Taxman V Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway United States Court of Appeals 91 F.3D 1547 (3D Cir. 1996)
Stephen Warwick
Prof. Boyd
Spring '04
/25/04
Assignment 1
Taxman V Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway
United States Court of Appeals91 F.3D 1547 (3D Cir. 1996)
The 91 refers to the volume number of the reporter. The F.3D refers to the federal reporter in the third series. The 1547 refers to the first page in that volume on which the case can be located. The 3D Cir. refers to the abbreviation denoting that this case was decided to the United States Court of Appeals for the third circuit, and the case was tried in 1996.
The Defendant (Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway) needed to reduce its faculty by one. New Jersey law strictly enforced layoffs, leaving the school board with no choice except in cases involving faculty members. The Plaintiff (Taxman) a white female business teacher had the same qualifications and was hired on the same day as a black female business teacher. In previous years, when a layoff came about the board had used a random process to determine who would be laid off. In this case, the board decided to use an affirmative action policy as a basis for retaining the black teacher. Plaintiff Taxman cried reverse discrimination. Circuit Judge Mansmann found in favour of the plaintiff and enjoyed the affirmative action plan, basing his decision on Title VII. Later the defendant appealed, but it was settled before it went to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Prof. Boyd
Spring '04
/25/04
Assignment 1
Taxman V Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway
United States Court of Appeals91 F.3D 1547 (3D Cir. 1996)
The 91 refers to the volume number of the reporter. The F.3D refers to the federal reporter in the third series. The 1547 refers to the first page in that volume on which the case can be located. The 3D Cir. refers to the abbreviation denoting that this case was decided to the United States Court of Appeals for the third circuit, and the case was tried in 1996.
The Defendant (Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway) needed to reduce its faculty by one. New Jersey law strictly enforced layoffs, leaving the school board with no choice except in cases involving faculty members. The Plaintiff (Taxman) a white female business teacher had the same qualifications and was hired on the same day as a black female business teacher. In previous years, when a layoff came about the board had used a random process to determine who would be laid off. In this case, the board decided to use an affirmative action policy as a basis for retaining the black teacher. Plaintiff Taxman cried reverse discrimination. Circuit Judge Mansmann found in favour of the plaintiff and enjoyed the affirmative action plan, basing his decision on Title VII. Later the defendant appealed, but it was settled before it went to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
![Selwyn states that it is difficult to categorise working individuals because of the complexity of modern organisation, and despite the arrangements being convenient for those concerned, the lack of clear categories can hinder legal analysis.[1] Identifyin](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/937087/listing/937087_1.jpg)
