East Bibb Twiggs Neighborhood Association v. Macon-Bibb County Planning and Zoning Commission

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This provision prohibits a state or local government from discriminating against groups of people based on so-called "suspect classifications," such as race or national origin. In order to prove discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must establish that the governmental officers acted with a discriminatory intent and that the action of those officers had a discriminatory impact. In the 1977 case Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. the U.S. Supreme Court recognized five factors as relevant in determining whether the government officials acted with a discriminatory purpose. First, the court must look at whether the challenged action affects one racial group more heavily than another. Second, the court looks at the historical background of the decision to see if it exhibits any indications that the governmental action was based on a discriminatory purpose. Third, the court should look at the specific events leading up to the governmental action. Fourth, the court must examine whether the decision making process was different in the challenged case than in other similar cases. Finally, the court should look to the legislative or administrative history of the challenged decision.

Applying these factors to the commission's decision, Judge Owens concluded that "the Commission's decision to approve [the landfill] was not motivated by the intent to discriminate against black persons." With respect to the first Arlington Heights factor, Judge Owens concluded that the commission's decision did not disproportionately affect black citizens. He noted that although the approved landfill was located in a predominantly black neighborhood, the only other privately operated landfill in the county was located in a predominately white neighborhood. Judge Owens also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the historical background showed that the commission had a history of locating undesirable land uses in predominantly black areas. He reasoned that this argument was rebutted by the fact that the only other privately operated landfill was located in a white area, and by the fact that the commission cannot choose to place landfills anywhere on its own. Rather, the commission only considers applications by private parties, and considers each such application separately.

With respect to the third Arlington Heights factor, Judge Owens concluded that the specific sequence of events leading up to the commission's decision to grant Mullis's application did not evidence any discriminatory purpose. He noted that the plaintiffs had failed to offer any evidence of specific events showing that the commission acted with a discriminatory purpose. Rather, Judge Owens concluded, "[t]he statements of the various commissioners during their deliberations indicates a real concern about both the desires of the opposing citizens and the needs of the community in general. Similarly, with respect to the fourth Arlington Heights factor, Judge Owens found no evidence that the commission had deviated from its normal practice in a discriminatory manner. He noted that although the commission requested input from both the city of Macon and Bibb County, the commission's seeking of this input was based on its desire to come up with a comprehensive plan for addressing the community's waste management problems, rather than for any improper, racially motivated purpose.

Finally, with respect to the fifth Arlington Heights factor, Judge Owens found nothing in the legislative history of the commission's decision to indicate that racial considerations played a role in the commission's approval of the landfill. The plaintiffs argued that because the commission originally denied the application, but later approved it, the commission's reconsideration of its position must have been motivated by some racial purpose. He noted that the three commissioners who changed their votes had expressed reservations concerning the impact of the landfill on the citizens of the area at the first hearing on Mullis's application. However, they stated at the second hearing that they changed their votes because they were satisfied that their reservations were unfounded based on a report by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources approving the site and on their own personal inspections of the site. Having found that none of the Arlington Heights factors supported a finding of racial discrimination, Judge Owens concluded:

The voluminous transcript of the hearings before and the deliberations by the Commission portray the Commissioners as concerned citizens and effective public servants. At no time does it appear to this court that the Commission abdicated its responsibility either to the public at large, to the particular concerned citizens, or to [Mullis]. Rather, it appears to this court that the Commission carefully and thoughtfully addressed a serious problem and that it made a decision based upon the merits and not upon any improper racial animus.

Accordingly, Judge Owens rejected the plaintiff's equal protection challenge and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.