County of Los Angeles v. Van Davis Brief Amicus Curiae

    I n  T H E

Olmtrt of %  lotted States
October Teem, 1978 

No. 77-1553

County o e  Los A ngeles, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

V an Davis, et al.

OH W R IT  OE CERTIORARI TO T H E  U N IT E D  STATES 

COURT OP APPEALS FOR T H E  N IN T H  C IR C U IT

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE 
N.A.A.C.P. LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

Jack Greenberg 
0 . Peter Sherwood 
E ric Schnapper 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Amicus



1

I N D E X

PAGE

In t e r e s t  o f  Amicus ................................................  1

Summary o f  Argument ..............................................  2

ARGUMENT .......................................................................  3
I .  THE "RACIAL QUOTA HIRING 
ORDER" HAS NOT IN FACT BEEN 
APPLIED TO PETITIONERS AND QUESTION 
TWO IS THUS NOT ACTUALLY PRESENTED 
BY THIS CASE ................................................  3

I I .  PETITIONERS' HIRING PRACTICES 
PERPETUATED THE EFFECT OF PAST 
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 
42 U.S.C. §1981 ............................................  9

CONCLUSION .....................................................................  38



1 1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Alexander v.  Gardner-Denver C o . ,
415 U.S. 36 (1974) ......................................... 13

Alexander v .  Holmes County Board o f
Education,  396 U.S. 19 (1969)  ................... 35

Brown v.  Board o f  Education,  347
U.S. 483 (1954)  ...................................................  3 1 ,3 3 ,3 4 ,3 5

Crawford v.  Board o f  Education,  17 Cal.
R ptr . 389 (1976) ................................................. 34

DeFunis v .  Odegaard, 416 U.S 312 (1972) . . . .  7

Ex parte  McCardle,  7 Wall .  506.
(1869)  ......................    20

F le t c h e r  v.  Peck, 6 Cranch 87 ( 1 8 1 0 ) ................. 20

Gaston County v .  United S ta tes ,
395 U.S. 285 ( 1969) .......................................... 3 ,3 0 ,  31

Golden v.  Z w ick ler ,  394 U.S. 104
(1969)  .......................................................................  8

Green v.  School  Board o f  New 
Kent County, 391 U.S.
430 (1968) ................................   29

Griggs v.  Duke Power C o . ,  401 U.S.
158 (1971) .............................................. ...............  9

Guey Heung Lee v.  Johnson, 404 U.S.
1215 (1971) . . . . . . . ....... ...............................

PAGE

34



1 X 1

Hall v.  Beals ,  396 U.S. 45 (1969)   ............ 7 ,8

Hurd v.  Hodge, 334 U.S. 24 (1948) ..................... 11

Jones v .  A l f re d  H. Mayer Co . ,
392 U.S 409 (1968)  ............................................ 10,15

Kelsey v.  Weinberger, 498 F.2d 701
(D.D.Cir .  1974) ................................................... 34

Keyes v .  School  D i s t r i c t  No. 1,
413 U.S. 189 (1973) .........................................  30

Lane v.  Wilson,  307 U.S 265 (1939)  ..................  30

McDonald v.  Santa Fe Transporta t ion
Co. , 427 U.S 273 ( 1976) ................................  14

Monell v.  Department o f  S o c i a l
S e r v i c e s ,  56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)  ................ 12

Moose Lodge No. 107 v.  I r v i s ,  407
U.S 163 (1972) .....................................................  30

New York v.  United S ta te s ,  419 U.S 888
(1974)  .......................................................................  36

Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971)  . . . .  21

Regents o f  U n iv e r s i ty  o f  C a l i f o r n i a  
v.  Bakke, 57 L.Ed.2d 750
(1978)  .......................................................................  12,32

Reyes v .  Matthews, 428 F.Supp. 300
(D.D.C. 1976) .......................................................  12

Runyon v.  McGrary, 427 U.S 160
(1976)  .......................................................................  10,13

Swann v.  Char lotte-Mecklenburg
Board o f  Education,  402 U.S.
1 (1971)

PAGE

29



Washington v.  Davis ,  426 U.S. 229
(1976)  ..................................... .................................. 21

Statutes

31 U.S.C. §1242(a) ..................... ........................... 12

42 U.S.C. §1981 ..............................................................  passim

42 U.S.C. §1983 .............. ...............................................  12

42 U.S.C. §2000e ............................................................  13

C i v i l  Rights Act o f  1866 ..................................... passim

C i v i l  Rights Act o f  1964 .........................................  9,12

14 Sta t .  27 .......................................................................  10, .14

14 Sta t .  177 . ................................................... ........... . . 14

1860 Cal .  S ta ts ,  c .329  ................................................ 32

1863 Cal .  S ta ts ,  c .  159 ......................................... .. 32

1885 Cal .  S ta ts ,  c .  117 ................................................  33

1893 Cal . S ta ts ,  c .  193 ................................................  33

1921 Cal .  S ta ts ,  c .685  .............................. .................. 33

General School  Law o f  C a l i f o r n i a
§1662 (1880)  .............................................. ........... 32

iv  -

PAGE



V PAGE

L e g i s l a t i v e  M ate r ia ls

118 Cong. R e c .....................................................................  13

110 Cong. Rec .....................................................................  13

Cong. Globe,  40th Cong. ,  2d S e s s .........................  11

Cong. Globe,  39th Cong. ,  1st S e s s .......................  10 ,15-27 ,
31 ,32 ,3 7

Governmental Reports

C a l i f o r n i a  L e g i s l a t i v e  Assembly
Permanent Subcommittee on Post
Secondary Education,  Unequal
Access to C o l lege  (1975)  .............................  35

j
Governor 's  Comxnissionon the Los Angeles 

R i o t s ,  V io le n c e  in the City 
(1965)  .......................................................................  34

United States Bureau o f  the Census,
1970 Census o f  Populat ion ,
Ser ies  PC(2)~2A, State o f
Birth .........................................................................  35

United States Commission on C i v i l  
Rights ,  Mexican-American
Education Study (1971-74)  ............................... 35

Other A u t h o r i t i e s

22 C a l i f o r n i a  Department o f  J u s t i c e ,
Opinions o f  the Attorney  General ,
Opinion 6735a (1920)  ..........................................  33



IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1978

No. 77-1553

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et  a l . ,

P e t i t  i o n e r s ,

v .

VAN DAVIS, et  a l .

On Writ o f  C e r t i o r a r i  to the United 
States Court o f  Appeals f o r  the 

Ninth C i r c u i t

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE 
N.A.A.C.P.  LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

INTEREST OF AMICUS

The N.A.A.C.P.  Legal  Defense and Educational  

Fund, I n c . ,  i s  a n o n - p r o f i t  c o r p o r a t i o n  e s t a b ­

l i s h e d  under the laws o f  the State o f  New York. 

I t  was formed to  a s s i s t  Negroes to secure  th e i r  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t s  by the  p r o s e c u t i o n  o f  

l a w su i t s .  I t s  c h ar te r  d e c la r e s  that i t s  purposes



2

inc lu de  render ing  l e g a l  s e r v i c e s  g r a t u i t o u s l y  to 

Negroes s u f f e r i n g  i n j u s t i c e  by reason o f  r a c i a l  

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  For many years at torn eys  o f  the 

Legal  Defense Fund have represente d  p a r t i e s  in 

employment d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  l i t i g a t i o n  b e f o r e  th is  

Court and the lower c o u r t s .  The Legal  Defense 

Fund b e l i e v e s  that i t s  exper ien ce  in  employment 

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  l i t i g a t i o n  may be o f  a s s i s t a n c e  to  
the C o u rt .—

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The " r a c i a l  quota h i r i n g  o r d e r "  that  i s  the 

s u b je c t  o f  Question 2 has never been implemented 

as such. Instead  the p e t i t i o n e r s ,  in  compliance 

w i t h  an u n c h a l l e n g e d  p o r t i o n  o f  the  d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t ' s  i n ju n c t i o n ,  have d e l i b e r a t e l y  interv iewed 

la rge  numbers o f  m in or i ty  a p p l i c a n t s .  But the 

a c t u a l  r a t i n g  and h i r i n g  d e c i s i o n s  are  made 

without regard to  r a c e .  Because t h i s  a f f i r m a t iv e  

a c t i o n  in  i n t e r v i e w i n g  c o n s i s t e n t l y  r e s u l t s

!_/ L e t t e r s  o f  c o n s e n t  t o  the  f i l i n g  o f  t h i s  
b r i e f  have been f i l e d  with the Clerk.



