Also known as: disproportional · disproportionate · disproportionately
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The condition of lacking reasonable relation between a legal burden, remedy, or classification and the interest or harm it addresses. Courts refuse enforcement or find constitutional violation when the mismatch is gross or arbitrary.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Diana Delgado contracted to supply custom steel beams for a bridge project that would require Dawson Steel to deliver varying quantities over five years based on site conditions. After Dawson breached, Diana sought specific performance ordering the deliveries. The court denied the order because ongoing judicial monitoring of quantities and quality would impose enforcement burdens far exceeding the benefit to Diana or the harm from denial.
Dominic Drake, a state personnel director, implemented a veterans hiring preference that resulted in far fewer women being hired for entry-level positions. Diane Dawson, a female applicant passed over in favor of a less qualified veteran, sued claiming gender discrimination. The court upheld the policy because the preference was adopted to benefit veterans and not to disadvantage women, so the disparate impact alone did not establish an equal protection violation.
Delilah Duran confronted an unarmed trespasser on her property who posed no threat of serious injury. She responded by striking him repeatedly with a metal pipe, causing permanent loss of vision in one eye. In her criminal trial the court instructed the jury that the force used threatened serious bodily harm differing in kind from the threatened contact, rendering the defense unavailable.
Doris Duffy promised to pay Daniel Diaz $50,000 after he had repaired her warehouse roof without charge the previous winter. When she later refused, Daniel sued on the promise. The court enforced the promise only to the extent of the actual value of the benefit conferred, which was far less than $50,000, because a larger award would be disproportionate to the benefit received.
Dillon Energy sought a permit to expand its facility and the city conditioned approval on dedication of a strip of land for a public bike path. The expansion would generate only modest additional traffic on nearby streets. The court invalidated the condition because the city failed to show that the required dedication was roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the expansion.
Davenport Pharmaceuticals was prosecuted for regulatory violations and sought to introduce testimony from its CEO explaining the company's compliance efforts. The trial court applied an evidentiary rule that barred the testimony on the ground that corporate officers could not testify about internal policies. The appellate court held the rule unconstitutional because it arbitrarily and disproportionately restricted the defendant's right to present a defense.
A clause fixing damages at an amount grossly larger than the anticipated or actual loss functions as a penalty and is unenforceable. Courts compare the stipulated sum to the harm that was reasonably expected at formation and to the actual harm suffered. When the amount bears no reasonable relation to either measure, public policy bars enforcement and ordinary damages must be proved instead.
Supporting sources
…(1978); see also Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U. S. 488 (1961). But we have held that race-neutral laws that have the effect of disproportionately disadvantaging a particular racial group do not thereby become subject to compelling-interest analysis under the Equal Protection Clause, see Washington v. Davis , 426 U. S. 229 (1976)…
…actors only by imposing liability for private conduct that is, in the main, already forbidden by state law. Why is the remedy "disproportionate"? And given the relation between remedy and violation—the creation of a federal remedy to substitute for constitutionally inadequate state remedies—where is the lack of "congruence"? The…
…verdict, at least of the more severe form of the offense alleged, if the punishment associated with the offense seemed to them disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct of the particular defendant. Id. , at 245 ("This power to thwart Parliament and Crown took the form not only of flat-out acquittals in the face of guilt…
…number of "accessories" including lifetime civil disabilities. In Rummel the Court carefully noted that " [Weems'] finding of disproportionality cannot be wrenched from the facts of that case." 445 U. S., at 273. The lesson the Rummel Court drew from Weems and from the capital punishment cases was that the Eighth Amendment did…
…of the common-law rule bears emphasis. It forbids the use of deadly force to apprehend a misdemeanant, condemning such action as disproportionately severe. See Holloway v. Moser , 193 N. C., at 187, 136 S. E., at 376; State v. Smith , 127 Iowa, at 535, 103 N. W., at 945. See generally Annot., 83 A. L. R. 3d 238 (1978). In short,…
No. Disparate impact alone is insufficient. The challenger must prove that the policy was adopted or maintained for the purpose of disadvantaging the affected group. Without evidence of discriminatory intent, the policy survives rational-basis review even if its effects fall more heavily on one class.
Supporting sources
Awards that are grossly disproportionate to the compensatory damages violate due process. With rare exceptions, ratios exceeding single digits, and especially those reaching 145:1, are presumptively invalid. The degree of reprehensibility and the ratio to actual harm supply the key guideposts.
Supporting sources
The seller must allocate in a fair and reasonable manner and may include regular non-contract customers. An allocation that systematically favors one buyer at the undue expense of others is improper. The rule prevents self-dealing and ensures the loss is spread proportionately across the customer base.
Supporting sources