Stephen Gulledge
November 25, 2015
BA 301 01W
Washington v. Davis 426 U.S. 229
Rule of Law: Proof of a disproportionate impact alone is not enough to ground to find that
a law is discriminating unconstitutionally.
Facts: The district of Columbia Administered a test for applicants if the police department
to become police officers. The test measured reading skills, vocabulary and verbal skill. A
higher percentage of white applicants passed the test than the black participants did. Some
unsuccessful black applicants claimed that the test violated equal protection because it was
disqualifying more blacks than whites for the police service. The plaintiffs sued the
Department, alleging that the test constituted impermissible employment discrimination
under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the United States Constitution.
Since D.C. is not a state the plaintiffs filed under the due process clause if the 5th
Amendment instead of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Issue: Was the proof of the exam results disproportions of blacks and whites failing the
exam sufficient enough to find that the exam was unconstitutional when it discriminated
against the blacks.
Opinion and Decision: The decision by the court stated that under the constitution equal
protection clause there that a it is not unconstitutional solely because the test had a racially
disproportionate impact. Although it is not irrelevant to the case the disproportionate
