Opinion ID: 442956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Issue of Discriminatory Intent

Text: 23 Finally, appellees assert that summary judgment is appropriate here because the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence that the Commission acted with discriminatory intent and so they cannot establish a violation of their fourteenth amendment rights. See City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100, 120, 101 S.Ct. 1584, 1596, 67 L.Ed.2d 769 (1981); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). Appellees note that Ala.Code Sec. 11-48-9 (1977) vests municipal officials with broad discretion in deciding how much to contribute to a given improvement project, and they contend that the affidavits submitted by city officials clearly establish that this decision was one prompted by fiscal responsibility and the protection and welfare of the affected property's owners. 24 In the present posture of this case, however, we cannot conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with regard to the plaintiffs' claim that the city acted in a discriminatory manner. The fifth circuit has long recognized that discriminatory intent may be found to exist even where the record contains no direct evidence of bad faith, ill will or any evil motive on the part of public officials. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, 461 F.2d 1171, 1173 (5th Cir.1972) (en banc); see also Lodge v. Buxton, 639 F.2d 1358, 1363 n. 8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (noting that courts cannot expect to find a smoking gun in discrimination cases), aff'd sub nom. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982); McMillan v. Escambia County, 638 F.2d 1239, 1246 n. 15 (5th Cir.1981). The Supreme Court recognized these realities in its decision in Arlington Heights, where it noted that discriminatory intent could be established through such evidentiary factors as substantial disparate impact, a history of discriminatory official actions, procedural and substantive departures from the norms generally followed by the decision-maker, and the legislative or administrative history of the decision. 429 U.S. at 265-69, 97 S.Ct. at 563-66. The Court has subsequently noted that actions having foreseeable and anticipated disparate impact are relevant evidence to prove the ultimate fact, forbidden purpose, Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 464, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2950, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979), and this court's decision last year in Dowdell v. City of Apopka relied on several of these factors in finding that a municipality had acted with discriminatory intent by withholding government services from predominantly black sections of the city. 698 F.2d 1181, 1185-86 (11th Cir.1983). 25 The plaintiffs contend that a number of these factors are present in this case, and have submitted affidavits and other evidence in support of their contentions. While we express no opinion as to the merits of their claim, we believe that a disputed factual question is clearly present here and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate. 9