0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 442 U.S. 156, 442 U.S. 256, 60 L. Ed. 2d 870, 99 S. Ct. 2282, SCDB 1978-113, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 128
Tags: Constitutional Law, Sex Equality
Ms. Feeney challenged the constitutionality of the Massachusetts veterans' preference law, which gives preference to veterans in civil service jobs, on the basis of sex discrimination. The District Court found the law unconstitutional due to its severe impact on women's employment opportunities, but the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration. Upon remand, the District Court reaffirmed its original judgment that the preference is inherently non-neutral and has a discriminatory impact on women's employment opportunities. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the veterans' preference law in Massachusetts violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against women.
The concurring opinion agrees with the Court's decision but questions whether there is a difference between the two questions posed. The opinion suggests that if a classification is not overtly based on gender, then the question of whether it is covertly gender-based is the same as whether its adverse effects reflect invidious gender-based discrimination. The opinion concludes that the number of males disadvantaged by Massachusetts' veterans' preference is close enough to the number of disadvantaged females to refute the claim that the rule was intended to benefit males as a class over females as a class.
The dissenting opinion in this case argues that Massachusetts' veterans' preference system is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because it was intentionally designed to discriminate against women and lacks a legitimate governmental objective. Although the system's primary objective was to benefit individuals with prior military service, the disproportionate impact on women due to their historically limited participation in the military and the legislative history showing the state's awareness of the impact on women indicate discriminatory intent. The system violates equal protection under the law and does not meet the substantial relationship test required by the Equal Protection Clause.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.