Summary
The Supreme Court held that a facially neutral employment test with a racially disproportionate impact does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation under the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component; discriminatory purpose is required. The Court distinguished constitutional equal protection standards from Title VII disparate-impact standards. It also held that the police recruiting test was sufficiently related to performance in the police training program and reversed the Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the racially disproportionate impact of a facially neutral police-recruitment examination, without proof of discriminatory purpose, establishes a violation of the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
- Whether Test 21 was sufficiently job-related under the applicable statutory and civil-service standards when it was shown to predict success in the police recruit training program rather than directly to predict post-training job performance.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing summary judgment for respondents rather than affirming the District Court's judgment for defendants.
Holdings
- A facially neutral law or official practice is not unconstitutional under the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact. A constitutional claim of invidious racial discrimination requires proof that the challenged action was adopted or applied with a racially discriminatory purpose, although disproportionate impact may be relevant evidence from which purpose can be inferred.
- A qualifying examination may be validated by demonstrating a positive relationship between test performance and successful performance in a job-related training program; direct proof that the examination predicts post-training job performance is not necessarily required. On the record presented, Test 21 was sufficiently related to the police recruit training program.
Key quotations
“This is not the constitutional rule.” (426 U.S. at 239)
“Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution.” (426 U.S. at 242)
“We are not disposed to adopt this more rigorous standard for the purposes of applying the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments in cases such as this.” (426 U.S. at 248)
“The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly is reversed. So ordered.” (426 U.S. at 252)
Factual background
The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department required applicants to meet physical and character standards, possess a high school education or equivalent, and score at least 40 of 80 on Test 21. The Civil Service Commission developed Test 21 to measure verbal ability, vocabulary, reading, and comprehension, and the test was used generally throughout the federal service. A greater proportion of Black applicants failed the test than white applicants, but the District Court found that the test was directly related to the requirements of the police recruit training program and that the Department had affirmatively recruited Black officers.
Procedural history
Respondents challenged Test 21, a written examination used to screen applicants for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, alleging racial discrimination under the Fifth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the District of Columbia Code. The District Court upheld the test and granted defendants summary judgment, finding it directly related to the police recruit training program. The Court of Appeals applied Title VII disparate-impact standards to the constitutional claim, held discriminatory intent unnecessary, and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that respondents were entitled to relief on neither constitutional nor statutory grounds.
Remand instructions
No remand was ordered. The Court held that remand for further inquiry into the validity of the training-program measures was inappropriate and directed that the Court of Appeals' judgment be reversed.