Opinion ID: 6333300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Green’s Equal Protection claim fails

Text: We also affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on Green’s Equal Protection claim. To establish a claim under § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, plaintiffs must show that (1) they “received different treatment from that received by other individuals similarly situated,” and (2) the different treatment was purposefully discriminatory. Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Phila. Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176, 196 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Andrews v. City of Phila., 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir. 1990)). Green’s claim fails on both prongs. As discussed above, Green has failed to provide statistically significant evidence showing that the hair tests caused a disparate impact on African American officers. Moreover, the City administered the same tests to African American and Caucasian officers and subjected every officer to the same punishment if they failed. Green therefore fails to show that he and other African American officers were treated differently from similarly situated Caucasian officers. Green also fails to show a triable issue of the City’s purposeful intent to discriminate. Showing purposeful discrimination requires more than proof of a disparate impact—it requires a plaintiff to provide additional “indicia of purposeful discrimination.” Pennsylvania v. Flaherty, 983 F.2d 1267, 1273 (3d Cir. 1993). These indicia of purposeful discrimination must imply that the City performed the hair tests “at 44–48. Green and his expert, on the other hand, relied simply on raw statistics and generalized opinions about the possible bias in hair tests. 8 least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ [their] adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 298 (1987) (citations omitted). Green has provided no evidence that the City uses hair testing because of its alleged discriminatory effect on African American officers. For this claim, he relies substantially on Dr. Hayes’s admission that the City was aware of a possible racial bias when it first began hair testing. However, Dr. Hayes also testified to his beliefs that the City’s washing procedures eliminated that risk and that there was not a trend of bias in the City’s testing procedures. Moreover, the awareness of a mere possibility of bias by one non-policy-making official does not prove that the City adopted the policy because of a discriminatory effect or with a discriminatory intent. See id. Absent any evidence that the City knew of a racial bias and continued to use the hair tests because of that bias, Green cannot show purposeful discrimination and thus cannot present a triable issue on his Equal Protection claim.