-  3 -

in  the  h i r i n g  b l a c k s  and M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n s  in  

numbers g r e a t e r  than  the  " r a c i a l  q u o t a  h i r i n g  

o r d e r " ,  that order  has never been, and is  u n l ik e l y  
to become, o p e r a t i v e .

The 1866 C i v i l  Rights Act f o r b i d s  r a c i a l l y  

n e u t r a l  p r a c t i c e s  which  p e r p e t u a t e  the  e f f e c t  

o f  past d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  The re le van t  p r o v i s i o n s  

o f  the Black Codes, which the C i v i l  Rights Act was 

i n t e n d e d  to  a n n u l ,  were g e n e r a l l y  n e u t r a l  on 

t h e i r  f a c e ,  and pena l i zed  newly f reed  s laves  by 

perpetu ating  past d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  P e t i t i o n e r s '  

w r i t t e n  examinations perpetuate  the e f f e c t s  o f  

wide spread de. ju r e  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in the C a l i f o r ­

n ia  s c h o o l s .  Gaston County v .  United S t a t e s , 395 
U.S 285 (1969 ) .

ARGUMENT

1 • THE "RACIAL QUOTA HIRING ORDER" HAS 
NOT IN FACT BEEN APPLIED~TO PETITIONERS, AND 
QUESTION TWO IS THUS NOT ACTUALLY PRESENTED BY 
THIS CASE~ ~ ~ ~  “

The second Question Presented conta ined in 

the p e t i t i o n  r e l a t e s  t o  w h e th e r  the  d i s t r i c t  

court  erred in  imposing "a r a c i a l  quota h i r i n g  

o r d e r . "  P e t i t i o n e r s '  s t a t e m e n t  o f  the  c a se  
r e c i t e s  that a f t e r  f in d in g  l i a b i l i t y ,



-  4

[ a ] s  a remedy, the [ d i s t r i c t ]  court  ordered 
that  the County h i r e  a l l  fu tu re  entry  l e v e l  
f iremen in accordance with a h i r i n g  quota o f  
20% b lack  and 20% Mexican-American u n t i l  such 
t ime as the  p e r c e n t a g e  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  o f  
those m i n o r i t i e s  in the e n t i r e  F i re  Depart­
ment in a l l  ranks equaled t h e i r  re p r e se n t a ­
t i o n  in  the  C o u n t y ' s  g e n e r a l  p o p u l a t i o n .  
B r i e f  f o r  P e t i t i o n e r s ,  p .6 .

P e t i t i o n e r s  f u r t h e r  s t a t e  t h a t  a f t e r  1972,

[ a ] l l  subsequent h i r i n g  has been pursuant to  
the t r i a l  c o u r t ' s  40% p r e f e r e n t i a l  m in o r i ty  
h i r i n g  o r d e r  o f  J u l y ,  1973 .  B r i e f  f o r  
P e t i t i o n e r s ,  p. 9.

The c l e a r  i m p l i c a t i o n  o f  these a s s e r t i o n s  i s  that 

the quota h i r i n g  o r d e r "  was the s o l e  i n ju n c t i o n  

e n t e r e d  by the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  t h a t  i t  was an 

u n c o n d i t i o n a l  o r d e r ,  and that p e t i t i o n e r s  complied 

w i t h  t h a t  o r d e r  by e s t a b l i s h i n g  a r i g i d  q u o t a  

system, c o n s c i o u s l y  h i r i n g ,  r e g a r d le s s  o f  a b i l i t y ,

1 b lack  and 1 Mexican-American f o r  every 3 whites .  
The f a c t s  appear to  be o therw ise .

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  conta ins  four 

primary su bs tan t ive  requirements,  o f  which only 

the f i r s t  two are u n c o n d i t i o n a l .  Paragraph one i s  

a g e n e r a l  i n j u n c t i o n  a g a i n s t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  

Paragraph two mandates in general  language that 

p e t i t  i o n e r s  take  s t e p s  to  i n c r e a s e  m i n o r i t y  

employment, but conta ins  no s p e c i f i c  d i r e c t i o n  as 
to how th is  i s  to  be done.



-  5 -

D e f e n d a n t s  s h a l l  i n  good f a i t h  make 
a l l  a f f i r m a t i v e  a c t i o n  e f f o r t s  r e a s o n a b l y  
p o s s i b l e  and n e c e s s a r y  t o  i n c r e a s e  the  
b l a c k  and M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  
r a t e s  i n  the  f i r e m a n  w o r k f o r c e  at  t h e  Los 
A n g e le s  County F i r e  Department u n t i l  such 
t i m e  as t h o s e  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  r a t e s  a r e  
commensurate w i t h  the  b l a c k  and M e x i c a n -  
Am er ican  p o p u l a t i o n  p e r c e n t a g e s  o f  Los 
Angeles County.

What i s  " r e a s o n a b l y  p o s s i b l e  and n e c e s s a r y "  
i s  l e f t  to  the  d i s c r e t i o n  o f  the  p e t i t i o n e r s ;  

paragraph two does not i t s e l f  mandate a quota or  

any form o f  r a c e - c o n s c i o u s  h i r i n g .  C e r t i o r a r i  was 

not sought as to  the p r o p r i e t y  o f  the i n ju n c t i v e  

p r o v i s i o n s  o f  paragraphs one and two. Paragraphs 

three and four s t a t e  that "a minimum o f  twenty 

percent (20%) o f  a l l  new employees . . . sh a l l  

be b l a c k s "  and Chicanos.  But paragraphs three and 

four are o b v io u s ly  o f  no o p e r a t iv e  s i g n i f i c a n c e  i f  

the a c t i o n s  taken to  comply with paragraphs one 

and two r e s u l t  in m in or i ty  h i r i n g  over the 40% 

f l o o r .  Thus paragraphs three and four are c o n t i n ­

gent in nature;  so long as compliance with para­

graphs one and two is r e s u l t i n g  in s u b s t a n t ia l  

m inor ity  h i r i n g ,  paragraphs three and four  do not 

a p p l y  and impose  no a d d i t i o n a l  o b l i g a t i o n  on 

p e t i t i o n e r s .



That i s  p r e c i s e l y  what has occurred  in th is  

case .  The h i r i n g  procedure adopted by p e t i t i o n e r s  

t o  com ply  w i t h  p a r a g r a p h s  one and two i s  as 

f o l l o w s .  To f i l l  each group o f  vacan c ies  p e t i ­

t i o n e r s  in te rv ie w  500 a p l i c a n t s  who passed t h e i r  

w r i t t e n  examination,  in c lu d in g  the h igh e s t  s c o r in g  

300 w h i tes ,  100 b lacks  and 100 Mexican-Americans. 

The number o f  whites  in terv iew ed  i s  s e v e r a l  times 

the number o f  ac tua l  v a c a n c ie s .  The in te r v ie w e r s  

ra te  each o f  these a p p l i can ts  on h i s  or  her meri ts  

w i t h o u t  r e g a r d  t o  r a c e  or  n a t i o n a l  o r i g i n .  

Th erea f ter  a p p l i c a n t s  are h i r e d  s o l e l y  on the ba s is  

o f  the  s c o r e  g i v e n  by the  i n t e r v i e w e r ,  a g a in  
without regard to  race  or  n a t i o n a l  o r i g i n .  The 

a c t u a l  h i r e s  are  n o t  from s e p a r a t e  l i s t s ,  no 

quotas are used,  and the same r a t i n g  standards are 

app l ied  to a l l  a p p l i c a n t s .  The in te rv ie w e rs  are 

no t  a u t h o r i z e d  t o  g i v e  e x t r a  p o i n t s  b e c a u s e  

o f  an a p p l i c a n t ' s  race  or  n a t i o n a l  o r i g i n ,  but are 

d i r e c t e d  on ly  to  be a l e r t  f o r  t a le n te d  m inor ity  

a p p l i c a n t s .  Th is  r a c i a l l y  n e u t r a l  p r o c e d u r e ,  

a d o p t e d  pu r s u a n t  t o  p a r a g r a p h s  one and two,  

has r e s u l t e d  in  every year s in c e  1972 in a minor­

i t y  h i r i n g  l e v e l  which c o n s i s t e n t l y ,  though by 

vary ing  amounts, exceeded 50%. Thus paragraphs 

three and four  s imply have never gone in t o  e f f e c t .



