8/15/2019 Washington vs Davis
1/3
United States Supreme Court
WASHINGTON v. DAVIS, (1!"#
No. !$%1$&
'ats)
%a United States Supreme Court ase t*at esta+is*ed t*at a-s
t*at *ave a raia disriminator
e//et, +ut t*at -ere not adopted to advane a raia disriminator
purpose, are not invaid under
t*e United States Constitution.
Facts:
T-o A/rian Amerians, Hare and Seers (respondents#, +ot*
Ne0roes appied /or positions int*e Was*in0ton,
DC poie department and sued a/ter +ein0 turned do-n. An ation
a0ainst Distrit o/ Coum+ia o//iias (petitioners#.T*e aimed
t*at t*e Department used raia disriminator *irin0proedures, inudin0
its use o/ a test o/ ver+a sis (Test &1# t*at -as /aied
disproportionate +
A/rian Amerians. T*e painti//s sued t*e Department, ae0in0
t*at t*e test onstitutedimpermissi+e empoment
disrimination under +ot* Tite VII o/ t*e Civi 2i0*ts At
o/ 1"$ andt*e United States Constitution. Sine t*e
respondents -ere /iin0 t*e ation in Was*in0ton, DC,-*i* is a /edera
territor and not a state, t*e onstitutiona provision t*e painti//s
sued under -ast*e Due 3roess Cause o/ t*e 'i/t*
Amendment instead o/ t*e 45ua 3rotetion
Cause o/t*e 'ourteent* Amendment6 t*e 45ua 3rotetion
Cause diret appies on to t*e states, +ut t*e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Courthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_DChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_DChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discriminationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VIIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VIIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_DChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_DChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discriminationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VIIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_DChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clausehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court
8/15/2019 Washington vs Davis
2/3
Supreme Court rued in Bolling v. Sharpe t*at t*e Due
3roess Cause o/ t*e 'i/t* Amendment,-*i* appies to t*e /edera
0overnment, ontains an e5ua protetion omponent. Test 21
isadministered generally to prospective Government employees to
determine whether applicants have
acquired a particular level of verbal skill. 2espondents
ontended t*at t*e test +ore no reations*ip to 7o+
per/ormane and e8uded a disproportionate *i0* num+er o/ Ne0ro
appiants. 'ousin0 soe on Test
&1, t*e parties /ied ross%motions /or summar 7ud0ment. T*e
Distrit Court, notin0 t*e a+sene o/ an
aim o/ intentiona disrimination, /ound t*at respondents9 evidene
supportin0 t*eir motion -arranted t*eonusions t*at)
(a# t*e num+er o/ +a poie o//iers, -*ie su+stantia, is not
proportionate to t*e it9s popuation mi86
(+# a *i0*er perenta0e o/ +as /ai t*e test t*an -*ites6 and
(# t*e test *as not +een vaidated to esta+is* its reia+iit /or
measurin0 su+se5uent 7o+ per/ormane.
W*ie t*at s*o-in0 su//ied to s*i/t t*e +urden o/ proo/ to t*e
de/endants in t*e ation, t*e ourtonuded t*at respondents -ere not
entited to reie/, and 0ranted petitioners9 motion /or summar
7ud0ment, in vie- o/ t*e /ats t*at $$: o/ ne- poie reruits
-ere +a, a /i0ure proportionate to t*e
+as on t*e tota /ore and e5ua to t*e num+er o/ &;% to
&%ear%od +as in t*e reruitin0 area6 t*at
t*e 3oie Department *ad a//irmative sou0*t to reruit +as, man o/
-*om passed t*e test +ut /aied
to report /or dut6 and t*at t*e test -as a use/u indiator o/
trainin0 s*oo per/ormane (preudin0 t*e
need to s*o- vaidation in terms o/ 7o+ per/ormane# and -as not
desi0ned to, and did not, disriminate
a0ainst ot*er-ise 5uai/ied +as.
2espondents on appea ontended t*at t*eir summar 7ud0ment
motion s*oud *ave +een 0ranted. T*e
Court o/ Appeas reversed, and direted summar 7ud0ment in /avor
o/ respondents, *avin0 appied to t*e
onstitutiona issue t*e statutor standards enuniated in Gri00s v.
Due 3o-er Co., $;1 U.S. $&$ , -*i*
*ed t*at Tite VII o/ t*e Civi 2i0*ts At o/ 1"$, as amended,
pro*i+its t*e use o/ tests t*at operate to
e8ude mem+ers o/ minorit 0roups, uness t*e empoer demonstrates
t*at t*e proedures are
su+stantia reated to 7o+ per/ormane.
T*e e0a rue reated in ashington is t*at under t*e
onstitution9s e5ua protetion
7urisprudene, unonstitutiona solely +eause it
*as a raia disproportionate impat.< T*us, in
addition to provin0 a disriminator e//et, a painti// must prove
disriminator motive on t*e state
ator9s part to reeive redress under t*e onstitution. T*e ourt
noted t*at
