Larry P. v. Riles
793 F.2d 969 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of standardized IQ tests for placing students in classes for the 'educable mentally retarded' that have a discriminatory effect on a racial minority group violates federal anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act, unless the user can demonstrate that the tests have been validated for that specific purpose and population.
Facts:
- California created special education programs, including 'educable mentally retarded' (E.M.R.) classes, which were considered 'dead-end classes' not designed to return students to the regular curriculum.
- In the late 1960s, black children constituted approximately 9% of the California school population but accounted for 27% of the students placed in E.M.R. classes, a statistically significant overrepresentation.
- State education officials were aware of this racial disproportion and of widespread concerns that standardized IQ tests were culturally biased against minority children.
- In 1969, the California State Department of Education adopted a mandatory list of approved IQ tests for E.M.R. placement without investigating their potential cultural bias, ignoring requests from personnel to take more time.
- The IQ tests in use had been standardized on an all-white population, and on average, black children scored one standard deviation (about 15 points) below white children.
- Test developers had previously adjusted test items to eliminate scoring differences between sexes but had never attempted similar modifications to eliminate racial scoring disparities, assuming a lower level of intelligence in black children.
- Placement into E.M.R. classes was found to be either determinative or pervasively influenced by IQ test scores, despite state requirements to consider other factors like developmental history and adaptive behavior.
- After California voluntarily placed a moratorium on IQ testing for E.M.R. placement in 1975, the rate of new placements of black children into E.M.R. classes dropped significantly.
Procedural Posture:
- Six black elementary schoolchildren filed a class-action lawsuit against San Francisco and California school officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The district court certified a plaintiff class and granted a preliminary injunction against the use of IQ tests for placing black children into E.M.R. classes in San Francisco.
- Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's order.
- The district court subsequently expanded the class to include 'all Black California school children' and expanded the preliminary injunction statewide.
- After a lengthy bench trial, the district court entered a final judgment for the plaintiffs, finding that the use of IQ tests violated Title VI, the Rehabilitation Act, the Education For All Handicapped Children Act, and the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions.
- The district court issued a permanent injunction banning the use of standardized IQ tests for the identification and placement of black children into E.M.R. classes and ordered the state to monitor and eliminate the racial disproportion in those classes.
- Wilson Riles, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 the use of standardized IQ tests for placing black children into special education classes for the 'educable mentally retarded' (E.M.R.), which results in their significant disproportionate representation in those classes, violate federal anti-discrimination statutes or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Poole, Circuit Judge
Yes, as to the federal statutes; No, as to the Equal Protection Clause. The use of unvalidated IQ tests with a discriminatory effect on black children violates federal statutes, but does not violate the Equal Protection Clause without proof of discriminatory intent. Under the Rehabilitation Act and the Education For All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), testing materials must be validated for the specific purpose for which they are used and must not be racially discriminatory. The defendants failed to carry their burden of proving the IQ tests were validated to identify black children who were actually mentally retarded. Furthermore, the state failed to use a variety of evaluation tools as required, relying primarily on the IQ scores. Under Title VI regulations, the plaintiffs established a prima facie case by showing a discriminatory effect (the gross overrepresentation of black children in E.M.R. classes). The burden then shifted to the defendants to show an 'educational necessity' for the tests, which they failed to do. However, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires proof of discriminatory intent under Washington v. Davis. The pervasiveness of the discriminatory effect, without more, is insufficient to prove the requisite intent on the part of Superintendent Riles, so the district court's finding on this constitutional issue is reversed.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Skopil, Circuit Judge
I concur with the majority's holding on the statutory violations but believe the court should not have reached the federal constitutional issue. Based on the principle of constitutional avoidance, federal courts should not decide federal constitutional questions when a dispositive non-constitutional ground is available. Since the case was resolved entirely on statutory grounds, it was unnecessary and inappropriate to address the Equal Protection Clause claim.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Enright, District Judge
I dissent from the finding of a statutory violation but concur in the reversal of the constitutional violation. The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory impact because they only showed a statistical disparity in E.M.R. classes, not that a disproportionate number of black students were improperly placed. Proper placement in an E.M.R. program is a benefit, not a harm, and to prove discrimination, plaintiffs must show the placement was incorrect and adverse. The majority's reasoning incorrectly assumes the disparity is caused by misplacement, thereby inverting the burden of proof. I also dissent from the remedy, viewing it as an overbroad racial quota that forces districts to 'make the numbers fit' rather than focus on the individual needs of students. I concur with the majority's conclusion that there was no proof of intentional discrimination necessary to find an Equal Protection violation.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that educational testing and placement practices are subject to a 'discriminatory effects' analysis under federal anti-discrimination statutes like Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act. It places the burden on school districts using tests that have a disparate racial impact to prove that the tests are validated for the specific purpose and population they are being used for. The ruling significantly influenced special education law by mandating more comprehensive, multi-faceted, and non-discriminatory evaluation procedures. The court's distinction between the statutory 'effects' test and the constitutional 'intent' test reinforced the high bar for proving an Equal Protection violation established in Washington v. Davis.
