- [Narrator] Imagine sitting down to an exam
designed to test your professional capabilities
but the first question asks you
about the history of the date fruit.
This isn't a trivia question from an episode of Jeopardy,
but rather an actual question from an exam
once given to police recruits in Washington D.C.
The test was known as Test 21.
Although the exam was administered uniformly
to all recruits, it's use of certain cultural language
and idioms had a discriminatory effect.
The test disqualified a disproportionately high number
of African American applicants,
four times as many African American candidates
failed the test than white candidates.
The disparate impact resulted in a police department
that was 80% white serving a city that was 70% black.
In 1970, Davis was rejected by the D.C. police department.
Davis brought suit in Federal
District Court, alleging discrimination.
Davis argued that the department's recruiting procedures,
specifically Test 21, discriminated against
African American applicants by testing irrelevant knowledge
more familiar to white people than African American people.
This, according to Davis, violated the Equal Protection
Clause as well the Employment Discrimination Provisions
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The District Court held that Davis
wasn't entitled to relief.
Although the test produced a discriminatory effect,
the Court found no evidence
of discriminatory intent behind the test.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Appeals Court held that under Title VII,
proof of discriminatory motive wasn't required.
The Court also determined that the same standard
applied to the constitutional issue,
so the lack of discriminatory intent
behind Test 21 didn't bar Davis' claims.
The appeals Court reversed the District Court's ruling,
finding that the test's disparate impact
on African American candidates was enough
to establish a constitutional violation.
The United States Supreme Court granted
the police department's petition for Cert.
The issue was whether a state practice
with discriminatory impact is enough
to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
or whether the practice must be shown
to have been motivated by invidious discrimination.
Justice White, writing for the seven justice majority,
held that discriminatory impact standing alone
isn't enough to invalidate an otherwise neutral law
or regulation under the Equal Protection Clause.
Rather, the challenged provision must have
been motivated by invidious discrimination.
Justice White first noted that the Court of Appeals
incorrectly applied the rigorous standards
of Title VII, under which a showing of discriminatory
purpose isn't required to the constitutional issue.
He explained that the Supreme Court had never
struck down a law merely on grounds of disparate impact,
but instead always considered whether it also
reflected a discriminatory purpose.
In some cases, a strong discriminatory impact
can be evidence of a discriminatory purpose
but discriminatory impact by itself
doesn't violate the Constitution.
Turning to Test 21, Justice White found
no evidence of discriminatory intent,
the test itself was neutral on its face.
Additionally, the police department had made
significant efforts to recruit African American officers
and the test was designed to serve the legitimate purpose
of ensuring all recruits had a minimum level of competence.
Justice White also rejected Davis' Title VII claim.
Even though a showing of discriminatory impact
was enough for a statutory violation,
the police department could respond by showing
that the test was directly related to success
in the police training program.
On this point, the Court deferred
to the District Court's factual conclusion
that the necessary relationship was established.
The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals,
agreeing with the District Court that Davis
had no constitutional or statutory grounds for relief.
Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion.
He observed that the line between discriminatory purpose
and discriminatory intent was less bright
than the majority suggested, nevertheless he agreed
that a constitutional violation doesn't arise
whenever a disproportionate impact is shown.
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the decision
should have been affirmed on statutory grounds.
He reasoned that the evidence before the Court
was insufficient to establish that Test 21
measured job-related skills and thus constituted
a discriminatory employment practice under Title VII.
Therefore, the Court could have and should have
avoided the constitutional question altogether.
By emphasizing the constitutional significance
of discriminatory intent, Washington versus Davis
raised the bar for plaintiffs
bringing discrimination lawsuits.
(scribbling noise)