Davis v. Washington

512 F.2d 956
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedFebruary 27, 1975
Docket72-2105
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 512 F.2d 956 (Davis v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Washington, 512 F.2d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

Opinion

512 F.2d 956

10 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 105, 9 Empl. Prac.
Dec. P 9980,
168 U.S.App.D.C. 42

Alfred E. DAVIS et al., George Harley and John D. Sellers, Appellants,
v.
Walter E. WASHINGTON, Individually and in his capacity as
Commissioner of theDistrict of Columbia, et al.

No. 72-2105.

United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 23, 1974.
Decided Feb. 27, 1975.

Richard B. Sobol, Aldie, Va., with whom George Cooper, Richard T. Seymour and Ralph J. Temple, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellants.

David P. Sutton, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., with whom C. Francis Murphy, Corp. Counsel and Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee Washington.

Douglass J. McCollum, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief for the federal appellees. Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for federal appellees.

Before McGOWAN, ROBINSON and ROBB, Circuit Judges:

SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, Circuit Judge:

On behalf of all blacks who have unsuccessfully sought appointment to the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department since 1968, appellants intervened in this class action1 to assert the claim that Test 21, a written entrance examination administered to all applicants, discriminates against blacks in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and federal civil rights laws.2 The District Court con cluded that Test 21 was nondiscriminatory in design and operation and was "reasonably and directly related to the requirements of the police recruit training program."3 The court entered summary judgment for the defendants, appellees here,4 and this appeal followed.5 We hold that appellants have demonstrated on the record that Test 21 has a racially disproportionate impact,6 and that appellees have not met their heavy burden of showing that the test is related to job performance.7 Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

A. The Facts

Applicants are appointed to positions in the Metropolitan Police Department if they satisfy character and physical standards, have a high school diploma or the equivalent, and receive a raw score of 40 or above on Test 21.8 The test was developed by the Civil Service Commission for general use throughout the federal service as a measure of verbal ability, rather than specifically to measure the full range of skills required to perform the tasks of a police officer.9 The Department was not involved in the formulation of Test 21.

Appellants tendered to the District Court statistical evidence purportedly demonstrating that Test 21 has a disproportionate impact on black applicants. Among the applicants tested in the District of Columbia from 1968 through 1971, 57% of the blacks failed the test, as compared to a failure rate of 13% for whites.10 Although black applicants thus failed Test 21 at a rate more than four times greater than the rate for whites, appellees dispute the capability of these statistics to prove a racially disproportionate impact. They further contend that, regardless of the sufficiency of this evidence, Test 21 can be used in selecting police officers because it is sufficiently job related. In support of the latter proposition, they offer a validity study11 conducted under the auspices of the Civil Service Commission demonstrating, they claim, that scores on Test 21 accurately predict performance in Recruit School, the Department's police training program.

B. The Griggs Standard

In Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,12 the Supreme Court considered the legality of standardized intelligence tests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.13 "If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance," the Court said, "the practice is prohibited."14 Once it is shown that a particular selection procedure has an exclusionary effect on minority applicants, there is a heavy burden on the employer to show that discriminatory procedure "bear(s) a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which they were used."15 In the instant case, if appellants' evidence is sufficient to show an exclusionary impact on black applicants, and we hold that it is,16 then the Department must shoulder the heavy burden of justifying Test 21 by demonstrating that results on the test are satisfactorily related to successful performance of the job of a police officer.

The District Court ruled that appellants' showings (a) that the number of black police officers in the Department is not proportionate to the population mix of the District, (b) that a higher percentage of blacks fail Test 21 than whites, and (c) that Test 21 has not been validated to show its reliability for measuring job performance, shifted the burden of proof to appellees.17 We reach the same conclusion on the basis of the racially disproportionate impact that Test 21 is shown to have.18 The District Court further ruled, however, that Test 21 is exonerated by a direct and reasonable relationship to the requirements of the Department's police training program.19 We deem that insufficient, and finding Test 21 not otherwise demonstrated to be job related, we hold that appellees have not met their burden.20

II. THE RACIALLY DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT OF TEST 21

The evidence in the record establishes that the percentage of black failures on Test 21 is far greater than white failures.21 The cases hold, and we agree, that evidence establishing that significantly more blacks than whites fail a written entrance examination given to all applicants is sufficient, as a matter of law, to show the racially disproportionate impact of the examination.22 The disparity disclosed in this case-more than four to one-is larger than differences held sufficiently disproportionate in other cases.23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
512 F.2d 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-washington-cadc-1975.