Document: 444 U.S. 130 100 S.Ct. 363 62 L.Ed.2d 275 BOARD OF EDUCATION the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NEW YORK et al., Petitioners,v.Patricia Roberts HARRIS, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, al. No. 78-873. Argued Oct. 9 10, 1979. Decided Nov. 28, Syllabus Section 702(b) Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA or Act) states that Act's purpose is to provide federal financial assistance "to meet special needs incident elimination minority group segregation discrimination among students faculty in elementary secondary schools," encourage "the voluntary elimination, reduction, prevention isolation" such schools, aid schoolchildren "in overcoming educational disadvantages isolation." 703 pronounces as policy guidelines criteria established pursuant should "be applied uniformly all regions United States." And § 706(d)(1)(B) declares an agency ineligible for if, after date Act, it had effect any practice "which results disproportionate demotion dismissal instructional other personnel from groups" "otherwise engage[s] . hiring, promotion, assignment employees." Petitioner Board Education's applications ESAA were denied by Department Welfare (HEW), based upon statistical evidence flowing a compliance investigation under Title VI Civil Rights 1964 showing pattern racially assignments teachers school system relation number enrolled at respective schools. No substantive rebuttal explanation disparities was presented. then brought suit District Court declaratory injunctive relief, claiming teacher resulted provisions state law, collective-bargaining agreements, licensing requirements particular teaching positions, bilingual-instruction consent decree, demographic changes student population. The concluded HEW have considered these proffered justifications disparities, remanded case further consideration. On remand, determined did not adequately rebut prima facie statistics, upheld HEW's finding ineligibility relief. Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner Board's contention required establish purposeful intentional constitutional sense. Held: 1. Discriminatory impact standard which be measured, irrespective whether relates "demotion personnel" overall structure Congress' statements §§ 702 703, legislative history, text point direction disparate-impact test. To treat only applicant with past conscious present intent perpetuate racial isolation would defeat stated objective ending de facto well jure segregation. Pp. 140-150. 2. A discriminatory may made proper study. burden rebutting on Board. P. 151. 2 Cir., 584 F.2d 576, affirmed. Joseph F. Bruno, New York City, petitioners. Sol. Gen., Wade H. McCree, Jr., Washington, D. C., respondents. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents narrow, but important, issue statutory interpretation. It concerns district's eligibility 1972 Act), 86 Stat. 354, amended, 20 U.S.C. 1601-1619.1 Because funds available are limited, agencies compete those funds. * By 702(a) 1601(a), Congress found "that process eliminating preventing improving quality education children often involves expenditure additional local do access." Accordingly, 702(b), legislation pronounced States And, 706(d)(1), expressly declared (June 23, 1972), 3 "(B) practice, policy, procedure groups conjunction desegregation implementation plan conduct activity described this section, otherwise engaged race, color, national origin employees agency."2 4 710(a), provides desiring receive fiscal year shall submit application "at time, form, containing information" Assistant Education (HEW) "shall require regulation." reviewed office ranked according set out 710(c), implemented regulation. See 45 CFR 185.14 (1978). essential first step determination3 706(d)(1). determination initially Office Rights. burden, presumably, its eligibility. II 5 City filed three 1977-1978. Its revised Basic Grant Application, one now issue, given sufficiently favorable ranking so funding amount $3,559,132. July 1, 1977, however, letter informed requirements. App. 27. In line 185.46(b) (1978), informal meeting held 22. Although withdrew some adverse findings, still demonstrated sufficient basis revocation ineligibility. reasoned that, language 185.43(b)(2) "assignment full-time classroom [its] schools [was] manner identify [one more] intended origin." 6 rested statistics developed during 1976 1964, 78 252, 42 2000d seq. From possible either nonminority students, solely because composition faculties. revealed 1975-1976 year, 62.6% high pupils members minority, 8.3% members. Further, 70% assigned enrollments exceeded 76%. Conversely, where less than 40%, there disproportionately low percentage teachers. 