Latino Workers Sue County Over New Affirmative Action Rules : Work force: Group alleges policy was altered without public hearings. But officials say changes will help Latinos.

As the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors weighs a motion to oppose efforts to overturn state affirmative action programs, the supervisors came under fire Tuesday from the county’s Chicano Employees Assn. over new affirmative action guidelines that it says adversely affect Latino workers.

The employee group filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday alleging that the board and the county’s affirmative action compliance officer, John Hill, violated county laws by failing to hold public hearings before implementing the new guidelines.

The association is seeking a court order to rescind or block any changes in policy until the issues have been aired in public.

“It strikes us as ironic that the board is allowing a policy to go through that discriminates against Latinos and other minorities, and we are saddened they are not putting a stop to it,” said Alan Clayton, the association’s director of equal employment opportunity.

The action comes at a time of increasing backlash against government-sponsored affirmative action, with opponents charging the programs have led to quotas and unfair hiring preferences.

The California Legislature is set to consider a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would bar the state, counties and cities from implementing affirmative action programs. The issue has become the topic of national debate as well.

The supervisors were set Tuesday to consider a motion by Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke to oppose the legislation but delayed their vote for two weeks. Their decision, while only advisory, is considered important because of the county’s stature and size.

Los Angeles County, with nearly 80,000 employees, is also one of the region’s largest employers.

Although county officials defend Hill and the new guidelines, they are also clearly concerned about how evolving discourse and laws involving the emotionally charged affirmative action issue will affect county programs and hiring practices.

Hill and other county officials assert that a revision of hiring policies is needed not only to conform to prevailing standards, but also to protect the county against charges of reverse discrimination.

“My duty is to protect the county and the board on this issue,” said Hill, who has been the county chief of affirmative action for 11 months after holding a similar post in Santa Clara County. He also argued that new guidelines will end up helping Latinos rather than hurting them.

Supervisor Gloria Molina agreed.

“I’m supportive of what (Hill) is doing because he is bringing county policy into conformance with existing law and putting us into a better place to defend against any legal challenges,” she said.

She added: “If (Latinos) had achieved any goals under the population parity standard, that would be one thing, but it has not been a very effective plan we’ve had in place.”

Under equal employment guidelines adopted in 1976, the county has used population parity goals that call for its work force to mirror the racial makeup of its population.

*

But some groups have benefited more than others. Blacks, for example, while making up about 10.5% of the population, hold about 28% of county jobs. Latinos, by contrast, make up about 37% of the population but about 23% of the county work force.

Under the new guidelines, county labor force statistics would be used as a standard to measure progress in hiring, and county government employee statistics would be analyzed to measure progress in promotions.

The Latino group charges that the new guidelines in effect freeze existing racial imbalances in the county’s work force in favor of African American employees and to the detriment of other minorities, especially Latinos.

Hill disagrees.

“The county has not done a very good job of bringing people in, and there is no process for developing and promoting people,” he said. “That is what is going on right now. None of the departments knows what kinds of problems they have. If the Chicano employees would wait to take a look at the results of these actions, I think they will see they are better than what was in place before.”