Ammons v. Dade City
783 F.2d 982 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause when it provides inferior municipal services to its minority residents, and the resulting disparate impact is caused by intentional discrimination. Intentional discrimination can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the magnitude of the disparity, the foreseeability of the discriminatory outcome, the historical background of the decision, and the knowledge of officials.
Facts:
- Dade City, Florida, had racially identifiable and segregated neighborhoods, with the black community located 'on the other side of the railroad tracks.'
- The city had a history of official actions promoting racial segregation, including a 1914 ordinance prohibiting the intermingling of races and developing a racially segregated subdivision post-World War II.
- Significant statistical disparities existed in municipal services: 29.5% of streets in the black community were unpaved versus 18.1% in the white community.
- Between 1956 and 1980, 90.3% of the city's street resurfacing funds were spent in the white community, compared to 9.7% in the black community.
- The city's white neighborhoods had an extensive underground storm drainage system, while the black community had almost none.
- The city applied its special assessment policy for street paving in a discriminatory manner, requiring black residents of one subdivision to pay in advance, a requirement not imposed on any white neighborhood, and often failing to collect assessments from white residents.
- Dade City actively encouraged the annexation of white residential areas, sharing paving costs, while taking no steps to initiate annexation for adjacent black areas.
- City officials repeatedly requested state and county authorities to pave and maintain streets located exclusively within the city's white residential areas.
Procedural Posture:
- William J. Ammons, Jr., and a class of black citizens of Dade City sued the city and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the city's provision of municipal services violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- After a three-day non-jury trial, the district court entered a final judgment for the plaintiffs (appellees).
- The district court found that Dade City intentionally discriminated in providing street paving, street resurfacing, and storm water drainage facilities.
- The district court enjoined the city from continuing its discriminatory practices and ordered it to submit a plan to eliminate the service disparities.
- Dade City and its officials (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by providing inferior municipal services, such as street paving, resurfacing, and storm drainage, to its black residents compared to its white residents, where evidence demonstrates both a disparate impact and discriminatory intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A city's provision of municipal services violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause where there are findings of both disparate impact and discriminatory intent. The court found that the district court's determination of intentional discrimination was not clearly erroneous. The court's reasoning was based on a multifactor analysis, affirming that discriminatory intent can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances. These factors included the sheer magnitude of the disparities in street paving, resurfacing, and drainage, which were found to be 'explicable only on racial grounds.' The court also pointed to the foreseeability of the harm to the black community, Dade City's extensive legislative and administrative history of racial discrimination, and the officials' obvious knowledge of the inferior conditions in the black community. The court rejected the city's defenses, finding its special assessment policy was applied discriminatorily and that it was equitable to include certain streets in the statistical analysis because the city's own past segregationist practices created the conditions being challenged.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the standard set by Washington v. Davis, requiring proof of discriminatory purpose, not just disparate impact, for an Equal Protection Clause violation. It solidifies the analytical framework from Dowdell v. City of Apopka for proving intent in municipal services cases through circumstantial evidence. The decision makes it clear that a city's historical pattern of discrimination is highly relevant and that a stark, long-standing disparity in services can itself serve as powerful evidence of intent. This precedent strengthens claims by residents in other cities by providing a clear roadmap for how to use statistical disparities, historical context, and foreseeability to prove an otherwise unstated discriminatory purpose.
Unlock the full brief for Ammons v. Dade City