Washington v. Davis

Week 12 — Discriminatory Purpose vs. Effect

Facts

  • The District of Columbia required prospective police officers to pass "Test 21," which assessed reading and comprehension skills.
  • Black candidates failed the test at a disproportionately higher rate than white candidates.
  • The test was challenged under the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

Issue

Whether a facially neutral law that produces a racially disproportionate impact, without proof of a discriminatory purpose, violates the Equal Protection guarantee.

Holding

No. Disparate impact alone is insufficient; a claimant must also show discriminatory purpose.

Reasoning

  • The Court will not strike down a racially neutral action just because it affects one class of person more than another.
  • A claimant must show that the action had a discriminatory purpose.
  • Deciding otherwise would create a "slippery slope."
  • Test 21 had a valid purpose—hiring police with good reading and communication skills—and there was no proof it was implemented to discriminate against Blacks.
  • Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant; in certain scenarios it can be used to prove discriminatory purpose (see Yick Wo).

Notes

  • Davis established the framework for facially neutral laws challenged under the EPC: a claimant must prove (1) discriminatory impact and (2) discriminatory purpose.
  • This analysis is limited to EPC violations. Congress can allow discriminatory impact alone to demonstrate discrimination by statute (e.g., Title VII, ADEA, ADA).