29, 42-43. 7 study showed like patterns junior levels. 16.7, concentrated districts highest percentages students. Id., 29. For citywide 14.3, placed primarily largest enrollments. 28-29. also relied findings earlier violation Act. 8 At 22, limited inquiry accuracy decision deny funding. September 16, issued formal adhering Brief Petitioners 8. action promptly instituted Eastern obtain enjoin enforcing ineligibility, award earmarked Board.4 complaint contained no challenge sufficiency statistics. Rather, took position decree relating bilingual instruction (Aspira York, Inc. v. 72 Civ. 4002 (SDNY Aug. 1974); see Aspira 65 F.R.D. 541 1975)), discrimination. 134-149. 10 Initially, Court, review administrative record hearing, motion summary judgment granted cross-motion, thus affirming denial court said: 11 "[T]here reasonable discriminated. Court's powers extremely limited. respect, considering State statutes, Federation Teachers wishes individual Black principals, desires Parent-Teachers Associations, community board White communities, Administrator could find June 1972, resulting identification color through 12 "Accordingly, greatest reluctance who will suffer Administrator, grants Government's judgment." 69-70. 13 request reargument, granted. disparities. matter therefore consideration consistent issued. opinion, stated: 14 "The relevant statute, regulations cases indicate failure E. W. Before declaring funds, must (1) maintaining illegally segregated effective steps desegregate (2) segregative intent, design foreseeable effect. rely alone make finding, ignore tending inferences drawn 15 16 [T]he Constitution mandates plaintiffs opportunity discrimination." Pet. Cert. 102-104. 17 After hearing notified identifiable staffing centered 110 operated serving predominantly bodies. 109-110. March 1978, Chancellor discussed several offered each insufficient. 102-114. 18 once again sought relief April 18, supported substantial evidence, 150-153. appealed obtained stay preserving pending appellate review. 19 Dist. Califano, 576 (CA2 1978). appeal, contest certain "as result significant staff assignments." 585. Board, instead, argued sense." Ibid. rejected contention. has authority higher standard, more protective rights, minimums require," "Congress permit grant disqualification evidenced simply unjustified disparity 588. arbitrary capricious. 589. inadequate explain unsupported facts appearing record. importance we certiorari. Sub nom. 440 905, 99 1211, 59 453 (1979). remains Fed.Rule App.Proc. 41(b). III 21 Our primary concern Congress. 706 sets forth subsection (a)(1) authorizes (i) implementing approved court, adequate title 1964," (ii), "without having been so," eliminate reduce isolation. 22 Critical resolution case, 706(d)(1)(B), quoted above Part I opinion. Ineligibility comes about if groups," mere reading reveals suffers imprecision expression careful draftsmanship. portion clearly speaks terms impact. second portion, arguably, might said possess overtone intent. There nothing specifically indicating difference exists or, does, purposefully existence significance important concerned here "disproportionate personnel," "discrimination" 23 consequence, argues aim unless violative Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment; follows, says alone, without proof discrimination, Dayton Brinkman, 433 406, 97 2766, 53 851 (1977); Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 555, 50 450 Washington Davis, 426 229, 96 2040, 48 597 (1976); Keyes Denver, Colo., 413 189, 93 2686, 37 548 (1973), cited. words, us interpret clause imposing standard. contends test measure disqualifying claims erroneously foreseeability test, even applicable, disparate 24 Respondents, their turn, preliminarily assert unnecessary argue correctness record, pursue dictum condemns practices impact, although shown. F.2d, 589; Parent Assn. Andrew Jackson High Ambach, 598 705, 715-716 1979). Respondents place equivocation: This, said, criterion. note argument properly thus, applies, effectively conceded permissible. respondents, then, sole withholding when applicant's assignments, shown Clause, justified needs. IV 25 Intent Impact. regulation, is, served racially. led product controversy down question interpretation regulation governing statute. While perhaps theorize parse strongly urges, way conclude respect dismissal," necessary employees," wording statute ambiguous. requires look closely context history. When this, impelled conclusion positionhere. We hold governs both prongs provision 706(d)(1)(B). 