Expanding fundamental constitutional rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. The distinction between Dejure and De facto. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Yick Wo v. Hopkins illustration of disparate impact of licensing laundries. Washington v. Davis illustration of disparate impact based on culturally biased employment application test. Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb. illustration of disparate impact based on neutral requirement to be clean shaven. Gratz v. Bollinger illustration of disparate impact in college admission practices.

1. Expanding Civil Protections
PSC 381 Bill of Rights

4. Civil Rights have traditionally revolved around the basic right to be
free from unequal treatment based on certain protected
characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.).
Civil Rights

5. Civil Liberties are basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed --
either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or
interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers.
● Freedom of speech
● The right to privacy
● The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
● The right to a fair court trial
● The right to marry
● The right to vote
Civil Liberties

6. Facts: An 1880 ordinance of the city of San Francisco required all
laundries in wooden buildings to hold a permit issued by the city's
Board of Supervisors. The board had total discretion over who would
be issued a permit. Although workers of Chinese descent operated 89
percent of the city's laundry businesses, not a single Chinese owner
was granted a permit. Yick Wo and Wo Lee each operated laundry
businesses without a permit and, after refusing to pay a $10 fine,
were imprisoned by the city's sheriff, Peter Hopkins. Each sued for
writ of habeas corpus, arguing the fine and discriminatory
enforcement of the ordinance violated their rights under the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

7. Lower Court Ruling: Noting that, on its face, the law is
nondiscriminatory, the Supreme Court of California and the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of California denied claims
for Yick Wo and Wo Lee, respectively.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

8. Issue: Did the unequal enforcement of the city ordinance violate Yick
Wo and Wo Lee's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment?
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

9. Holding: Yes. In a unanimous opinion, the Court concluded that,
despite the impartial wording of the law, its biased enforcement
violated the Equal Protection Clause. According to the Court, even if
the law is impartial on its face, "if it is applied and administered by
public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as
practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between
persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of
equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." The
kind of biased enforcement experienced by the plaintiffs, the Court
concluded, amounted to "a practical denial by the State of that equal
protection of the law" and therefore violated the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

10. Facts: After the applications of two blacks were rejected by the
District of Columbia Police Department, the two men filed suit against
Mayor Walter E. Washington. The men alleged that the Department's
recruiting procedures, including a written personnel test,
discriminated against racial minorities. They claimed that the test
was unrelated to job performance and excluded a disproportionate
number of black applicants.
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)

11. Issue: Did the recruiting procedures violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)

12. Holding: In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the procedures and
written personnel test did not constitute racial discrimination under
the Equal Protection Clause.
The Court found that the Clause was designed to prevent official
discrimination on the basis of race; laws or other official acts that
had racially disproportionate impacts did not automatically become
constitutional violations. The Court reasoned that the D.C. Police
Department's procedures did not have discriminatory intent and were
racially neutral measures of employment qualification.
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)

13. Facts: Bradley was a black male who worked as a delivery man for
Pizzaco d/b/a Domino’s. He was fired for noncompliance with
Domino’s no-beard policy. The no-beard policy was established
nationwide by Pizzaco’s franchisor, Domino’s Pizza, Inc. Bradley
alleged that he suffered from psuedofolliculitis barbae (PFB), a skin
condition … causing half of those affected to be unable to shave at
all. Bradley claimed that the no-beard policy deprived him and other
African-American males suffering from PFB of equal employment
opportunities in violation of Title VII. Domino’s defended the policy,
saying that it was common sense that the better its people looked,
the better its sales would be.
Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb., 7 F.3rd 795
(1993)

