James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Published Articles

Conference Presentations

Working Papers

page1

Journal Comments

Truth in Justice Articles

Measurement Letters

Measuring Health Disp

Outline and Guide to MHD

Summary to MHD

Solutions

page3

Solutions Database

Irreducible Minimums

Pay for Performance

Between Group Variance

Concentration Index

Gini Coefficient

Reporting Heterogeneity

Cohort Considerations

Relative v Absolute Diff

Whitehall Studies

AHRQ's Vanderbilt Report

NHDR Measurement

NHDR Technical Issues

MHD A Articles

MHD B Conf Presentations

MHD D Journal Comments

Consensus/Non-Consensus

Spurious Contradictions

Institutional Corresp

page2

Scanlan's Rule

Outline and Guide to SR

Summary to SR

Bibliography

Semantic Issues

Employment Tests

Case Study

Case Study Answers

Case Study II

Subgroup Effects

Subgroup Effects NC

Illogical Premises

Illogical Premises II

Inevitable Interaction

Interactions by Age

Literacy Illustration

RERI

Feminization of Poverty S

Explanatory Theories

Mortality and Survival

Truncation Issues

Collected Illustrations

Income Illustrations

Framingham Illustrations

Life Table Illustrations

NHANES Illustrations

Mort/Surv Illustration

Credit Score Illustration

Intermediate Outcomes

Representational Disp

Statistical Signif SR

Comparing Averages

Meta-Analysis

Case Control Studies

Criminal Record Effects

Sears Case Illustration

Numeracy Illustration

Obesity Illusration

LIHTC Approval Disparitie

Recidivism Illustration

Consensus

Algorithm Fairness

Mortality and Survival 2

Mort/Survival Update

Measures of Association

Immunization Disparities

Race Health Initiative

Educational Disparities

Disparities by Subject

CUNY ISLG Eq Indicators

Harvard CRP NCLB Study

New York Proficiency Disp

Education Trust GC Study

Education Trust HA Study

AE Casey Profic Study

McKinsey Achiev Gap Study

California RICA

Nuclear Deterrence

Employment Discrimination

Job Segregation

Measuring Hiring Discr

Disparate Impact

Four-Fifths Rule

Less Discr Alt - Proc

Less Discr Altl - Subs

Fisher v. Transco Serv

Jones v. City of Boston

Bottom Line Issue

Lending Disparities

Inc & Cred Score Example

Disparities - High Income

Underadjustment Issues

Absolute Differences - L

Lathern v. NationsBank

US v. Countrywide

US v. Wells Fargo

Partial Picture Issues

Foreclosure Disparities

File Comparison Issues

FHA/VA Steering Study

CAP TARP Study

Disparities by Sector

Holder/Perez Letter

Federal Reserve Letter

Discipline Disparities

COPAA v. DeVos

Kerri K. V. California

Truancy Illustration

Disparate Treatment

Relative Absolute Diff

Offense Type Issues

Los Angeles SWPBS

Oakland Disparities

Richmond Disparities

Nashville Disparities

California Disparities

Denver Disparities

Colorado Disparities

Nor Carolina Disparitie

Aurora Disparities

Allegheny County Disp

Evansville Disparities

Maryland Disparities

St. Paul Disparities

Seattle Disparities

Minneapolis Disparities

Oregon Disparities

Beaverton Disparities

Montgomery County Disp

Henrico County Disparitie

Florida Disparities

Connecticut Disparities

Portland Disparities

Minnesota Disparities

Massachusetts Disparities

Rhode Island Disparities

South Bend Disparities

Utah Disparities

Loudoun Cty Disparities

Kern County Disparities

Milwaukee Disparities

Urbana Disparities

Illinois Disparities

Virginia Disparities

Behavior

Suburban Disparities

Preschool Disparities

Restraint Disparities

Disabilities - PL 108-446

Keep Kids in School Act

Gender Disparities

Ferguson Arrest Disp

NEPC Colorado Study

NEPC National Study

California Prison Pop

APA Zero Tolerance Study

Flawed Inferences - Disc

Oakland Agreement

DOE Equity Report

IDEA Data Center Guide

Duncan/Ali Letter

Crim Justice Disparities

U.S. Customs Search Disp

Deescalation Training

Career Criminal Study

Implicit Bias Training

Drawing Inferences

Diversion Programs

Minneapolis PD Investig

Offense Type Issues CJD

Innumerate Decree Monitor

Massachusetts CJ Disparit

Feminization of Poverty

Affirmative Action

Affirm Action for Women

Other Affirm Action

Justice John Paul Stevens

Statistical Reasoning

The Sears Case

Sears Case Documents

The AT&T Consent Decree

Cross v. ASPI

Vignettes

Times Higher Issues

Gender Diff in DADT Term

Adjustment Issues

Percentage Points

Odds Ratios

Statistical Signif Vig

Journalists & Statistics

Multiplication Definition

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Outline and Guide

Misconduct Summary

B1 Agent Cain Testimony

B1a Bev Wilsh Diversion

B2 Bk Entry re Cain Call

B3 John Mitchell Count

B3a Obscuring Msg Slips

B3b Missing Barksdale Int

B4 Park Towers

B5 Dean 1997 Motion

B6 Demery Testimony

B7 Sankin Receipts

B7a Sankin HBS App

B8 DOJ Complicity

B9 Doc Manager Complaints

B9a Fabricated Gov Exh 25

B11a DC Bar Complaint

Letters (Misconduct)

