Larry P. v. Riles
1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9121, 495 F. Supp. 926 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of standardized intelligence tests for placing black children in 'educable mentally retarded' (E.M.R.) classes violates federal statutory laws and the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions when such tests are racially and culturally biased, have a discriminatory impact, are not validated for this purpose, and contribute to a disproportionate enrollment of black children, especially when state actions demonstrate segregative intent.
Facts:
- Black children in California represent approximately 10% of the general student population but historically comprise about 25% of the students enrolled in 'educable mentally retarded' (E.M.R.) classes.
- E.M.R. classes are designed to separate children deemed 'incapable' of learning in regular classes, providing an education that deemphasizes academic skills in favor of 'social adjustment' and 'economic usefulness,' and are generally considered 'dead-end' programs with very low turnover rates.
- Placement into E.M.R. classes relied heavily on scores from standardized individual intelligence (I.Q.) tests, which primarily measure learned skills rather than innate intelligence.
- The I.Q. tests used for E.M.R. placement were developed and standardized on primarily white, middle-class populations, and experts from both sides of the case agreed they exhibited cultural biases, causing black children to score, on average, one standard deviation below white children.
- In 1969, despite mounting concerns about the cultural bias of I.Q. tests and the disproportionate enrollment of minority children in E.M.R. classes (and a legislative resolution calling for study), the California State Department of Education (SDE) hastily and unsystematically mandated the use of specific standardized I.Q. tests for E.M.R. placement.
- Key SDE officials believed that the disproportionate enrollment of black children in E.M.R. classes accurately reflected a higher incidence of mental retardation among them, and the SDE subsequently failed to investigate the reasons for these disparities or monitor the implementation of legislatively mandated procedural protections.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry P. and other named plaintiffs filed an initial complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco and state defendants on November 23, 1971, challenging the use of standardized intelligence tests for black E.M.R. placement in San Francisco.
- On June 20, 1972, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California determined the action could proceed as a class action for "all black San Francisco school children who have been classified as mentally retarded on the bases of I.Q. test results" and granted a preliminary injunction.
- Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- On August 16, 1974, the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the 1972 decision of the District Court.
- Plaintiffs moved to modify the class and the terms of the preliminary injunction, and on December 13, 1974, the District Court expanded the class to include "all Black California school children who have been or may in the future be classified as mentally retarded on the basis of I.Q. tests" and expanded the preliminary injunction statewide.
- In January 1975, defendants voluntarily imposed a moratorium on I.Q. testing for E.M.R. placement of all children, regardless of race, in California.
- On January 18, 1977, pursuant to court order, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, alleging several statutory bases for claims, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Emergency School Aid Act.
- On August 8, 1977, the United States Department of Justice moved to participate as amicus curiae (friend of the court), and the motion was granted on August 19, 1977.
- Plaintiffs were later granted leave to file a second amended complaint, alleging violations of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
- The court denied various motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, leading to the trial that began on October 11, 1977.
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 intelligence tests for placing black children into 'educable mentally retarded' (E.M.R.) classes, which results in a disproportionate enrollment of black children and has not been validated as non-discriminatory for this purpose, violate federal statutory laws and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Peckham, Chief Judge
Yes, the use of standardized intelligence tests for placing black children into E.M.R. classes violates federal statutory laws and both the U.S. and California Equal Protection Clauses. The court found that these I.Q. tests are racially and culturally biased, have a discriminatory impact on black children, and have not been validated for such placements. This issue is further exacerbated by the state's historical and continued actions which demonstrate a segregative intent. Regarding the federal statutory claims, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the court applied an 'effects test.' Drawing on Lau v. Nichols, the court reasoned that these laws and their implementing regulations prohibit practices that have a discriminatory effect, even without explicit discriminatory intent. The grossly disproportionate placement of black children in E.M.R. classes due to culturally biased I.Q. tests, which effectively forecloses meaningful educational opportunity, constitutes such a discriminatory effect. Defendants failed to prove that the disproportionate enrollment reflected a higher incidence of actual mental retardation in the black population or that the tests were adequately validated for this purpose for black children. The federal laws explicitly require evaluation materials to be validated for their specific purpose and not to be racially or culturally discriminatory, a standard the I.Q. tests in question did not meet, exhibiting 'differential validity' where more errors were made for black children. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court found sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent. This intent was not necessarily to harm, but rather a purpose to segregate minority children into separate, inferior classes. The court considered several factors: the profound discriminatory impact of the I.Q. tests; the historical background of I.Q. testing and E.M.R. classes in California, which was 'tainted' by notions of racial inferiority; the procedural and substantive irregularities surrounding the SDE's 1969 decision to mandate specific I.Q. tests (ignoring warnings of bias and relying solely on frequency of use); and the SDE's subsequent complacency and failure to address or remedy the clear disproportions, often based on an 'impermissible and scientifically dubious assumption' of inherent academic inferiority among black children. This pattern of 'complacent acceptance' amounted to a 'desire to perpetuate the segregation of minorities in inferior, dead end, and stigmatizing classes.' This demonstrated segregative intent invoked 'strict scrutiny,' under which the state failed to show a compelling interest, as less discriminatory alternatives were available. Additionally, applying the Ninth Circuit's 'intermediate standard of review' from Berkelman v. San Francisco Unified School District, the court found that the I.Q. tests and disproportionate E.M.R. enrollments did not 'substantially further' the goal of providing the best education, especially when balanced against the stigma, isolation, and educational inferiority imposed on black children. Finally, under the California Constitution, which requires school districts to take 'reasonably feasible steps to alleviate school segregation, regardless of its cause,' the disproportionate enrollment in E.M.R. classes constituted segregation that the state failed to address.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in educational civil rights, significantly curtailing the uncritical use of standardized IQ tests for minority student placement in special education. It established a robust legal framework by combining federal statutory 'effects' tests with constitutional 'intent' analysis, demonstrating that practices with discriminatory impacts on protected groups must be demonstrably valid and necessary. The ruling underscored that educational institutions have an affirmative duty to identify and remedy racial disparities in student classification and placement, moving beyond a requirement for malicious intent. Its comprehensive approach, addressing historical context, procedural irregularities, and the availability of less discriminatory alternatives, provides a powerful tool for challenging systemic inequities in educational assessment.
