Washington v. Davis

law case

Written by

The Information Architects of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Last updated

July 21, 2026

Quick Summary

The premise that Washington v. Davis is primarily about "disparate impact" is misleading. While the case is related to civil rights and employment practices, its core ruling established a crucial distinction for constitutional claims.

In Washington v. Davis (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court held that to prove a constitutional violation under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment based on a facially neutral employment practice, plaintiffs must demonstrate discriminatory intent, not just a disparate impact on a protected group. This ruling differentiated constitutional claims from those brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, as established in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., prohibits employment practices that are discriminatory in operation, even without discriminatory intent. The Court reasoned that extending disparate impact to constitutional claims could invalidate numerous statutes that might disproportionately affect certain groups without intending to discriminate.1

Later cases, such as Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, addressed disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), allowing such claims but interpreting them narrowly, requiring that differentiations be based on reasonable factors other than age.2

Summary created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

2 Britannica Sources

Ask Britannica AI about this topic

Britannica doesn't have a full article on this topic, so we've curated a list of our relevant coverage.

disparate impact
Evolution of disparate impact theory
…the disparate impact theory was Washington v. Davis (1976), in which the Supreme Court held that the theory could not be used to establish a constitutional claim—in this case, that an employment practice by the District of Columbia violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment—unless plaintiffs could show…
Read More
…the disparate impact theory was Washington v. Davis (1976), in which the Supreme Court held that the theory could not be used to establish a constitutional claim—in this case, that an employment practice by the District of Columbia violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment—unless plaintiffs could show…
Read More

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Previously, in Washington v. Davis (1976), the court had decided that an official action would not be found unconstitutional only because a racially disproportionate impact resulted. Instead, the court required “proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose” in order to qualify as an equal protection clause violation.
Read More
Previously, in Washington v. Davis (1976), the court had decided that an official action would not be found unconstitutional only because a racially disproportionate impact resulted. Instead, the court required “proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose” in order to qualify as an equal protection clause violation.
Read More