Links Page

Misconduct Profiles

Arlin M. Adams

Jo Ann Harris

Bruce C. Swartz

Swartz Addendum 2

Swartz Addendum 3

Swartz Addendum 4

Swartz Addendum 7

Robert E. O'Neill

O'Neill Addendum 7

Paula A. Sweeney

Robert J. Meyer

Lantos Hearings

Password Protected

OIC Doc Manager Material

DC Bar Materials

Temp Confidential

DV Issues

Indexes

Document Storage

Pre 1989

1989 - present

Presentations

Prosec Misc Docs

Prosec Misc Docs II

Profile PDFs

Misc Letters July 2008 on

Large Prosec Misc Docs

HUD Documents

Transcripts

Miscellaneous Documents

Unpublished Papers

Letters re MHD

Tables

MHD Comments

Figures

ASPI Documents

Web Page PDFs

Sears Documents

Pages Transfer


The AT&T Consent Decree (Affirmative Action)

(March 19, 2010, draft)

The AT&T Consent Decree imposed an affirmative program guiding the employment practices  of the American Telegraph and Telephone Company and the Bell System Operating Companies between 1973 and 1979.  At that time (pre Bell break-up), these companies together comprised the nation’s largest private employer.  Over the years, the case has received considerable scholarly attention (for a recent example, see B. Williams “AT&T and the Private-Sector Origins of Private-Sector Affirmative Action” Journal of Policy History, 2008. vol. 20. no. 4, 542-68.)   The Third Circuit decision upholding the decree against challenges by several unions may be found as EEOC v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co. et al., 556 F.2d 167 (1977).

My involvement with the case began in 1976 when I drafted the brief for the government appellees (including the EEOC, the Department of Justice and the Department of labor).  I then argued the case for the government appellees, along with David Rose of the Department of Justice, and worked with the Solicitor’s Office in drafting an opposition to a petition for certiorari (which was denied in 1978 notwithstanding some substantial support for the petitioner’s position in the intervening case of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977)).  I also represented the government appellees in resisting a later challenge to the decree involving the denial of a position to a woman as a result of the decree-mandated affirmative action goals for men.[i]  In 1978 and 1979 I participated in a review of the defendant companies’ compliance with the affirmative action obligations of the decree and the drafting of the government’s final report and wrote the Addendum to the report critiquing the goal-setting mechanism. 

Experiences with the case led to my publishing a number of articles on affirmative action, especially affirmative action for women (the Third Circuit’s decision’s having been the first to consider constitutionality of court-ordered affirmative action separately for women and for racial minorities),[ii] as well as a number of articles questioning the perceptions of job segregation or assignment discrimination that played a large role in prompting the actions leading to the consent decree and influenced the nature of the affirmative action program .[iii] 

A number of aspects of the AT&T case may eventually receive treatment here and various documents from the case in addition to the Addendum referenced above will eventually be made available here.



[i]  See Telephone Workers Union of New Jersey Local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, 584 F.2d 31 (3rd Cir. 1978).

 

[ii]  See "Employment Quotas for Women?" The Public Interest (Fall, 1983); “Semantic Quibbles Miss the Point in EEO Debate,” Legal Times (Feb. 24, 1986); "Affirmative Action for Women:  New Twist on an Old Debate," Legal Times (Dec. 5, 1988) (reprinted in The Corporate Board (July-August, 1989)); "The Curious Case of Affirmative Action for Women," Society (Jan.-Feb., 1992) (reprinted in Current (June 1992)).

[iii]  See "Illusions of Job Segregation," The Public Interest (Fall, 1988); "Are Bias Statistics Nonsense?" Legal Times (Apr. 17, 1989); "Indiscriminate Reading of Statistics Can 'Prove' Bias Where None Exists," Manhattan Lawyer (Apr. 24, 1989); "Unlucky Stores:  Are They All Guilty of Discrimination?” San Francisco Daily Journal (Jan. 29, 1993); "Multimillion-Dollar Settlements May Cause Employers to Avoid Hiring Women and Minorities for Less Desirable Jobs to Improve the Statistical Picture," The National Law Journal (Mar. 27, 1995); "Women Employees' Case against Publix, Built on Wrong Data, Doesn't Compute," Miami Daily Business Review (Aug. 2, 1996).