Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney

Week 12 — Discriminatory Purpose

Facts

  • Massachusetts had a policy of considering qualifying veterans for civil-service positions ahead of any qualifying nonveterans.
  • The preference applied to all veterans (male or female), but statistically most veterans were male.
  • The policy therefore had a foreseeable, severe, disparate impact on women.

Issue

Whether a state action with a foreseeable—even certain—discriminatory impact on women violates the EPC absent proof that the action was taken because of that impact.

Holding

No. Foreseeable discriminatory effect alone does not establish discriminatory purpose.

Reasoning

  • Even if the state actor knows or has reason to know of a foreseeable discriminatory effect of an action taken, a claimant must still prove that the action had a discriminatory purpose.
  • Just because a result is foreseeable, obvious, or inevitable does not mean that the result motivated the action.
  • Discriminatory purpose = acting "because of" a discriminatory purpose; not merely "in spite of" a discriminatory effect.
  • Massachusetts proved the actual purposes were rewarding veterans, assisting them with the transition back to civilian life, and promoting patriotic service.
  • Because heightened scrutiny was not triggered, the action only had to satisfy rational basis—and it did.

Notes

  • Feeney sharpens the Washington v. Davis purpose test: even certain discriminatory effect is not enough.
  • If a heightened level of scrutiny is not triggered, the state action must still withstand the rational basis standard.