Facts
- The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department required applicants to take “Test 21,” a written exam measuring general verbal abilities.
- Two Black applicants who failed Test 21 sued District of Columbia officials, alleging the test disproportionately excluded Black applicants and was not validated as job-related.
- The applicants asserted violations of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and a District of Columbia statute.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the officials, finding no claim or evidence of intentional discrimination, noting affirmative recruitment of Black applicants, and concluding the test was a useful indicator of police training performance.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed and ordered judgment for the applicants, treating the disparate impact and lack of validation as sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
Issues
- Whether a facially neutral governmental practice with racially disproportionate effects violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment absent proof of discriminatory purpose.
- Whether Title VII disparate impact standards may be imported into constitutional equal protection analysis to establish a violation based solely on disparate impact and lack of validation.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and reinstated judgment for the officials.
- Disproportionate racial impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, does not by itself establish a constitutional equal protection violation.
- Title VII’s disparate impact framework does not control constitutional equal protection claims.
- On the record, the Department’s use of Test 21 was not shown to have been adopted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose and was permissible under the Constitution.
Legal Principles
- Equal protection liability for facially neutral governmental action generally requires proof of discriminatory purpose; disparate impact alone is insufficient.
- Disparate impact evidence may be relevant to proving discriminatory purpose, but it is not dispositive.
- Title VII permits disparate impact liability without proof of intent (subject to employer justification), but constitutional equal protection analysis centers on intentional official discrimination.
- The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component applicable to federal and District of Columbia action, and it is analyzed using the same core intent requirement applied under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Conclusion
Washington v. Davis held that facially neutral governmental practices are not unconstitutional solely because they produce racially disparate outcomes; plaintiffs must prove the practice was adopted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose, and Title VII disparate impact standards do not automatically govern constitutional claims.