7

P e t i t i o n e r s  do not  contend that t h e i r  present 

h i r i n g  p r o c e d u r e  i s  l i k e l y  in the  f u t u r e  to  

r e s u l t  in a lower l e v e l  o f  m in o r i ty  h i r i n g ,  and 

there i s  noth ing in the record  suggest ing  that 

t h i s  w i l l  t o  o c c u r .  I n d e e d ,  at the  p r e s e n t  

rate  o f  h i r i n g ,  m in or i ty  employment at the Los 

Angeles F ire  Department i s  l i k e l y  to reach popula­

t i o n  l e v e l s  by around 1981 ,  at wh ich  t ime the  

e n t i r e  i n ju n c t i o n  w i l l  become i n o p e r a t i v e .  Nor do 
p e t i t i o n e r s  a s s e r t  t h a t ,  even  i f  th e y  sh o u ld  

p r e v a i l  on the  l i a b i l i t y  i s s u e ,  they  would 

a l t e r  t h e i r  present procedures .  Compare DeFunis 

v .  O d e g a a r d , 416 U.S .  312 ( 1 9 7 4 ) .  I t  i s  thus 

u n l ik e l y  that  an adv isory  op in ion  by th is  Court 

with regard to  the p r o p r i e t y  o f  paragraphs three 

and four would ever have any impact on the outcome 

o f  th is  l i t i g a t i o n  or the conduct o f  the p e t i ­

t i o n e r s  .

Under these c ircumstances the di sp ute  as to 

whether  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  o r d e r  s h o u l d  have 

included  paragraphs three and four seems moot. 

Th is  a s p e c t  o f  " [ t ] h e  c a s e  has . . . l o s t  i t s  

ch arac ter  as a present ,  l i v e  con troversy  o f  the 

kind that must e x i s t  i f  [ the Court i s ]  to  avoid 

adv isory  op in ions  on a b s t ra c t  questi ons  o f  law."  
Hall v .  Bea ls ,  396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969 ) .  There may



-  8

be a remote p o s s i b i l i t y  that  some p e c u l i a r  turn o f  

events might render o p e r a t iv e  the d ispute d  para­

graphs p r i o r  to  t h e i r  e x p i r a t i o n  in  two or three 

y e a r s ,  " [ b ] u t  such s p e c u l a t i v e  c o n t i n g e n c i e s  

a f f o r d  no b a s is  f o r  . . . passing  on the substan­

t i v e  i s s u e s "  which  p e t i t i o n e r s  would  have the  

Court d e c id e ,  Id_. at 49. Even i f  these c ircum­

s t a n c e s  f a l l  s h o r t  o f  m o o t n e s s ,  th e y  are  v e r y  

d i f f e r e n t  than those suggested by the P e t i t i o n .  

We do not think c e r t i o r a r i  would have been granted 

had i t  been c l e a r  that the re le van ce  o f  th is  i s su e  

to  the p a r t i e s  was at best  "w hol ly  c o n j e c t u r a l . "  

G o lden  v .  Z w i c k l e r , 394 U .S .  103,  109 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .  

A c co rd in g ly  we suggest  that the grant o f  c e r t i o ­

r a r i  as t o  Q u e s t i o n  2 a p p e a r s  t o  have been 

im prov id en t .

Even i f  t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  had i s s u e d  an 

u n c o n d i t i o n a l  o r d e r  d i r e c t i n g  t h a t  f i r e m e n  be 

h i red  on the b a s is  o f  a quota,  that  r e l i e f  would 

have been j u s t i f i e d  by the  s e r i o u s  and l o n g  

standing v i o l a t i o n  o f  42 U.S.C. §1981 in vo lved  in 
t h i s  case .



-  9 -

11• PETITIONERS1 hiring  practices  perpetuated 
THE EFFECT OF PAST DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 
42 U.S.C.  §1981.

The p a r t i e s  urge the Court to  dec ide  whether 
s e c t i o n  1981 p r o h i b i t s  n o n - jo b  r e l a t e d  employment 

c r i t e r i a  with an adverse impact on m i n o r i t i e s ,  a 

p r o h i b i t i o n  a l r e a d y  c o n t a i n e d  in  T i t l e  V I I  in  

l i g h t  o f  G r i g g s  v .  Duke Power C o . ,  401 U.S.  
158 ( 1 9 7 1 ) .  They assume th a t  t h i s  d i f f i c u l t  

i s s u e  t u r n s  on w h e th e r  s e c t i o n  1981 s h o u ld  be 

construed rn par i  materia with T i t l e  VII or with 

the Fourteenth Amendment. Amicus suggests  that 

the  G r i g g s  i s s u e  need n o t  be r e a c h e d ,  s i n c e  

s e c t i o n  1981 c l e a r l y  f o r b id s  p r a c t i c e s  which have 

the e f f e c t  o f  p e r p e t u a t i n g  p a s t  i n t e n t i o n a l  

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  and the h i r i n g  p r a c t i c e s  in th is  

case had ju s t  that e f f e c t .  We fu r th er  suggest  

that quest ions  regarding  c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f  s e c t i o n  

1981 cannot,  in g e n e ra l ,  be r e s o l v e d  by simply 

seeking  to  an a lo g iz e  i t  to  e i t h e r  the Fourteenth 

Amendment or T i t l e  VII .

P e t i t i o n e r s '  a s s e r t i o n  that  Congress intended 

the s u b s t a n t i v e  r e q u i r e m e n t s  o f  s e c t i o n  1981 

t o  be the  same as t h o s e  o f  s e c t i o n  1 o f  the 

F o u r t e e n t h  Amendment i s  r e f u t e d  by the v e r y  

language and e s t a b l i s h e d  c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f  those 

p r o v i s i o n s .  In important areas the Amendment is



10

broader  than s e c t i o n  1981. The equal  p r o t e c t i o n

c lause  f o r b i d s  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  g e n e r a l l y ;  Congress

e x p r e s s l y  c o n s i d e r e d  and r e j e c t e d  p r o p o s a l s

t o  i n c l u d e  such a p r o v i s i o n  i n  the  1866 C i v i l  
2 /R i g h t s  A c t . — The F o u r t e e n t h  Amendment a l s o  

guarantees due process  o f  law and "the  p r i v i l e g e s  

and immunities o f  c i t i z e n s  o f  the United S t a t e s , "  

but s e c t i o n  1981 conta ins  no such p r o t e c t i o n s .  On 

the o th er  hand, s e c t i o n  1981 p r o h i b i t s  d i s c r i m i n a ­

t i o n  by p r i v a t e  p a r t i e s  in a v a r i e t y  o f  s p e c i f i c  

ar eas ,  Runyon v.  McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976 ) ;

Jones v .  A l f r e d  H. Mayer Co. ,  392 U.S. 409 (1968 ) ,  

but the Fourteenth Amendment does no t .  Sec t ion  

1981 was o r i g i n a l l y  enacted as part  o f  s e c t i o n  1 

o f  the  1866 C i v i l  R i g h t s  Act  t o  e n f o r c e  t h e  

Thir teenth  Amendment. Although the 1866 C i v i l  

R i g h t s  Act  was s u b s e q u e n t l y  r e e n a c t e d  i n  1870 

a f t e r  the adoption  o f  the Fourteenth Amendment, 

t h i s  was done, not to make the Fourteenth Amend­

ment the s o l e  b a s is  o f  the 1866 Act ,  but to expand

the group p r o t e c t e d  by the Act from " c i t i z e n s  o f
3/the United S t a te s "— to " a l l  persons with in  the

2 /  See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. ,  1st S e s s . , pp . 
1266 (remarks o f  Rep. Bingham), 1366 (remarks o f  
Rep. W i lson ) .

