In order to be hired as a
police officer in Washington DC, applicants had to pass a test that was
"designed to test verbal ability, vocabulary, reading, and
comprehension."
Test data showed that
African-American applicants failed the test at a much higher rate than
white applicants.
Two rejected African-American
applicants sued, claiming that the test was racially discriminatory and
therefore a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The US Supreme Court found
that the test was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The US Supreme Court
acknowledged that the test did fail a disproportionate number of minority
applicants.
However, the Court found
that in addition to showing a disproportionate impact, there must also be a showing that there was a
discriminatory motive on the State
actor's part.
"Disproportionate
impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an
invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution."
The Court noted that the
city was actively trying to recruit African-Americans into the police
force, and there was no evidence of a discriminatory motive.
The basic rule illustrated by
this case is that in order to be a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause, racial discrimination by the
State must contain two elements:
A racially disproportionate
impact and
Discriminatory motivation on
the part of the state actor.
