¹ I first raised this issue in connection with police unions in "Police Unions, the Judicial System and the Development of Police Department Policy: A Research Note," Criminal Justice Review, 5 (Spring, 1980): 91-97.

² See Donald Horowitz, The Courts and Social Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1977). Also, see Robert Spurrier, "Paying the Piper in Federal Civil Rights Litigation," Public Administration Review, 43 (May/June, 1983): 199-208.

³ See, for example, Stephen Bailey and Edith Mosher, ESEA: The Office of Education Administers a Law (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1968), Chap. IV.

⁴ Demetrios Caraley, City Government and Urban Problems (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1977), pp. 250-254.

⁵ See, for example, Michael Brown, Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform (New York: Russell Sage, 1981), and Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage, 1980).

⁶ A useful article could also be written about the impact on public policy of minority administrators and groups supporting them. The purpose of the current piece is to highlight a particular component of union strategy that is often overlooked.

⁷ See Thomas Kochan, "A Theory of Multilateral Collective Bargaining in City Governments," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 27 (1974): 525-542, and K. McLennan and Michael Moskow, "Multilateral Bargaining in the Public Sector," Proceedings of the Twenty-First Winter Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, Madison, Wisconsin, 1968.

⁸ 401 U.S. 424 (1971).

⁹ Anthony Balzer explains the general tenor of the employee organizations' arguments in "A View of the Quota System in the San Francisco Police Department," Journal of Police Science and Administration, 4 (June, 1976): 124-133.

¹⁰ Major cases were Bridgeport Guardians Inc. v. Bridgeport Civil Service Commission 482 F. 2d 1333 (1973); Commonwealth of Pennslyvania v. Joseph O'Neill 348 F. Supp. 1084 (1972); Detroit Police Officers Association v. Coleman Young 446 F. Supp. 979 (1974); and Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services 520 F. 2d 420 (1975). The Pennsylvania case is unusual because both the fire and police unions sought intervenor status; in a rare type of opinion, the court refused the fire union's request. See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Joseph Rizzo 530 F. 2d 501 (1976). For an analysis of the Detroit case, where the union sued the city, see Ronald Clapham, "Constitutional Law: Detroit Police Officers Association," University of Detroit Journal of Urban Law, 56 (Winter, 1979): 716-737.

¹¹ For a Supreme Court decision that placed limitations on the situations where entry-level quotas can be used, see Washington v. Davis 96 S. Ct. 2040 (1976).

¹² Lawrence Fellows, "Judge Sets a Minority Quota for Bridgeport Police," New York Times (January 31, 1973): 12.

¹³ Detroit Police Officers Association, p. 1002.

¹⁴ Kirkland, p. 429.

¹⁵ Cases examined include Acha v. Beame 551 F. 2d 648 (1976); Brown v. Neeb 644 F. 2d 551; Castro v. Beecher 522 F. Supp. 873 (1981); Chance v. Board of Examiners and Board of Education 534 F. 2d 993 (1976); Guardians v. Civil Service Commission 633 F. 2d 232 (1980); Moore v. City of San Jose 615 F. 2d 1265 (1980); Schaefer v. Tannian 394 F. Supp. 1136 (1976), 538 F. 2d 1234; and Youngblood v. Dalzell 568 F. 2d 506 (1978). The appellate courts decided these cases in light of Supreme Court rulings in two private-sector cases involving seniority, Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company 424 U.S. 747, S. Ct. 1251 (1976) and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. U.S. 431 U.S. 324, 97 S. Ct. 1843 (1977).

In Brown and Castro appellate level justices did permit layoff quotas. The Castro case, involving Boston police and fire workers, is particularly interesting because Massachusetts state law mandates that these administrators be let go in order of reverse seniority. The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by the firefighters union, but found the employee organization's complaint moot since all of the workers had been rehired by the time the court heard the case. See Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718 v. Boston Chapter of the NAACP 103 S. Ct. 2076 (1983).

¹⁶ See Hindy Lauer Schachter, "Retroactive Seniority and Agency Retrenchment," Public Administration Review, 43 (January/February, 1983): 77-81.

¹⁷ Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts 104 S. Ct. 2576 (1984).

¹⁸ See, for example, Michael Rebell and Arthur Block, Educational Policy Making and the Courts: An Empirical Study of Judicial Activism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), Chap. 7.

¹⁹ Interview, February 9, 1983.

²⁰ Hindy Lauer Schachter, Open and Closed Municipal Bureaucracies: A Comparative Approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University, 1977, pp. 229-230.

²¹ Schaeffer, p. 1149.

²² "Chance v. Board of Examiners and Board of Education: Opinion of June 21, 1978," No. 47324.

Public-Employee Unions,the Judicial System and Local Agency Interpretation of Federal Statutes: The Case of Affirmative Action

Abstract

Get full access to this article