Also known as: discriminatory intents · discriminatory purpose · discriminatory motive
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A purposeful mental state required to establish certain constitutional violations such as equal protection claims based on race or gender. Disparate impact alone does not suffice without evidence that the government acted because of rather than in spite of the discriminatory effect.
Doris Duffy, a female applicant for a state civil service job, challenged a veterans preference statute after losing to a less qualified male veteran. The legislature had enacted the preference to reward military service. The court found no discriminatory intent because the purpose was to benefit veterans rather than to disadvantage women.
Denise Donovan, a minority applicant for a police position, failed a written exam that minorities passed at lower rates than others. The department had adopted the test to measure job-related skills. The court upheld the test because the record contained no evidence that officials chose or administered it to exclude minority applicants.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Darrell Duncan, a Black defendant sentenced to death, presented statistical evidence that Black defendants received the death penalty more often when the victim was white. The court required proof that the prosecutor or jury acted with discriminatory purpose in his specific case rather than relying on aggregate disparities alone.
Dolores Diaz, a foreign national from a majority-Muslim country, sued over an executive order restricting entry from several nations. The Court examined the order's text and history for evidence of animus toward a particular religion. Absent a showing that the stated national-security purpose was a pretext for religious discrimination, the order survived review.
Daphne Doyle, a Black employee at a power company, challenged a high-school diploma requirement that screened out more minority applicants. The company had imposed the requirement after abandoning explicit racial barriers. The court found no constitutional violation because the record contained no evidence of current discriminatory intent.
Dorothy Daniels, a detainee alleging mistreatment, claimed that high-level officials acted with discriminatory intent based on his religion and national origin. The complaint contained only conclusory assertions of purpose without supporting factual allegations. The court held that such bare assertions failed to state a plausible claim of discriminatory intent.
A plaintiff must show that the government acted because of rather than in spite of a discriminatory purpose. Statistical disparities alone are insufficient without additional evidence linking the action to that purpose.
Discriminatory intent requires purposeful discrimination while disparate impact refers only to a disproportionate effect on a protected group. The Constitution generally requires the former for an equal protection violation.
Yes. Courts may infer intent from factors such as the historical background of the decision, the sequence of events leading to it, and departures from normal procedures, provided the evidence supports a finding of purposeful discrimination.
No. Knowledge of a discriminatory effect is not the same as acting because of that effect. The decision maker must have adopted the policy at least in part for the purpose of causing the discriminatory result.
…rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id. , at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. See Washington v. Davis , 426 U. S. 229, 241-242 (1976). No purpose to…