3 /  14 Stat .  27.



11

j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  the United S t a t e s "  in order  to

p r o t e c t  a l i e n s ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  C h i n e s e  i n  C a l -
. f  . 4 /l f o r n i a . —

The most  i m p o r t a n t  c o n n e c t i o n  be tw een  the  

1866 C i v i l  Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment 

i s  that they were enacted by the same Congress 
on ly  two months apart ,  and that  one o f  the primary 

p u r p o s e s  o f  the  Amendment was t o  i n c o r p o r a t e  

c e r t a i n  o f  the g u a r a n t e e s  o f  the  Act  i n t o  the  

C o n s t i t u t i o n .  Hurd v .  H o d g e , 334 U .S .  24 ,  32 

(1948 ) .  Because both enactments "were e x press ion s  

o f  the same general  c o n g re s s i o n a l  p o l i c y , "  i d . , 

s e c t i o n  1981 s h o u ld  be c o n s t r u e d ,  as to  the  

s p e c i f i c  s u b j e c t s  to which i t  a p p l i e s ,  at l e a s t  as 

broad ly  as the Fourteenth Amendment. But s in ce  

Congress c l e a r l y  intended that  in c e r t a i n  r e s p e c t s  

the s t a t u t e  would be broader than the Fourteenth 

Amendment, l i m i t a t i o n s  as to  the s c o p e  o f  the  

Amendment ca n n o t  a u t o m a t i c a l l y  be read  i n t o  

s e c t i o n  1981 i t s e l f .

4J  Cong. Globe,  41st  Cong. ,  2d S e s s . ,  p. 3658. 
Senator Stewart expla ined  that  under the b i l l  "We 
w i l l  p r o t e c t  Chinese a l i e n s  or  any o th er  a l i e n s  
whom we a l l o w  t o  come h e r e ,  and g i v e  them a 
hear ing  in our c o u r t ;  l e t  them sue and be sued; 
l e t  them be p r o t e c t e d  by a l l  the laws and the same 
laws that o th er  men a r e . "  See a l s o  i d . p. 3807. 
The proposa l  to  reenac t  the 1866 Act was o r i g i n a l l y  
p a r t  o f  S. No. 865 ,  j ^ .  p.  3409 ,  which  was 
r e f e r r e d  to  at the time as "The Chinese b i l l . "  
I d . p. 3702 (remarks o f  Sen. Thurman).



12

On the  o t h e r  hand,  t h e  1866 Act  in  many 

in s tan ces  cannot be construed  simply by r e f e r r i n g  

to o ther  c i v i l  r i g h t s  l e g i s l a t i o n .  F i r s t ,  there 

may be se v e r a l  o th er  c i v i l  r i g h t s  s t a t u t e s  c o v e r ­

in g  the same s u b j e c t  m a t t e r  wh ich  may n o t  s e t  

i d e n t i c a l  su bs tan t ive  or procedura l  standards .  In 

the  i n s t a n t  c a s e ,  a l t h o u g h  T i t l e  V I I  does  not  

r e q u i r e  p r o o f  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  i n t e n t ,  T i t l e  VI, 

which a l s o  app l ie s  to  h i r i n g  under c e r t a i n  c ircum­

s t a n c e s ,  may e s t a b l i s h  a d i f f e r e n t  r u l e ,  s ee  

Regents  o f  U n iv e rs i ty  o f  C a l i f o r n i a  v .  Bakke, 57 

L . E d .2d  750,  7 6 7 - 6 9 ,  7 9 5 -8 0 3  ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,  and the

a n t i - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  p r o v i s i o n  o f  the Revenue 

Sharing Act ,  31 U.S.C.  51242(a ) ,  cou ld  have even 

another meaning. S i m i la r l y ,  i f  a d ispute  arose  as 

to whether the p r i n c i p l e  o f  respondeat super io r  

should be app l ied  in a s e c t i o n  1981 case ,  r e f e r e n c e  

cou ld  be made to 42 U.S.C. §1983, which r e j e c t s  

t h a t  p r i n c i p l e ,  Monell v .  Department o f  S o c ia l  

S e r v i c e s , 56 L.Ed.2d 611, 636-38 (1978 ) ,  or to

T i t l e  VII  which ap p l ie s  i t  .—^Second, i t  was the 

c l e a r  in tent  o f  Congress in adopting T i t l e  VII not 

to  r e p e a l  any p r e - e x i s t i n g  r i g h t s  under o t h e r  

s t a t u t e s .  Both in  1964 and i n  1972 C o n g r e ss  

r e j e c t e d  proposa ls  to  make T i t l e  VII  the e x c lu s iv e

5/  See, e . g . ,  Reyes v .  Matthews, 428 F.Supp. 
300, 301 (D.D.C. 1976) .



-  13 -

(S /p r o h i b i t i o n  aga inst  employment d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ' In 

1972 o p p o n e n t s  o f  such a p r o p o s a l  e x p r e s s l y  

r e f e r r e d  to  the 1866 C i v i l  Rights Act and argued 

that i t  was needed s in c e  "employees are not f u l l y  

p r o t e c t e d "  by T i t l e  VII because o f  the r e s t r i c ­

t i o n s  w r i t t e n  i n to  T i t l e  VII to  assure i t s  pas­

sag e .—  ̂ In 1964 a J u s t i c e  Department memorandum 

p l a c e d  in  the  C o n g r e s s i o n a l  R e c o r d  by S e n a t o r  

Clark s ta t ed  " [ T ] i t l e  VII i s  not intended to and 

do e s  no t  deny t o  any i n d i v i d u a l ,  r i g h t s  and

remedies which he may pursue under o th er  Federal
8 /and S t a t e  S t a t u t e s " . — Thus w h i l e  the  jar p a r i  

materia  ru le  may be used where i t  would have a 

p o s s i b l y  expansive impact on s e c t i o n  1981, that 

ru le  cannot be r e l i e d  on to  read in t o  s e c t i o n  1981 

e i t h e r  the substant ive- -̂ or procedural— ^ l im it a ­
t i o n s  o f  T i t l e  VII.

6. See 118 Cong. R e c . 3964-65 (1972 ) ;  110 Cong. 
R ec . 13650-52 (1964 ) ;  Runyon v .  McCrary, 427 U.S. 
at 174-75; Alexander v .  Gardner-Denver C o . ,  415 
U.S. 36, 48, n .9 (1974) .

]_/ 118 Cong. Rec .  3372 ( rem ark s  o f  Sen.
W i l l ia m s ) ,  3962 (remarks o f  Sen. J a v i t s ) .

8/  110 Cong. Rec. 7207.

9/  See, e . g . ,  42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b ) ,  2 0 0 0 e - l ,
2000e -2 ( f ) ,  2000e -2 (h ) ,  2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( i ) ,  2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( j ) .

10/  See, e . g . ,  42 U.S.C. § § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( c ) , 2000e-
5 ( e ) ,  2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f ) ,  2 0 0 0 e -5 (g ) .



The language o f  s e c t i o n  1 o f  the 1866 C i v i l  

Rights Act does not e x p r e s s ly  l im i t  i t s  p r o t e c ­

t i o n s  to cases o f  i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  I t  

prov ides  that a l l  " c i t i z e n s ,  o f  every race  and 

c o l o r ,  without regard to any prev ious c o n d i t i o n  

o f  s la v e r y  or  invo luntary  serv i tu de  . . .  s h a l l  have 

the same r i g h t  . . .  t o  make and e n fo rce  c o n t r a c t s  

. . . .  as i s  en joyed by white  c i t i z e n s . "— ^Grammati­

c a l l y  the r e f e r e n c e s  to  race  and prev ious  s e r v i ­

tude merely e x p la in  who is  included w ith in  the 

p r o t e c t i o n  o f  the s t a t u t e ,  not what r i g h t s  are 

c o n f e r r e d .  Cf . McDonald v ,  Santa Fe T r a i l  Trans­

p o r t a t i o n  Co. ,  427 U.S. 273, 288 (1976 ) .  Sect ion  

2 o f  the Act ,  which c l e a r l y  did  have a p a r t i c u l a r  

in te n t  requirement,  r e f e r r e d  to  p e n a l t i e s  on any 

person "on account o f  such person having at any 

time been he ld  in a c o n d i t i o n  o f  s l a v e r y "  or  "by 

reason o f  h i s  race  or  c o l o r " ,  but th is  terminology  

i s  not used in  s e c t i o n  1. S i m i la r l y ,  the phrase 

"because o f  race  or  c o l o r "  was used in  s e c t i o n  14

-  14 -
I

11/ 14 Sta t .  27.



