Army's Officer Promotion Process Ruled Discriminatory Against White Men

The Army's officer promotion process, which considers past bias against women and minorities, has been struck down by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on grounds it discriminates against white men. Because promotion boards aren't required to consider if there's been discrimination against white men, the judge ruled the process "establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional."

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Army’s officer promotion process, which considers past bias against women and minorities, has been struck down by a federal judge on grounds it discriminates against white men. Because promotion boards are not required to also consider whether there has been discrimination against white men, federal Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Monday, “This undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional.” Army records of promotions indicate no factual basis for taking race or gender into account, the judge held. Lamberth’s ruling allowed retired Lt. Col. Raymond Saunders, who served in the Army from 1974 until 1997, to continue his lawsuit contending that the policy denied him advancement. He was twice denied promotion to colonel. Such promotions are handled by a selection board, which recommends the top candidates for promotion each year to the Army secretary. The board is guided in its decisions by instructions that include equal opportunity goals. For instance, the board, after compiling a list of top candidates, must determine whether their promotion would result in comparable advancement rates for all races. If not, the board is to give more weight to lower-rated minority officers if past discrimination is found in their files. In 1996, the board recommended its top applicants with no adjustments. In 1997, when Saunders applied a second time, the board made one adjustment in the list for a female applicant. In his suit filed in 1999 against the Army, Saunders claimed that, as a white man, the equal opportunity policies barred him from advancement. He claimed that race and sex targets unconstitutionally guide both the initial rankings of top candidates by the board and the subsequent review of the list. “The Constitution prohibits the Army from using its policy view to encourage special treatment for minorities and females,” Lamberth said. The Army argued that Saunders had not suffered because the board made no adjustments in 1996, and he would not have been promoted anyway in 1997. Lamberth denied the Army’s request to dismiss the case, saying its evidence was inadequate. The judge also denied Saunders’ request for an immediate decision on the Army’s liability, saying Saunders still must prove he was specifically harmed. Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.