(1) Introduction and Overview:
Judge Samuel Alito Opposes Racial Quotas

Originally Web Posted Dec. 14, 2005
IN PROGRESS - Updates and Additional Details Pending

Jan. 31, 2006:  Alito confirmed by a vote of 58-42; sworn in as new Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Samuel A. Alito

          On Oct. 31, 2005 President George W. Bush announced his nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court.

          In his most recent job Samuel A. Alito served as a distinguished judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which includes in its jurisdiction Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S .Virgin Islands.

          In his capacity as an appellate judge, Alito consistently ruled that plaintiffs in racial discrimination cases must present compelling evidence of actual, intentional discrimination instead of the circumstantial evidence upon which most modern race discrimination lawsuits are based.

          This has upset the Congressional Black Caucus, among others.  The CBC is a group of black legislators who support racial quotas at any cost, and they recently stated:  "[We] oppose Judge Alito's judicial opinion that racial discrimination cases must have significant evidence before they can be heard."  That is really what they said!  Can you imagine?

Last known link:

          Below are summaries of several racial discrimination cases in which Sam Alito participated, either as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, or as a staff lawyer in President Reagan's Justice Department.  The three cases summarized below are: 

  • Taxman v. Piscataway School Board (1996)
  • Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1997)
  • Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986)

          Decide for yourself if you would like this man to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court and decide whether you are entitled to equal treatment without regard to your race!

Adversity.Net Review by Tim Fay

Sharon Taxman v. Piscataway (1996) -- No one in this infamous case ever disputed the fact that the Piscataway school board fired Sharon Taxman simply because she was white.

          Due to budget shortfalls, in 1989 the local school board was faced with the need to fire one of their business teachers.   The choice was between two teachers with the least seniority in the department -- Sharon Taxman who is white, and Debra Williams who is black.  Both had been hired on the same day several years earlier, and both had exemplary personnel records and identical qualifications. 

          The board fired the white teacher, Ms. Taxman, and publicly stated their reason for doing so:  in order to preserve diversity.  In other words, the white teacher had to go solely because of the color of her skin.

          Ms. Taxman sued and the case made its way through the lower courts up to the third circuit court of appeals.  In 1996 the entire third circuit court ("en banc") ruled 8 to 4 in favor of Ms. Taxman's claim that her rights under Title VII had clearly been violated.

Judge Sam Alito joined the 8 judge majority opinion, which stated in part: 

"It is clear that the language of Title VII is violated when an employer makes an employment decision based upon an employee's race. The Supreme Court determined in United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), however, that Title VII's prohibition against racial discrimination is not violated by affirmative action plans which first, 'have purposes that mirror those of the statute' and second, do not 'unnecessarily trammel the interests of the [non-minority] employees.' We hold that Piscataway's affirmative action policy is unlawful because it fails to satisfy either prong of Weber. Given the clear antidiscrimination mandate of Title VII, a non-remedial affirmative action plan, even one with a laudable purpose, cannot pass muster. . . ." Taxman v. Bd. of Educ. of the Township of Piscataway, 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Last known link:
"President Should Enforce the Civil Rights Laws as Written;
Administration Sanctions Race-Based Layoffs
(From the U.S. Senate, Republican Policy Committee, June 10, 1997)>>

Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1997) -- In the Bray case, a black employee of the hotel claimed she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a white employee.  The plaintiff wanted to cite violations of internal hiring procedures and conflicting explanations by supervisors as evidence of racial bias.  The problem with her complaint of racism was that Marriott's actions were facially race-neutral; there was no direct evidence of racism or intent to discriminate.

          Nonetheless, the three judge appeals panel ruled 2-1 in favor of Ms. Bray's claim of racial discrimination.  Judge Alito dissented in the 2-1 decision and warned that the majority's approach would lead to "an unwarranted extension of the anti - discrimination laws" because employers often fail to follow their internal procedures "to the letter." 

Last known link:

          "Alito agreed that the black woman may have been 'treated unfairly' by her employer, but ruled that she had produced too little evidence of racial discrimination to allow her lawsuit to go forward. Marriott argued that the white woman whom they brought in for the job had more training, had worked at a larger hotel and had supervised higher-ranking employees. ...

In his dissenting opinion in favor of Marriott, Alito wrote:

"I have no doubt that in the future we are going to get many more cases where an employer is choosing between competing candidates of roughly equal qualifications and the candidate who is not hired or promoted claims discrimination. I also have little doubt that most plaintiffs will be able to use the discovery process to find minor inconsistencies in terms of the employer’s having failed to follow its internal procedures to the letter. What we end up doing then is converting the anti-discrimination law into a ‘conditions of employment’ law, because we are allowing disgruntled employees to impose the costs of trial on employers who, although they have not acted with the intent to discriminate, may have treated their employees unfairly. This represents an unwarranted extension of the anti-discrimination laws."

Last known link:
Capitol Hill Blue 11/22/05

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986) -- "A 1986 Michigan case, Wygant v. Jackson, struck down an arrangement between a teachers union and local school board to lay off white teachers before laying off blacks with less seniority to preserve minority hiring gains. 

          At the time, Samuel Alito was a young lawyer with President Reagan's administration.   "Alito signed a brief for the Reagan administration opposing the arrangement.   It suggested that such a system could teach students that 120 years 'after the end of slavery, government may still advance some and suppress others, not as individuals but because of the color of their skin.'

          "The 5 to 4 decision striking down the arrangement was nevertheless seen as a defeat for the Reagan administration, because the court upheld affirmative action plans so long as they were carefully tailored to remedy past discrimination."

Last known link:
Washington Post story "1985 Memo by Alito Has Legal Weight, Senators Say"
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A08

More stories and cases on Samuel A. Alito's support for equal treatment under the law without regard to race or ethnicity will be added as they become available.
Send comments on this article to editor@adversity.net

END (1)  INTRO: Alito Opposes Racial Quotas


Samuel A. Alito Opposes Racial Quotas
Introduction and Overview

Taxman v. Piscataway

Bray v. Marriott
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
Corporate Donors AGAINST Alito

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: January 31, 2006.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.