-  15 -

o f  the Freedmen's Bureau Act o f  1866-=—' t o  i n d i c a t e  

an in te n t  requirement.  The broader language o f  

s e c t i o n  1 o f  the  C i v i l  R i g h t s  A ct  was n o t ,  we 

suggest ,  "a mere s l i p  o f  the l e g i s l a t i v e  p e n . "  

Jon es  v .  A l f r e d  Mayer C o . ,  392 U.S .  409 ,  427 

( 1 9 6 8 ) .  The r e f e r e n c e  t o  the  r i g h t s  a c t u a l l y  

" e n jo y e d "  by w h i te s ,  instead  o f  a mere requirement 

that there be no express d i f f e r e n c e  in r i g h t s ,  

contemplates on i t s  face  e q u a l i t y  in the p r a c t i c a l  

consequences o f  r i g h t s .  This i s  c o n s i s t e n t  with 

Senator Trumbul l 's  a s s e r t i o n  when in t r o d u c in g  the 

b i l l  that " [ t ] h e r e  i s  very  l i t t l e  importance in 

the general  d e c l a r a t i o n  o f  a b s t ra c t  truths and 

p r i n c i p l e s  unless  they can be c a r r i e d  in to  e f f e c t ,  

un less  the persons who are to  be a f f e c t e d  by them 

have some means o f  a v a i l i n g  themselves o f  th e i r  
b e n e f i t s . ^

The one u n d i s p u t e d  g o a l  o f  C o n g r e ss  in 
enact ing  the C i v i l  Rights Act was " e l im i n a t i n g  the 

infamous Black Codes ."  Jones v.  A l f r e d  Mayer Co. ,  

392 U.S .  409 ,  433 ( 1 9 7 8 ) .  The c o d e s  were e x -

12/

12/ 14 Sta t .  177.

13 /  Cong. G l o b e ,  39th C o n g . ,  1st  S e s s . ,  474.



-  16 -

p r e s s l y  r e f e r r e d  t o  by b o t h  the  House-^-/"and 

S e n a t e ^ ^ sp o n s o rs  o f  the Act .  In responding to 

Pres ident  Johnson's  ve to  message, Senator Trumbull 

i n s i s t e d  that  i t  was these " o p p r e s s i v e "  laws which 

made l e g i s l a t i o n  necessary  ,-5-^Congres s was th or ­

oughly f a m i l i a r  with the d e t a i l s  o f  these  Codes;  

they were quoted on the f l o o r  and the s ta t us  o f  

l e g i s l a t i o n  in  each  s t a t e  was the s u b j e c t  o f  

repeated  d i s c u s s i o n s  Congress c l e a r l y  under­
stood  that  i f  the C i v i l  Rights Acts were passed

18/those  Codes would be " a n n u l l e d " . —  A c co rd in g ly  

the terms and nature o f  the Black Codes themselves 

are o f  su b s t a n t i a l  importance in determining  the 
in te n t  o f  Congress.

The C i v i l  Rights Act guarantees b lacks  the 

r i g h t  t o  "make . . .  c o n t r a c t s "  and Congressman 

Thayer complained that the Black Codes " impair  

[ f reedm ens ' ]  a b i l i t y  to  make c o n t r a c t s  f o r  labor

14/ Id. pp. 39, 40, 41 (remarks o f  Rep. Wilson)

15/ Id. pp. 474, 475 (remarks o f  Sen. Trumbull)

16,/ Id. p. 1759.

17/
1118-

See n n . 14 
-19, 1123-25,

- 1 6 ,  i n f r a ;  see a l s o  i d .  pp 
1151-53, 1159-60, 1838, 1839

18 /  I d . 
W i lson ) .

pp. 39, 40 :, 41,  111 ( rem arks  o f  Rep



17

in such a manner as v i r t u a l l y  to depr iv e  them o f
19/the power o f  making such c o n t r a c t s . " —  None o f  

the Black Codes,  however,  l i t e r a l l y  forbade b lacks  

from making labor  c o n t r a c t s ;  on the con trary ,  they 

contemplated that such c o n t r a c t s  would be made and 

f r e q u e n t ly  requ ired  that  they be in  w r i t i n g , — ^a 

p r a c t i c e  encouraged by the Freedmen's Bureau. The 

p r o v i s i o n s  o f  the Codes with which Congress was 

concerned a f f e c t e d  freedom o f  c o n t r a c t  in a d i f ­

f e r e n t  manner, and were g e n e r a l l y  r a c i a l l y  n eutra l  

on t h e i r  f a c e ,  though not in t h e i r  e f f e c t .  The

p r o v i s i o n s  most r e p e a te d ly  o b j e c t e d  to  by Congress
21 /were the vagrancy laws .—  These s t a t u t e s  de f ined  

vagrants in such a broad way as to inc lude  v i r ­

t u a l l y  any a d u l t  b l a c k  who was n o t  g a i n f u l l y  

employed, and prov ided  that any person c o n v ic te d  

o f  vagrancy cou ld  be punished by being bound out

19/ Cong. Globe, 39th Cong, 1st S e s s . ,  p. 1151.

20/  W. Fleming, Documentary H istory  o f  Reconstruc ­
t i o n ,  v .  1, pp. 288 ( M i s s i s s i p p i ) ,  299 (South  
C a r o l i n a ) ;  E. McPherson, P o l i t i c a l  H istory  o f  the 
U n i t e d  S t a t e s  o f  A m er ica  During  The P e r i o d  Of 
R e co n s t r u c t i o n ,  p. 39 ( F l o r i d a ) .

21/  See Cong. Globe,  39th Cong. ,  1st S e s s . ,  pp. 
504 (remarks o f  Sen. Howard), 1123, 1124 (remarks 
o f  Rep. C o o k ) ,  1151 ( rem arks  o f  Rep. T h a y e r ) ,  
1160 (remarks o f  Rep. Windom).



18 -

to  any person f o r  a pe r io d  o f  up to one y e a r . — ^Of

the f i v e  such laws, however,  four conta ined  no

r e f e r e n c e  to  r a c e ,  and l i t e r a l l y  app l ied  to  whites

as w e l l  as b la c k s .  In M i s s i s s i p p i  the general

d e f i n i t i o n  o f  vagrancy app l ied  to everyone,  but

the law a l s o  deemed as vagrants freedmen,

r e g a r d le s s  o f  t h e i r  employment, who were " found

unlaw fu ll y  assembling t o g e t h e r " ,  but even in  that

case whites  assembling with the freedmen were a lso
23 /cons idered  v a g r a n ts .—

Secon d in  i m p o r t a n c e  t o  the  v a g r a n c y  laws 

were s t a t e  laws r e g u la t i n g  the terms and condi-*
r\ / j

t i o n s  o f  e m p lo y m e n t . ---- ' T h e s e  p r o v i d e d ,  i n t e r

a i i a ; that an employee 's  wages would be f o r f e i t e d  

i f  he did not  complete the term o f  h i s  c o n t r a c t ,  

that he cou ld  be f in e d  by h is  employer f o r  d i s ­

obed ience ,  be ing "absent from home without l e a v e " ,  

or f o r  i n j u r i e s  to  t o o l s  and animals.  No v i s i t o r s

22/  McPherson, supra , pp. 30 ( M i s s i s s i p p i ) ,  33 
( G e o r g i a ) ,  39 ( F l o r i d a ) ,  41 ( V i r g i n i a ) ,  4 3 - 4 4  
( L o u i s i a n a ) .

23/ Fleming, supra , p. 284. In a d d i t io n  only  
b lack  vagrants cou ld  be h i r e d  out to  earn t h e i r  
f i n e s .  W_. p. 285.

