Washington v. Davis
Encyclopedia
Washington v. Davis, , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the application of the Due Process Clause. Two African American
African American
African Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States...

s had applied for positions in the Washington, DC police department, and sued after being turned down. They claimed that the department used racially discriminatory hiring procedures, by implementing a test of verbal skills (Test 21), which was failed disproportionately by African Americans. The Court ruled against them, finding that use of the test did not violate the Due Process Clause. Since the respondents were filing the action in Washington, DC, they sued using the Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...

 and not the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...

, because the Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...

 only applies to the states.

The important general rule created by Washington v. Davis is that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "[an] official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact." Instead, a plaintiff must prove discriminatory motive on the state actor's part. The court noted that "disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution". The purpose-based standard elucidated in the Court's 1976 opinion has made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in discrimination suits.

Justice Byron White
Byron White
Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White won fame both as a football halfback and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed to the court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, he served until his retirement in 1993...

 wrote the opinion for the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...

 wrote a concurring opinion, while Justices William Brennan
William J. Brennan, Jr.
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990...

 and Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...

 dissented.

Rationale of The Court

The court reversed the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the highest court of the District of Columbia. Established by the United States Congress in 1970, it is equivalent to a state supreme court, except that its power derives from Article I of the U.S. Constitution rather than from the inherent sovereignty...

 on grounds that while it may have been true that Test 21 had the effect of removing a greater number of black than white applicants, the test did not have a discriminatory purpose. The Court found that the Court of Appeals had erroneously assumed that the stricter, effect-based standard of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation...

 also applied to the constitutional Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...

.

As the Court of Appeals understood Title VII, employees or applicants proceeding under it need not concern themselves with the employer's possibly discriminatory purpose but instead may focus solely on the racially differential impact of the challenged hiring or promotion practices. This is not the constitutional rule. We have never held that the constitutional standard for adjudicating claims of invidious racial discrimination is identical to the standards applicable under Title VII, and we decline to do so today. - J. White, 426 U.S. 229 at 238-39.

To further its argument that Test 21 did not have a discriminatory purpose, the Court discussed evidence that the Washington D.C. police department had gone to significant lengths to recruit black officers. Moreover, the Court noted that in the years since the case was brought before the trial court, the ratio of blacks on the police force to blacks in the community had nearly evened out.

Nor on the facts of the case before us would the disproportionate impact of Test 21 warrant the conclusion that it is a purposeful device to discriminate against Negroes and hence an infringement of the constitutional rights of respondents as well as other black applicants. As we have said, the test is neutral on its face and rationally may be said to serve a purpose the Government is constitutionally empowered to pursue. Even agreeing with the District Court that the differential racial effect of Test 21 called for further inquiry, we think the District Court correctly held that the affirmative efforts of the Metropolitan Police Department to recruit black officers, the changing racial composition of the recruit classes and of the force in general, and the relationship of the test to the training program negated any inference that the Department discriminated on the basis of race or that "a police officer qualifies on the color of his skin rather than ability. - J. White, 426 U.S. 229 at 246.

Projected Scope of Authority

The underlying rule in Washington v. Davis was seemingly affirmed 11 years later in McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). McClesky applied the requirement that more than mere discriminatory effect be shown in order to invalidate criminal statutes which are challenged under the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution. Likewise, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979), decided only 3 years after Washington, stated explicitly in its holding that legislation obnoxious to the Equal Protection clause is that which is passed "because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group."

The Equal Protection clause applies here because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation...

exempts agencies of the District of Columbia (as well as the Federal Government and Indian tribes). Employment practices by other employers which have a disparate impact on racial groups may be unlawful under Title VII even when the employer is acting without discriminatory motive (Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., , was a court case argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory and was decided on March 8, 1971...

), although Justice Scalia indicated in Ricci v. DeStefano
Ricci v. DeStefano
Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2671, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States arising from a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by twenty city firefighters alleging that the city discriminated against them with regard to promotions...

that he and other Justices may be ready to hold the disparate impact provisions of Title VII unconstitutional.

External links

The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK