Washington  v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229

Supreme Court of the United States

1976

Chapter

5

Title

Equality and the Constitution

Page

531

Topic

Something

Quick Notes

African American applicants failed an exam that is required for a Washington D.C. police position.  This exam measured verbal ability, vocabulary, and read comprehension.  The applicants evidence support the conclusion that a higher percentage of blacks than white fail the test, and the test had not been empirically shown to reliably measure subject job performance.

Rule

o    An otherwise neutral official action is not unconstitutional merely because it has a disproportionate racial impact.

Application

o    Laws that have a disparate impact on minorities do not automatically violate equal protection.

Disproportionate matters, but not is the sole factor of invidious racial discrimination

o    Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution.

Disparate impact on racial groups is not the trigger

o    However, standing alone, [disparate impact on a racial group] does not trigger the rule that racial classifications are to be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and are justifiable only by the weightiest of considerations

Court - It would be far reaching to hold a neutral statute invalid for just disparate impact

o    To hold that an otherwise racially neutral statute will be invalid merely because it disadvantages one racial group more than another would be far reaching and would raise serious questions about, and perhaps invalidate, a whole range of tax, welfare, public service, regulatory, and licensing statutes that may be more burdensome to the poor and to the average black than to the more affluent white.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether neutral requirement, regulation or statute that produces disparate racial impact is enough to establish a violation of Equal Protection?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o    The District Court also found that the test was not designed or operated to discriminate against black applicants.

o    The district court upheld the use of the test.

Appellant

o    The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that disparate racial impact alone was sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.

Supreme

o    Reversed.

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl -  Washington  

Df -  Davis

Description

o    The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department gave a civil service test to all applicants who wanted to work as police officers.

Test

o    The written test measured verbal ability, vocabulary, reading and comprehension.

Used Nationwide

o    It was the same test that was used nationwide throughout the federal civil service.

Rejected Applicants

o    The rejected applicants were African American applicants who took and failed this test.

Alleging test was discriminatory

o    They brought this suit alleging that the test was discriminatory in effect, but they did not allege that this discrimination was purposeful.

Higher percentage failed

o    The District Court below found that a higher percentage of blacks than whites failed the test and that the test had not been established as a reliable predictor of future job performance.

Rational basis review

o    However, the examination was given rational-basis review and found to be reasonably related to the requirements of the police-recruit-traininq program.

District Court

o    The District Court also found that the test was not designed or operated to discriminate against black applicants.

o    The district court upheld the use of the test

Appellant Court

o    The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that disparate racial impact alone was sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.

Justice White

Purpose of Equal Protection

o    While the central purpose of equal protection is to protect against official race-based discrimination, we have never held that official acts that do not have discriminatory purpose violate the Constitution solely because they have a racially disproportionate impact.

Jury Discussion

Unconstitutional to exclude jurors based on race

o    It is unconstitutional to have a law that excludes jurors on the basis of their race.

It is not necessarily an invidious discrimination if jury composition does not reflect community

o    We have never said that all juries must statistically reflect the racial composition of the community.

School Discussion

Predominantly black and predominantly white schools Not unconstitutional

o    The fact that there are predominantly black and predominantly white schools in a community are not alone a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

o    Our school segregation cases have adhered to the principle that the invidious quality of a law claimed to be racially discriminatory must ultimately be traced to a racially discriminatory purpose.

De Jure Segregation is an essential element

o         A current condition of segregation resulting from INTENTIONAL state action.

Neutral on its face

o         A statute, otherwise neutral on its face, must not be applied so as invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race.

An invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred

o    An invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact that the law bears more heavily on one race than another.

Not invalid simply because if affects a greater proportion of one race

o    Nevertheless, we have not held that a law, neutral on its face and serving ends otherwise within the power of government to pursue, is invalid under the Equal Protection Clause simply because it may affect a greater proportion of one race than of another.

Disproportionate matters, but not is the sole factor of invidious racial discrimination

o    Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution.

Disparate impact on racial groups is not the trigger

o    However, standing alone, [disparate impact on a racial group] does not trigger the rule that racial classifications are to be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and are justifiable only by the weightiest of considerations.

Racially Neutral Qualifications

Is it baseless if qualifications impact a greater proportion of a race than others?

o    We cannot understand how a law that establishes a racially neutral qualification for employment is nevertheless racially discriminatory and denies equal protection simply because a greater proportion of African Americans fail to qualify than members of other racial or ethnic groups.

Baseless Complaint

o    It is untenable [baseless] that the Constitution prevents the Government from seeking modestly to upgrade the communicative abilities of its employees, especially where, as here, the job requires a special ability to communicate orally and in writing.

Court - Qualifications are neutral on its fact

o    The District of Columbia's test is neutral on its face and rationally may be said to serve a purpose that Government is constitutionally empowered to pursue.

Court - It would be far reaching to hold a neutral statute invalid for just disparate impact

o    To hold that an otherwise racially neutral statute will be invalid merely because it disadvantages one racial group more than another would be far reaching and would raise serious questions about, and perhaps invalidate, a whole range of tax, welfare, public service, regulatory, and licensing statutes that may be more burdensome to the poor and to the average black than to the more affluent white.

o    Affirmed

Concurrence Justice Stevens

Evidence of intent is more objective than a subjective state of mind

o    Frequently the most probative evidence of intent will be objective evidence of what actually happened rather than evidence describing the subjective state of mind of the actor.

o    It is unrealistic to expect the victim to uncover the actual subjective intent of the decision-maker, and it is unwise to invalidate otherwise legitimate action simply because an improper motive affected the deliberation of a participant in the decision-making process.

Not a bright line between discriminatory purpose and impact

o    The line between discriminatory purpose and discriminatory impact is not nearly as bright, and perhaps not quite as critical, as the reader of the Court's opinion may assume.

Reasoning

o    When the disproportion is dramatic, it really does not matter whether the standard is phrase in terms of purpose or effect.

o    There are two reasons why I am convinced that the disparate impact is not unconstitutional in this case.

1. First, the test serves the neutral and legitimate purpose of requiring all applicants to meet a minimum standard of literacy.
2. Second, the same test is used throughout the federal civil service.

Rules

Rule

o    An otherwise neutral official action is not unconstitutional merely because it has a disproportionate racial impact.

Application

o    Laws that have a disparate impact on minorities do not automatically violate equal protection.

Class Notes