24/  See Cong. R e c . ,  39th Cong. ,  1st S e s s . , 39 
(remarks o f  Rep. Wilson)  (p r o v i s i o n s  o f  Georgia 
r e g u la t i o n s  condemned as "degrading and a r b i t r a r y " )



19; -

c o u l d  be r e c e i v e d  d u r i n g  w o r k in g  h o u r s  and no

l i v e s t o c k  k e p t  w i t h o u t  the  e m p l o y e r ' s  p e r m i s -  
2 5 /

s i o n . ----  D i s o b e d i e n c e  by an e m p lo y e e  was a

cr im in a l  o f f e n s e ,  and the employer cou ld  have a

worker whipped f o r  "want o f  r e sp e ct  and c i v i l i t y

to  h i m s e l f ,  h i s  fam i ly ,  guests  or  a g e n t s " .— 'Most

s t a t e s  made i t  a crime to  induce an employee away

from h is  j o b ,  thus e f f e c t i v e l y  l o ck in g  him in to
2 7 /w o r k in g  f o r  h i s  o l d  m a st e r ---- f o r  at  l e a s t  the

term o f  each c o n t r a c t ,  and in South Carol ina  an

employee could  not c o n t r a c t  with a new employer

"without pro d u ct io n  o f  the d i scharge  o f  h i s  former
2 8 /m a s t e r . " —  These  o n e r o u s  r e g u l a t i o n s ,  in  the

case o f  South Caro l in a , Alabama, and Louis iana,
l i t e r a l l y app l ied  to  a l l laborers reg a r d le ss  o f
race  :; in M i s s i s s i p p i  and F lo r id a , on the o th er
hand., they appl ied  on ly  to b l a c k s .

25/ See , e . g . , McPherson, supra, p . 39 ( F l o r i d a ) .

2 6 /  See ,  
C a r o l i n a ) .

e . g . ,  F lem in g , su p r a , p.  301 (South

27/ See, e . g . , McPherson,, supra, pp. 31 ( M i s s i s -
s i p p i ) ,  34 (Alabama), 40 ( F l o r i d a ) ,  43 ( L o u i s i ­
ana) ;  Fleming, supra , pp. 287-9 ( M i s s i s s i p p i ) ,  302 
(South C a r o l in a ) .

28/  Fleming, supra , p. 30-2.



-  20

Third,  South Carol ina  and M i s s i s s i p p i  e s t a b ­
l i s h e d  by s t a t u t e  apparently  harsh ru les  

regarding  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  o f  masters and appren­

t i c e s ,  but in genera l  these p r o v i s i o n s  applied 
r e g a r d le s s  o f  r a c e . — ^

Thus the p r o v i s i o n s  o f  the Black Codes which 

r e s t r i c t e d  the r ig h t  o f  freedmen to  c o n t r a c t  did 

so in most instances  in a r a c i a l l y  neutr a l  manner. 

Congress,  however,  had no doubt that  adoption  o f  

the C i v i l  Rights Act would be s u f f i c i e n t  by i t s e l f  

to abrogate  the Codes. Nothing in  the l e g i s l a t i v e  

h i s t o r y  suggests  that Congress assumed the Codes 

would remain in e f f e c t  unless  and u n t i l  i t  was 

p r o v e d  at  t r i a l  t h a t  t h e y  had been  a d o p t e d  t o  

d i s c r im in a t e  aga inst  b la c k s ;  indeed,  under the 

then  a p p l i c a b l e  d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h i s  Court  an 

in qu iry  in t o  the motives o f  a l e g i s l a t u r e  would 
im perm iss ib le .  F le t c h e r  v .  Peck , 6 

Cranch .  87,  130 ( 1 8 1 0 ) ;  Ex p a r t e  M c C ard le ,  7

29/ Id,  pp. 282-83 ( M i s s i s s i p p i ) ,  297-99 (South 
C a r o l in a ) .  M i s s i s s i p p i ,  but not South C aro l in a ,  
auth or ized  l o c a l  c ourts  to apprent ice  out black  
c h i l d r e n  whose p a r e n t s  c o u l d  n o t  or  would  not  
support them. South C aro l in a ,  but not M i s s i s ­
s i p p i ,  r e q u i r e d  t h a t  an a r t i s a n  who needed  a 
l i c e n s e  to  p r a c t i c e  h is  trade must a l so  ob ta in  a 
l i c e n s e  f o r  a b la c k ,  but apparent ly  not a white ,  
a p p r e n t i c e .



-  21

Wall .  506, 514 (1869 ) .  ^To the extent that the

Thir ty -N inth  Congress d is c u s se d  the purposes o f

southern l e g i s l a t u r e s ,  i t  was concerned with a

continued s p i r i t  o f  i n s u r r e c t i o n  and a d e s i r e  to  
31/preserve  s l a v e r y ; —  c e r t a i n l y  p r o o f  o f  that s o r t  o f  

m ot iva t ion  i s  not re qu ire d  to  e s t a b l i s h  a 
v i o l a t i o n  o f  s e c t i o n  1981.

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  o f  the Black Codes which 
p laced  them square ly  w ith in  the p r o h i b i t i o n s  o f  

the C i v i l  Rights Act ,  and which was the c e n tr a l  

reason f o r  c o n g re s s i o n a l  a c t i o n ,  was that "under 

o ther  names and in o ther  forms a system o f  invo lu n ­

tary  serv i tu de  [was] perpetuated over th is  u n f o r -  
32/tunate r a c e . " —  The s o c i a l  c o n d i t i o n s  extant b e -

3 0 /  T h is  r u l e  was adhered  t o  as r e c e n t l y  as 
Palmer v.  Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 224-25 (1971) .  
A l t h o u g h  PaImer i n d i c a t e s ,  and W ashington  v .  
D av is , 426 U.S. 229 (1976 ) ,  ho lds  that an inqu iry  
i n t o  l e g i s l a t i v e  m o t i v e  may be n e c e s s a r y ,  and 
hence p e r m i s s ib l e ,  under the Fourteenth Amendment, 
that Amendment was not r a t i f i e d  u n t i l  two years 
a f t e r  p a s s a g e  o f  the 1866 C i v i l  R i g h t s  A c t .

31/  I d . ,  pp. 1839 (remarks o f  Sen. C larke ) ,  1785 
(remarks o f  Sen. Stew art ) .

32/  I d . ,  p. 1124 (remarks o f  Rep. Cook) .



-  22

f o r e  t h e  a d o p t i o n  o f  the T h i r t e e n t h  Amendment

were  " p e r p e t u a t e d "  i n  two s e n s e s .  F i r s t ,  the

r e s t r i c t i o n s  in  f a c t  s u f f e r e d  by b l a c k s  were

s i m i la r  i f  not i d e n t i c a l  to  those imposed in an
33/e x p r e s s ly  r a c i a l  manner by the o ld  s lave  c o d e s . —

Second, the r a c i a l l y  neutra l  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  the

then Black Codes bore  p r im ar i ly  on b lacks  because

o f  the s o c i a l  and economic consequences o f  the

r e c e n t l y  ended d i s c r im in a t o r y  laws and economic

system o f  the s lave  s t a t e s .  Thus Senator Clarke

asser ted  the Codes would " v i r t u a l l y  make s e r f s  o f

the  p e r s o n s  t h a t  the  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  amendment
3 4 /

made f r e e " . — R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  Thayer  f e l t  the

Codes would " r e t a i n  [freedmen] in a s t a t e  o f  r ea l  
35 /s e r v i t u d e " . ---- R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  Cook u rg e d  the

36/Codes would " v i r t u a l l y  r e e n s la v e "  the b l a c k s , —

and Representa tive  Wilson f e l t  that under them
3 7 /

b lacks  were " p r a c t i c a l l y  s l a v e s " . — - Since Congress

3 3 /  I d . p.  474 ( rem ark s  o f  Sen.  T r u m b u l l ) .

34/ Id. P- 1839

35/ Id. P- 1151

36/ Id. P- 1124

37/ Id. P- 41.



