Washington V. Davis - Projected Scope of Authority

Projected Scope of Authority

The underlying rule in Washington v. Davis was seemingly affirmed 11 years later in McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). McClesky applied the requirement that more than mere discriminatory effect be shown in order to invalidate criminal statutes which are challenged under the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution. Likewise, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979), decided only 3 years after Washington, stated explicitly in its holding that legislation obnoxious to the Equal Protection clause is that which is passed "because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group."

The Equal Protection clause applies here because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exempts agencies of the District of Columbia (as well as the Federal Government and Indian tribes). Employment practices by other employers which have a disparate impact on racial groups may be unlawful under Title VII even when the employer is acting without discriminatory motive (Griggs v. Duke Power Co.), although Justice Scalia indicated in Ricci v. DeStefano that he and other Justices may be ready to hold the disparate impact provisions of Title VII unconstitutional.