Administration Asks Court to Limit Affirmative Action

Reagan Administration lawyers, supporting white firefighters from Cleveland and white sheet metal workers from New York, urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to outlaw preferential job treatment for nonwhites who are not proven victims of discrimination.

In oral arguments, the justices asked numerous questions of lawyers in the two cases as they once again took up the politically sensitive issue of affirmative action. Their decision, expected before summer adjournment, will affect dozens of cities that have adopted hiring and promotion goals and quotas to remedy past discrimination against minorities.

William Bradford Reynolds, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, contended that Congress, in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, barred courts from giving “an advantage to someone who has not been victimized by discriminatory conduct.”

He pressed for an end to court-enforced plans that require Cleveland to promote more black and Latino firefighters and New York state to hire more nonwhite sheet metal workers, even if the minority group members scored lower than whites on qualifying tests.

But Cleveland and New York attorneys contended that the sponsors of the 1964 law clearly authorized comprehensive employment goals and quotas for minorities as a means of redressing past discrimination.

Case of Numbers

“This case is a simple one of numbers,” John D. Maddox, representing the city of Cleveland, told the justices. “The Justice Department wants zero--no race-conscious relief.”

In contrast, Maddox said, previous administrations obtained court-enforced consent decrees governing numerous affirmative action plans across the country. Overturning those plans, he said, would be “very disruptive” for many state and local governments.

O. Peter Sherwood, representing New York state, defended the state’s affirmative action plan for sheet metal workers as an appropriate remedy for past discrimination. He charged the Sheet Metal Workers union with “foot-dragging” in the effort to reach the minority hiring goal.

Beyond Law’s Intent

The union’s position was represented by Martin Gold of the New York local, who said that court orders aimed at minority union membership of 29.23% went beyond the intention of federal law.

“The only way the goal could have been achieved would have been an extraordinary boom in construction in the New York area or for the union to take virtually only blacks into its apprenticeship program,” he said.

Cleveland firefighters lawyer William L. Summers tried to show Congress’ intent in passing the 1964 law by quoting the late Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minn.), a civil rights champion, as saying that the law did not require racial quotas.