26 entirety indisputably demonstrates disturbed such, jure, former, serve enticement device kind acknowledges conceived part "a impetus systems voluntarily desegregate." 27 That effect, dominant congressional mind enacted apparent specific 702. "minority children." focus actual Furthermore, pronouncement uniformity "conditions race" All "guidelines criteria," presumably including uniformly," regard cause segregation." too, looks purpose. 28 can disagreement underlying philosophy time ESAA's passage, generally believed courts, Constitution, reach See, e. g., 117 Cong.Rec. 11519 (1971) (remarks Sen. Mondale). Congress, apparently, much mood mandate change status quo. midground solution adopted approach isolation," 702(a)(2) recites. Thus, sense allow district violating system. 29 Other rule, exception. 706(d)(1)(A) disqualifies transfers property makes services private determining ("knew reasonably known") recipient does discriminate. Here, plainly, something invidious motive; merely negligent failing discover character recipient's operations. Similarly, 706(d)(1)(C), classes within school, whenever "any separation day." exception "bona fide ability grouping." These strike "effect," "intent," provisions.5 30 Close analysis convinces concedes, almost inescapably, personnel, imposed 25; Tr. Oral Arg. 5-6. agree. Unless solid reason distinction exists, expect connected phrases, similar apply employees. presence word "otherwise" ("or employees"), while persuasive itself significance. lends weight controls practices. 31 support Report Senate Committee Labor Public concerning Quality Integrated 1971, proposed bills: 32 "This [the later became ESAA] renders discriminates employment practices, presumes discriminatory: desegregating establishing integrated schools." S.Rep.No. 92-61, p. 41 (1971). 33 words "presumes practice" emphasized claimed making between section 'demotion dismissal' 'hiring, promotion assignment.' " 26. 34 If two inconsistent general orientation embraces least separate standards: rebuttable stricter irrebuttable disproportionate-impact extent dismissal" boards meet, corresponds Indeed, another passage states: 35 "For purposes bill, constitutes per se provision, occurs desegregation, establishment reducing, 18-19. 36 reference suggests excuse treatment races demotions dismissals, "when disparity] (Emphasis added.)6 contrast, assignment, permits justify apparently treatment. aspects history supportive our Not relevance emergence so-called "Stennis Amendment," 703(a), policy. concept nationally uniform Senator Stennis Mississippi 1971 debate S. 1557, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 11508-11520 Proponents Amendment South being forced order emergency assistance, elsewhere continue despite existing conditions.7 Opponents amendment read cutting back efforts law.8 included final version VII Amendments 1972. summarized his proposal debate.9 38 703(a) indicates means exactly what says: same govern nationwide, segregation.10 rules actualities, consequences, intent.11 39 reliance colloquy Congressman Pucinski, sponsor House, Esch persuade otherwise. inquired [will] authorized holding Singleton [Singleton Municipal Separate Dist., 419 1211 (CA5 1969), rev'd grounds sub Carter West Feliciana Parish Bd., 396 290 [90 608, 477] (1970)]—which you perfect balance every single your district—as condition requirement program." Pucinski's response was: answer absolutely not." 39332 40 passing exchange intimates limit complete eligibility, colloquy, indication Member voted favor understanding weaken conditions. Cannon University Chicago, 441 677, 713-716, 1946, 1964-1968, 60 560 HEW, faculties balance. prohibits identifiable. narrower requirement. Finally, fact aware reenacted 1978. n. supra. House waiver-of-ineligibility respond complaints Los Angeles City. H.R.Rep.No.95-1137, pp. 95-96 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4971.12 waiver dropped Conference Report. H.R.Conf.Rep.No.95-1753, 286 4971. interest president American Teachers, witness, recommended reformed numerical imbalance, before cut off." Hearings S.1753 Subcommittee Arts Humanities Human Resources, 95th Sess., pt. 1275 (1977) (emphasis added). change, made. acquiesced Andrus Allard, 51, 57, 318, 322-323, 210; NLRB Bell Aerospace Co., 416 267, 275, 94 1757, 1762, 134 (1974). force suggestion harm penalize very objects beneficial ruling attend worse off; them benefits theory better off. competed for, wasted, they utilized, event, benefit similarly disadvantaged children. benefit, deprival, selectivity. 