14. Facts: Bradley was a black male who worked as a delivery man for
Pizzaco d/b/a Domino’s. He was fired for noncompliance with
Domino’s no-beard policy. The no-beard policy was established
nationwide by Pizzaco’s franchisor, Domino’s Pizza, Inc. Bradley
alleged that he suffered from psuedofolliculitis barbae (PFB), a skin
condition … causing half of those affected to be unable to shave at
all. Bradley claimed that the no-beard policy deprived him and other
African-American males suffering from PFB of equal employment
opportunities in violation of Title VII. Domino’s defended the policy,
saying that it was common sense that the better its people looked,
the better its sales would be.
Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb., 7 F.3rd 795
(1993)

15. Issue: Whether the employer's policy, applicable to all males, of
prohibiting beards can be the basis of a race discrimination suit by a
black employee terminated for not shaving his beard.
Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb., 7 F.3rd 795
(1993)

16. Holding: The court held that the policy had a disparate impact upon
blacks and violated Title VII. This case then, is about a facially neutral
employment policy that discriminates against black males when
applied. Title VII forbids employment policies with a disparate impact
unless the policy is justified by legitimate employment goals. The
EEOC demonstrated Domino's policy necessarily excludes black
males from the company's work force at a substantially higher rate
than white males. In so doing, the EEOC has shown Domino's facially
neutral grooming requirement operates as a "built-in headwind" for
black males.
Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb., 7 F.3rd 795
(1993)

17. Summary: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Atlanta
fire department's "no-beard" policy because it was justified by a
"business necessity", in that case the fact that even short beards
interfered with firefighters' use of self-contained breathing apparatus.
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta 2 F3d 1112 (1993)

18. Facts: The University of Michigan’s Office of Undergraduate
Admissions (OUA) considers a number of factors in its evaluative
process, such as high school grades, standardized test scores,
curriculum strength, alumni relationships, geography, and leadership.
The OUA also considers race and admits virtually every qualified
applicant from certain groups determined to be “underrepresented
minorities.” Beginning in 1998, the OUA used a point system in which
students were awarded an additional 20 points for being a member of
an underrepresented minority, and beginning in 1999, the University
established an Admissions Review Committee to provide an
additional level of consideration.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

19. Facts (Cont’d): In 1995, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher both
applied for admission to the University of Michigan’ College of
Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) as residents of the state of
Michigan. Both are of Caucasian descent. Both were denied
admission and told that, although they were qualified, they were not
competitive enough applicants to be admitted on first review. In
October 1997, Gratz and Bollinger filed a class action suit against the
University, the LSA, Lee Bollinger, and James Duderstadt. They
argued that the admission procedure discriminated against certain
racial and ethnic groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

20. Lower Court Ruling: The district court held that the respondents had
shown that a racially and ethnically diverse student body produced
significant academic benefits but that the admission policies of
1995-1998 were problematic because they amounted to “holding
seats” for certain minority groups. The court granted summary
judgment for the petitioners with respect to the admissions policies
for 1995-1998 and for the respondents with respect to the policy that
began in 1999.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

21. Lower Court Ruling (Cont’d): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit heard this case the same day as Grutter v. Bollinger, a similar
case, and upheld the University’s admission policies in that case. The
petitioners in this case then asked the Court to grant certiorari,
despite the lack of opinion from the lower court, to resolve the issue.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

22. Issue: Did the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in
undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

23. Holding: Yes. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the
opinion for the 6-3 majority.
The Court held that the OUA’s policies were not sufficiently narrowly
tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did
not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the
admission of nearly every applicant of “underrepresented minority”
status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous
jurisprudence on the issue.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

24. ● Fourteenth Amendment extends federal authority:
○ To facially prejudicial laws, ordinances and rules.
○ To facially-neutral laws, ordinances and rules that have a
disparate impact.
Recap

25. Attributions:
"Yick Wo v. Hopkins." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/118us356. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.
"Washington v. Davis." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-1492. Accessed 10 Apr. 2017.
"Gratz v. Bollinger." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-516. Accessed 13 Apr. 2017.
For additional information:
Brandon L. Blankenship
UAB | Department of Government
(205)912-8248 | blbjd@uab.edu
Attributions and Additional Information: