Washington v. Davis
Significance, Supreme Court Holds That Evidence Of Discriminatory Intent Is Necessary To Prove Racial Discrimination, Further Readings
Walter E. Washington
Alfred E. Davis
That job qualification tests which minorities fail in disproportionate numbers do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
David P. Sutton
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Richard B. Sobol
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
7 June 1976
The Supreme Court held that the job tests were not unconstitutional.
- Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
- Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
- Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979).
- Whalen v. Roe - Prescription Drugs And The Patients' Right To Privacy, Impact
- Inc. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council - Significance, Further Readings
- Washington v. Davis - Significance
- Washington v. Davis - Further Readings
- Washington v. Davis - Supreme Court Holds That Evidence Of Discriminatory Intent Is Necessary To Prove Racial Discrimination
- Other Free Encyclopedias