Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), is the only United States Supreme Court case to address a sex-based affirmative action plan in the employment context.

The Court found that the plan did not violate the protection against discrimination on the basis of sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[2] In the context of sex-based affirmative action, the Weber test requires that the plan must be aimed at "eliminat[ing] manifest .

The plan did not include quotas, but did have a long term goal of having the proportion of women and minorities in each job classification reflect that of the labor pool.

Joyce was concerned that prior disagreements she had had with two members of the interview panel would negatively affect her evaluation, so she contacted the County's Affirmative Action Office.

The Office recommended that Joyce be promoted, based in part on the fact that no women had ever held a position as a road dispatcher.

Johnson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging the County had violated Title VII by discriminating against him on the basis of sex.

The majority (Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens) reviewed the Agency's plan under the test laid out in Weber.

[2] First, the voluntary affirmative action plan must be aimed at "eliminat[ing] manifest racial [or gender] imbalances in traditionally segregated job categories.

As to the second prong of the test, the Court found no infringement on the rights of male employees because the plan did not specify quotas, but only aspirational goals aimed at achieving a more balanced work force.

O'Connor argued that a public employer's voluntary affirmative action plan should be evaluated using the same test as that used for Equal Protection claims.

"[22] A firm basis could be found where the statistical representation of the minority group would support a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.

About two years after Johnson was decided, the Supreme Court held in City of Richmond v. Croson Co. (1989) that race-based affirmative action plans whose constitutionality is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause are subject to strict scrutiny review.

[25] However, the Court has yet to hear an Equal Protection challenge to a sex-based affirmative action plan, at least in the employment context.