Issue.  What effect does disparate impact have in proving purposeful discrimination under Equal Protection analysis?

Background.  The District of Columbia gave a basic civil service test to applicants for police officer positions.  A greater percentage of African Americans failed the test than whites.  Petitioners, African American candidates who failed the test, sued the validity of the tests under Title VII (statutory employment non-discrimination law) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. 

For this entry, only the Equal Protection Clause claim will be considered.  Further, since this case involves the District of Columbia, equal protection analysis is done under the 5th Amendment, and not the 14th Amendment.  (This fact does not change the analysis, however.)  The African American candidates claimed that the test was racially discriminatory in effect, but not that it constituted "purposeful" discrimination.  The question for the courts was whether an equal protection claim can be had based on discriminatory effect, not purposeful discrimination.

The District Court denied relief to the African American candidates and found that the test was reasonably related to the requirement of the position and that it was not designed to exclude otherwise qualified African American candidates.  The Court of Appeals followed disparate treatment under Title VII and concluded the lack of discriminatory intent was irrelevant for equal protection analysis.  On appeal to the Supreme Court, that Court sided with the District Court.

Court's Analysis.  For equal protection purposes, the Supreme Court noted that it never held that the constitutional standard was that of Title VII, and they refused to do so in this case.  Racially disproportionate impact may provide some evidence or proof of purposeful racial discrimination, but it has never been the sole reason for upholding an Equal Protection claim.  The Court clarified previous cases and held that, to the extent other cases expressed the view that "proof of discriminatory racial purpose is unnecessary in making out an equal protection violation", this Court was in disagreement and that it was no longer good law.

There is no way the Court could conceive how a neutral qualification for employment denies individuals of equal protection just because a higher percentage of African Americans failed the test.  The analysis may be different under Title VII, but not for equal protection purposes.  If Congress wants to provide a more rigorous standard for racial discrimination than the Constitution, so be it, but the Court will not read it into the Constitution.