23

was concerned with the p r a c t i c a l  consequences o f  

the B la c k  C odes ,  i t  n a t u r a l l y  r e g a r d e d  the 

vagrancy and labor  r e g u l a t i o n  laws, whose harsh 

impact f e l l  p r im a r i ly  on former s l a v e s ,  as d e p r iv ­

in g  them o f  " t h e  same r i g h t  . . .  t o  make and 

e n f o r c e  c o n t r a c t s  . . .  as i s  e n j o y e d  by w h i t e  
c i t i z e n s . "

The o th er  r i g h t s  with which the C i v i l  Rights

Act was concerned were g e n e r a l l y  d e a l t  with by the

s o u t h e r n  s t a t e s ,  i f  at a l l ,  in  an e x p r e s s l y

r a c i a l  manner,  but  t h e s e  p r o v i s i o n s  were l e s s

common and o f  l e s s  p r a c t i c a l  importance than the

labor  and vagrancy p o r t i o n s  o f  the Black Codes.
No example was c i t e d  during the debates o f  a Black

Code which l im i te d  the r igh t  o f  freedmen to  sue

and be p a r t i e s ;  th is  c lause  appears to  have been

added because there  were such r e s t r i c t i o n s  in the
3 8 /o l d  S la v e  C o d e s , ---- ' b u t  the B l a c k  Codes that

mention the r i g h t  to sue and be sued a l l  e x p re ss ly

3 8 /  S e n a t o r  Sherman u rg e d  t h a t  t h i s  r i g h t  be 
p r o t e c t e d  because a man would not  "be f r e e  without 
the r i g h t  t o  sue and be su e d ,  t o  p l e a d  and be 
impleaded ."  Cong. Globe,  39th Cong.,  1st Sess.  
41.



24 -

gave t h a t  r i g h t  t o  b l a c k s . —  No l i m i t a t i o n s

appear to have e x i s t e d  with regard to  personal

p r o p e r ty .  The l i m i t a t i o n s  on the ownership o f

r e a l  p r o p e r t y  were e x p r e s s l y  r a c i a l ,  but  so

f a r  as we have  been  a b l e  t o  a s c e r t a i n  t h e s e
40/e x i s t e d  only  m  M i s s i s s i p p i —  and c e r t a i n  l o c a l -  

• ■ • . . . 41 /l t i e s  w i t h i n  L o u i s i a n a . ----  In g e n e r a l  s t a t e

laws prov ided  f o r  the same cr im in a l  p e n a l t i e s  f o r
/ *7 /

b lacks  and w h i t e s , —  except  that the rape o f  a

white woman by a b la ck  man was o f t e n  the su b je c t
43/o f  a h e av ie r  p e n a l t y . —  Those Codes de a l in g  with 

test imony by freedmen e i t h e r  al lowed i t  in a l l

3 9 /

39/  McPherson, supra pp. 29 (North C a r o l in a ) ,  31 
( M i s s i s s i p p i ) ,  321 (G e o r g ia ) ,  33 (Alabama), 34 
(Sou th  C a r o l i n a ) ,  42 ( T e n n e s s e e ) ,  43 ( T e x a s ) ;  
Fleming, supra , p. 274 (Arkansas) .

40/  McPher son, supra , p. 31.

41 /  McPherson ,  s u p r a , p .  279 ( p a r i s h  o f  S t .  
L a n d r y ) ;  W. F le m in g ,  Documents R e l a t i n g  to 
R e co n s tru c t io n ,  p. 31 (town o f  Ope lousas) ( h e r e i n -  
a f t e r  c i t e d  as "Documents") .

42 /  McPherson, supra , p. 33 (G e o r g ia ) ;  Fleming, 
supra , pp. 289 ( M i s s i s s i p p i ) ,  293 (North C a r o l in a ) .

4 3 /  F l e m in g ,  s u p r a , p .  293 (N o r t h  C a r o l i n a ) ;  
McPherson, supra, p. 34 (South C a r o l in a ) .



25

cases— ' o r  in any case where a b la ck  was a party
45 /or  had an i n t e r e s t . ----  On the  o t h e r  hand,  the

B l a c k  Codes c o n t a i n e d  numerous o t h e r  forms o f  

e x p r e s s ly  r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  which were not dea l t

with by the C i v i l  Rights A c t ,  in c lu d in g  p r o h i b i -
. . . 46 /  . .t i o n s  against  b lacks  owning guns,—  c o - h a b i t i n g

47 /  . • • 48/with w h i t e s , — attend ing  white  p u b l i c  s c h o o l s , —
• • 4 9 /  j „ • 5 0 / „ .s e r v i n g  on j u r i e s ----  and v o t i n g . —  Thus w h i l e

the C i v i l  Rights Act c l e a r l y  p r o h ib i t e d  in t e n ­
t i o n a l  r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in the areas with 

which i t  was concerned,  the g r e a t e s t  p r a c t i c a l  

impact o f  n u l l i f y i n g  the Black Codes, as Congress

4 4 /  F l e m in g ,  s u p r a , pp. 274 ( A r k a n s a s ) ,  275
(Alabama); McPherson, supra , p. 42 (Tennessee ) .

45 /  McPherson, supra, p. 29 (North C a r o l in a ) ;
Fleming, supra , pp. 287 ( M i s s i s s i p p i ) ,  293 North 
C a r o l in a ) ,  311 (Texas ) .

46/  Fleming, supra , p. 289 ( M i s s i s s i p p i ) .

47/  I d . pp. 273, 274 (Alabama), 288 ( M i s s i s s i p p i )

48/  I d . pp. 275 (Arkansas) ,  277-78 ( F l o r i d a ) ,  311 
(T ennessee ) ,  312 (Texas ) .

4 9 /  I d .  p p . 275 ( A r k a n s a s ) ,  311 ( T e n n e s s e e ) .  

50/  Id.  p. 275 (Arkansas) .



-  26 -

must have been aware, was the e l im i n a t i o n  o f  the 

p r o v i s i o n s  on labor  and vagrancy,  o f t e n  r a c i a l l y  

n eu tra l  on t h e i r  f a c e ,  which had the e f f e c t  o f  

perpetuat in g  the i n f e r i o r  stautes  to  which b lack  

w o r k e r s  had e a r l i e r  be e n  c o n s i g n e d  b e c a u s e  o f  
t h e i r  race .

Th is  c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f  the 1866 Act  i s  c o n ­

f i r m e d  by the r e s p o n s e s  t o  the  B la c k  Codes o f  

the m i l i t a r y  o f f i c i a l s  in  c h a r g e  o f  the  u n io n  

f o r c e s  then occupy ing  the south.  With the knowl­

edge and approval  o f  the Th ir ty -N inth  Congress,  

commanding generals  annulled p r o v i s i o n s  o f  the 

Black Codes in M i s s i s s i p p i ,  V i r g i n i a ,  Alabama, 

North Carol ina  and South Carol ina .— ^This a c t i o n  

was not l im i te d  to  the e x p r e ss ly  r a c i a l  p r o v i s i o n s  

o f  those Codes;  in South C aro l in a ,  f o r  example, 

General S i c k l e s '  o rders  i n v a l id a t e d  the r a c i a l l y  

n e u t r a l  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  the  s t a t e ' s  laws which  

punished as vagrants peop le  who cou ld  not  f ind 

work ,  a u t h o r i z e d  c o r p o r a l  punishment f o r  d i s ­
obedient employees, and prec luded workers from 

taking a new job  without the approval  o f  t h e i r

51/  Cong. Globe,  39th Cong. ,  1st S e s s . ,  pp. 39, 
111, 603 (remarks o f  Rep. W i lso n ) ,  1123 (remarks 
o f  Rep. Cook) .



27

52/  . . . . .former employer .—  In s t r i k i n g  down the V i r g i n i a

vagrancy law, General  Terry,  in an explanat ion

q u o t e d  in  p a r t  by S e n a t o r  Trum bul l  d u r i n g  the
53 /d e b a t e s  on the  C i v i l  R i g h t s  A c t , —  made no 

r e f e r e n c e  to  the motives o f  the l e g i s l a t u r e ,  but 

c o n s i d e r e d  o n l y  the  f a c t  t h a t  " [ t  ]he  u l t i m a t e  

e f f e c t  o f  the  s t a t u t e  w i l l  be t o  r e d u c e  the 

freedmen to  a c o n d i t i o n  o f  s erv i tu de  worse than 

that  from which they have been emancipated —  a 

c o n d i t i o n  which w i l l  be s la v e r y  in a l l  but i t s

52/  McPherson, supra , pp. 36-37 ,  H I V ,  X I I I ,  XVII.

