preference to U.S. military veterans when hiring for government jobs. | |facts=Federal and state governments grant a preference to U.S. military veterans when hiring for government jobs. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | June 5, 1979 |
Facts
Federal and state governments grant a preference to U.S. military veterans when hiring for government jobs.
Feeney (female plaintiff) was a employee for the state government in Massachusetts in the 1970s. She was repeatedly passed up for promotions; the state civil service agency officials selected male military veterans over her.Issues
Did a facially gender-neutral veterance-hiring preference in year 1979 unlawfully discriminate against women under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
Arguments
The preference for veterans applied equally to female veterans as male ones.
Holding
In spite of the disparate impact on women, the Mass. hiring preference for veterans doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.