43 reasons, readily Disproportionate occasion Specific discriminate imperative. need incorporates California Regents Bakke, 438 265, 98 2733, 57 750 Consideration positive Acts coextensive. stresses satisfy 706(a). 706(d), contain requirements, satisfies them. Nor mean disqualifies. 44 impose 1964. cutoff likely wish drastic intentional. rendered unavailable found. since furtherance combat segregation, maintains seems entirely appropriate. not, contravenes basic thrust ESAA. persuaded suggestions contrary Cincinnati F.Supp. 203, 255 (SD Ohio 1975), aff'd grounds, 532 1070 (CA6 1976), Bradley Milliken, 432 885, 886-887 (ED Mich.1977).13 Proof indulge detailed comment case. discuss petitioners respondents' data disproportions assignments. 46 As indicated, rebuttable. conclude, party against whom Castaneda Partida, 430 482, 497-498, 19, 1272, 1281-1282, 51 498 Griggs Duke Power 401 424, 432, 91 849, 854, 158 carried "educational necessity," analogous "business necessity" justification 253, 2000e seq.; see, Dothard Rawlinson, 321, 329, 2720, 2726, 786 Furnco Construction Corp. Waters, 567, 581-583, 2943, 2952-2953, 957 (1978) (dissenting opinion). 47 ruled asserted petitioners, law agreement, preferences, unequal distributions licenses areas, population, insufficient conclusions petition writ certiorari brief express burden. V sum, employees"; and, fact, here; 49 ordered. STEWART, POWELL REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 52 holds (ESAA)1 whose policies total absence disagree. my view acted motive policies. turns construction ESAA, provides: 54 "No eligible chapter has, 1972— 55 56 ." added.) Since alleged teachers, (italicized) precise used phrase "or discrimination". 58 deciding question, starting itself. Southeastern Community College 442 397, 405, 2361, 2366, 2361. language, positions parties confirm, different ways. first, urged respondents endorsed clause, "engaged employees" linked unambiguously contains doctrine ejusdem generis, construing manner" "similarly." standards clauses 706(d)(1)(B)—disparate second. explicitly written framed today perceives, "possess intent."2 Ante, 139. meaning concededly ambiguous, beyond ascertain meaning. appropriately itself, ESAA.3 ultimately appeared S.1557, bill reported 1971. explaining here, noted: 61 'disproportionate groups' modified diminished subsequent 'or origin,' S.Rep.No.92-61, drafted recognized clauses, regarded burdensome 63 differentiation clear singled dismissals appropriate documented activities wholesale firing Negro members: "HEW 1968 1970, Fifth Judicial Circuit black reduced 1,072, white increased 5,575." supra, 18. rule activities, cost intentionally discriminated 64 advanced governed Apparently recognizing cannot gives observes: 66 "If test." Ante 143-144. 67 draw totally odds endorsement provision. depends wholly proposition inasmuch describes "lends [is] clause]." 143. follow embodied first. second, nowhere squared agreement 706(d)(1)(B).4 68 belies language. supports depend B 69 particularly Amendment, me, places them.5 70 71 "(a) [ESAA] dealing conditions race "(b) 73 concludes "indicat[e] intent." 146-147 (footnotes omitted). 74 My difficulty reasoning stems applicable latter construed 750, five Members VI, federally funded programs, Fourteenth. 281-287, S.Ct., 2744-2746 (POWELL, J.); id., 328-355, 2768-2781 (BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, JJ.). Those provisions, 851; 450; 597; 548. follows Bakke 75 incongruous "disparate impact" term Terms ago prohibition programs equally subject incorporate purposeful-discrimination prohibiting leading difficult understand why 706(d)(1)(B).6 76 persuasively interpretations writing clean slate. contrary, left undefined already "[n]o person subjected program receiving Federal assistance,"7 703(a)(1) unlawful employer fail refuse hire discharge individual, individual's religion, sex, origin."8 are, explicit definition useful guide discrimination" 77 toward necessity 706(d)(1)(B).9 pointed out, prohibit Fourteenth, U.S., JJ.); supra; Davis,supra; VII, which, core, "treat[ing] people favorably others origin," Teamsters States, 431 324, 335, 15, 1843, 1854, 396, "[p]roof critical," ibid. Accord, 579-580, 2950-2951, 957; McDonnell Douglas Green, 411 792, 805, 1817, 1825, 668.10 expected terms. VII.11 79 respectfully dissent. technically repealed simultaneously re-enacted, amendments material Pub.L. 95-561, 92 2252, 2268, Sept. 30, re-enactment recodified 3191-3207 (1976 ed., Supp. II). throughout litigation, references herein old Code sections. (2), (3). statute's applicant, specifies submits "such information assurances insure procedure, ceased exist occur include[s] reoccur submission application." involved proceeding provoked Secretary's 1978-1979, Second remand reconsideration. Harris, 622 599 21, *; 2, prior subsection." 