Washington v. Davis

Supreme Court of United States
426 U.S. 229 (1976)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A facially neutral law or official act does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact. To establish a constitutional violation, plaintiffs must prove that the government action was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose.

Facts:

The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department required applicants to pass a written examination, known as 'Test 21,' to be admitted into its training program.
Test 21, developed by the U.S. Civil Service Commission for general federal service, was designed to test verbal ability, vocabulary, reading, and comprehension.
Data showed that black candidates failed Test 21 at a rate four times higher than white candidates.
The Police Department had engaged in systematic and affirmative efforts to recruit black officers.
In the years preceding the lawsuit, 44% of new police recruits were black, a figure roughly proportionate to the number of 20- to 29-year-old black individuals in the surrounding area.
The test was shown to be a valid predictor of an applicant's performance in the police recruit training program, but it had not been validated for predicting actual on-the-job performance.

Procedural Posture:

Harley and Sellers, two black applicants rejected for police officer positions, intervened in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against D.C. officials.
The complaint alleged that the police department's use of 'Test 21' was racially discriminatory and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The District Court, on motions for summary judgment, ruled in favor of the D.C. officials, concluding the test was reasonably related to the police training program.
Harley and Sellers (as appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed, applying the statutory 'disparate impact' standard from Title VII and holding that the test's racially disproportionate effect was sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
The D.C. officials (as petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

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 a facially neutral employment test that disproportionately disqualifies black applicants violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, absent proof of a racially discriminatory purpose?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

No. A facially neutral government action is not unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact; proof of a discriminatory purpose is required to establish a violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The Court rejected the argument that the statutory standards of Title VII, which allow for claims based on disparate impact, should be applied to constitutional equal protection analysis. Citing precedent from jury selection, voting rights, and school desegregation cases, the Court affirmed that the 'invidious quality of a law claimed to be racially discriminatory must ultimately be traced to a racially discriminatory purpose.' While disproportionate impact is relevant evidence, it is not the 'sole touchstone.' In this case, the test is neutral on its face and serves a legitimate government purpose of ensuring minimum verbal and communicative skills for police recruits. The department's affirmative efforts to recruit black officers and the demonstrated relationship between the test and training school success negated any inference of discriminatory intent.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

No. While agreeing with the Court's disposition, the line between discriminatory purpose and discriminatory impact is not always bright, and objective evidence of a dramatic disparate effect can be highly probative of intent. The challenge to Test 21 fails for two specific reasons: 1) the test serves the legitimate and neutral purpose of establishing a uniform minimum standard of literacy, which is manifestly relevant to police work; and 2) the test is used widely throughout the entire federal service, which creates a presumption of neutrality that is not overcome by the limited data from D.C. police applicants alone. Furthermore, it is legally permissible for the police department to use a test that predicts success in a training program, and the District Court's factual finding that such a correlation existed was not clearly erroneous.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed because the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that Test 21 satisfies applicable statutory standards for job-relatedness. The dissent argues that validation based on training program performance is insufficient unless the training program itself is proven to be relevant to actual job performance. The record lacks evidence demonstrating that the training school examinations are an appropriate measure of success or that the training program imparts skills required for the post-training job. The Civil Service Commission's own brief indicated that this connection could not be determined from the evidence. Therefore, petitioners did not carry their burden of proof to show the test was job-related, and the court should not endorse a validation method that could allow any test measuring verbal ability to be justified by another test measuring the same skill.

Analysis:

Washington v. Davis is a landmark decision that established the 'discriminatory purpose' standard for constitutional equal protection claims, creating a crucial distinction between constitutional law and statutory anti-discrimination law like Title VII. By rejecting a 'disparate impact' standard for the Constitution, the Court made it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge facially neutral laws that have racially unequal consequences. This ruling has had a profound and lasting impact, requiring plaintiffs in areas like employment, housing, and the criminal justice system to find evidence of intent, rather than relying on statistical disparities alone, to prove an equal protection violation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Washington v. Davis (1976)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"