706(d)(4). litigation (and Chancellor) Districts, contested. 8, **; 3, 3; Reply *. definite 706(d)(1)(D). HEW. 16. (D) limiting curricular extracurricular (or participation therein children) avoid activities." clearly, motive. But mischievous, automatically condemn offer course program, benign however dictated budgetary exigencies. authors Report, course, massive firings South. localities, regions, sections States. adoption help use 'double standard,' integration public stringent lenient elsewhere. "I never able how 10-year-old colored Harlem, Watts, around faces say himself: 'This hurt me Illinois requiring all-black feel housing just accidentally developed.' 11511-11512 Eastland). 11508-11510 Stennis). "What worries this: argued, Attorney General told, 'Do seek remedy instance official tell basis.' reads, believe fear weakened enforcement Nation. oppose statement calling nonenforcement." 11517-11518 11516-11517 Javits). "That conferees done conference report signed into matters, North, South, East, amendment, pure simple." 118 18844 (1972). dissent provided applies enacted, broken subsections, applying 703(b) VI. explained distinction: substitute retains deletes title. substitute's therefore, restates 2(a) 91-230 supersedes (b) section." S.Conf.Rep.No. 92-798, 212-213 (1972), 2462, 2663. 703(b). supersede 2(b) critical. 91-230, 84 121, 2000d-6, part: facto, whatever Such refers wherever found." significantly Amendment. difference, "wholly 'disparate impact' 'discrimination' test," asserts, post, 160. Programs "equally" purposes, "erased" 32. tie erasure 706(a)(1) (court-ordered, HEW-approved, desegregation) 706(d). circumscribe criteria." "In attempt deal problem, adopts undertaking integrate yet fully achieved goal nonetheless Presently, interpreting assist trying achieve goal." Robinson Vollert, 461, 472-475 Tex.1976), rev'd, 602 87 1979), relies, distinguishable. receipt overseeing court-ordered desegregation. deemed Elementary Secondary 1967, 112, 81 787, 2000d-5. Vollert pass acceptable court. Even so, statutes. bring problem 1601-1619. re-enacted 2268. former codified 3196(c)(1)(B) consistency original provisions. generis preceded enumeration types conduct, rather type highly particularized conduct. 2A C. Sands, Statutes Statutory 47.17 (4th ed. 1973). context, conveys similarity, contrast: describes, dismissals; contrast staff. "general scheme" incorporating misplaced. enacting regardless cause, objectives legislation. One environments English. 22-24 attain objective, developing linguistic skills English speak home. 708(c) 1607(c). literally applied, frustrate caused bona non-English-speaking situation where, example, Spanish-speaking children, hardly surprising Hispanic Yet, advance goals render unerringly Yet creates explains error 'educational necessity' [showing], 'business 1964." referring employer, 158. Under cases, plaintiff unable necessity." 431-432, 853-854. analogy view, category bearing gloss 703(a)(2) 703(h) Electric Co. Gilbert, 125, 137, 401, 408, 343; Albemarle Paper Moody, 422 425, 95 2362, 2375, 280; 426, 851, 703(a)(2), limit, segregate, classify applicants deprive tend opportunities adversely affect employee, 2000e-2(a)(2). give act professionally administration designed, sex 2000e-2(h). quite plainly track fails include "discrimination," appear modified—"used discriminate"—in resembles obviously one. finds 706(d)(1) notes "an exception." 142. putting aside doubts validity premise (namely, accordance majority arguably related provisions), tally questionable. short, suggests, "effect" own negligence response, versions 146-147, 10. premised indicated 703(b), restate flaw suggest, differently 2000e-2(a)(1) VII. direct illicit unavailable, procedural mechanism employee adduced rise inference motive, bear he legitimate, non-discriminatory reason." meets show pretext. 575-577, 2948-2949; 357-360, 1865-1867; 800-805, 1823-1826. designed inferring employer's evidence. though 148-149. inaction "strongly statute." 149. interpreted so. provides, that: maintained recruiting, payment, demotion, dismissal, ., 185.43(b)(2). lumping together "demotions dismissals," hand, "assignments," other, equates clause. substantially differ. departs 1978 hard overturn today.

Category: 1