53/  Cong. Globe,  39th Cong. ,  1st S e s s . ,  p. 1759.

5 4 /  T h is  i s  the p a s s a g e  q u o t e d  by S e n a t o r  
Trumbull.  The more d e t a i l e d  exp lanat ion  which 
preceded was as f o l l o w s :  " In  many count ies  o f
t h i s  State meetings o f  employers have been h e ld ,  
and unjust  and wrongful  combinations have been 
entered  i n to  f o r  the purpose o f  depress ing  the 
wages o f  the  f reedm en  b e lo w  the  r e a l  v a l u e  o f  
t h e i r  l a b o r ,  far  below the p r i c e s  formerly  paid by 
masters f o r  labor  performed by t h e i r  s l a v e s .  By 
reason o f  these  combinations wages u t t e r l y  in ­
adequate to the support  o f  themselves and f a m i l i e s  
have, in many p l a c e s ,  become the usual  and common 
wages o f  the freedmen. The e f f e c t  o f  the s ta t ut e  
in  q u e s t i o n  w i l l  b e ,  t h e r e f o r e ,  t o  com pe l  the 
freedmen, under penal ty  o f  punishment as c r im in a l s ,  
to  accept  and labor  f o r  the wages e s t a b l i s h e d  by



-  28 -

I t  i s  thus c l e a r  that  Congress did not intend 

that the p r o h i b i t i o n  o f  the 1866 C i v i l  Rights Act 

be l im i t e d  t o  instances  where r a c i a l  motive could 

be proven, but was concerned about whether the 

consequence o f  a p a r t i c u l a r  law or  p r a c t i c e  was to 

render b lacks  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  l e s s  able  to  en joy  the 

r i g h t s  e x e r c i s e d  by w hites .  This Court need not  

in t h i s  case dec ide  a l l  p o s s i b l e  l e g a l  questi ons  

which might a r i s e  from t h i s  aspec t  o f  the Act .  I t  

is  s u f f i c i e n t  f o r  the d i s p o s i t i o n  o f  th is  case  to 

ho ld  that a p r a c t i c e  which prevents such equal  

enjoyment by perpetuat in g  past i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s ­

c r im in at ion  i s  f o rb idden  by s e c t i o n  1981. That 

was c l e a r l y  the impact o f  the Black Codes, f o r  

t h e i r  r e a d i l y  p e rce iv e d  c o e r c i v e  e f f e c t  on b la ck s ,  

and r e l a t i v e l y  minor e f f e c t  on w h i te s ,  der ived  

from the d r a s t i c a l l y  d i f f e r e n t  s o c i a l ,  economic 

and edu ca t ion a l  s ta tus  o f  b la ck  and white  workers,

54/  Cont ' d .

these combinations o f  employers.  I t  p la ces  them 
whol ly  in the power o f  t h e i r  employers,  and i t  
is  easy to f o r e s e e  th at ,  even where no such combina­
t i o n  now e x i s t s ,  t h e  t e m p t a t i o n  t o  form them 
o f f e r e d  by the s t a t u t e  w i l l  be too st rong  to  be 
r e s i s t e d ,  and t h a t  such  i n a d e q u a t e  wages w i l l  
become the common and usual  wages throughout the 
S t a t e . "  McPherson, supra, p. 42.



-  29

which was in turn ro o t e d  in  a centu ry  o f  s lav ery  

and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .

T h is  c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f  s e c t i o n  1981 a c c o r d s  

with the e s t a b l i s h e d  c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f  the Four­

teenth Amendment. This Court has r e p e a t e d ly  he ld  

that  n eu tra l  s t a t e  p r a c t i c e s  which perpetuate  the 

e f f e c t s  o f  past  i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  are 

t h e m s e l v e s  u n l a w f u l .  A s c h o o l  b o a r d  which  

e a r l i e r  assigned students on the bas is  o f  race  

remains in v i o l a t i o n  o f  the C o n s t i t u t i o n  i f  i t  

adopts a p o l i c y  o f  r e a ss ig n in g  students each year 

to  the s ch o o l  they attended p r e v i o u s l y ,  su b je c t  

o n l y  t o  a t r a n s f e r  p r o c e d u r e  whose burdens  

are  so  g r e a t  as t o  l o c k  s t u d e n t s  i n t o  t h e i r  

o r i g i n a l  s c h o o l .  Green v .  S c h o o l  Board o f

New Kent C o u n t y , 391 U .S .  430 ( 1 9 6 8 ) .  A g e o ­

g r a p h i c  ass ig n m e n t  p la n  t h a t  " a p p e a r s  to  be 

n e u t r a l "  i s  unlawful  i f  i t  maintains in opera­

t i o n  " t h e  c o n t i n u i n g  e f f e c t s  o f  p a s t  s c h o o l  

s e g r e g a t i o n . "  Swann v .  C h a r l o t t e - M e c k l e n b u r g  

Board o f  Ed. ,  402 U.S 1, 28 (1971 ) .  So long as a 

past act o f  i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  caused the 

p r e s e n t  ass ignm ent  o f  a w o r k e r  o r  s t u d e n t ,  
the  " r e m o t e n e s s  in  t i m e "  o f  the  p a s t  i n t e n ­

t i o n a l  c o n d u c t  i s  i r r e l e v a n t  t o  the  l e g a l i t y  

o f  present p r a c t i c e s  which perpetuate  i t s  impact.



-  30 -

Keyes v .  S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t  No. 1 , 413 U .S .  189,  

2 1 0 -211  ( 1 9 7 3 ) .  A s t a t e  which  in  an e a r l i e r  

pe r io d  re fu sed  to  permit b lacks  to  r e g i s t e r  to  

vo te  cannot t h e r e a f t e r  adopt a " n e u t r a l "  p o l i c y  o f  

p r o h i b i t i n g  r e g i s t r a t i o n  now by persons who f a i l e d  

to  r e g i s t e r  during that e a r l i e r  time. Lane v . 

W i l so n , 307 U.S. 265 (1939) .  See a l so  Moose Lodge 

No. 107 v .  I r v i s , 407 U.S. 163, 178-79 (1972 ) .  So 

long as a s t a t e  p r a c t i c e  perpetuates  the e f f e c t  o f  

past  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  the s t a t e  i s  in v i o l a t i o n  o f  

the  C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  r e g a r d l e s s  o f  w h e th e r  t h a t  

p r a c t i c e  was adopted in good f a i t h .

The a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  w r i t t e n  t e s t s  such as 

those administered by p e t i t i o n e r s  w i l l  operate  to  

d i f f e r e n t i a t e  among a pp l i can ts  not p r i m a r i ly ,  i f  

at a l l ,  on the  b a s i s  o f  t h e i r  i n n a t e  a b i l i t y ,  

but a l s o ,  and perhaps s o l e l y  on the b a s i s  o f  the 

educati on  which they have r e c e iv e d .  In Gaston 

County v .  United S t a t e s , 395 U.S. 285 (1969 ) ,  th is  

Court re c o gn iz e d  that  as a p r a c t i c a l  matter  "among 

b lack  c h i ld r e n  compelled to endure a segregated  

and i n f e r i o r  e du ca t io n ,  fewer w i l l  achieve  any 

given degree o f  l i t e r a c y  than w i l l  t h e i r  b e t t e r  

educated white  co n t e m p o r a r ie s . "  395 U.S. at 295.



-  31

G aston  County drew th a t  in f e r e n c e  where the 

examination invo lved  t e s t e d  mere l i t e r a c y ;  the 

q u a l i t y  o f  an a p p l i c a n t ' s  e d u c a t i o n  i s  o f  f a r  

g re a te r  importance where, as here ,  the examination 

t e s t s  more complex v e r b a l  and mathematical  s k i l l s .  

I f  b l a c k  and M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n  a p p l i c a n t s  were 

d e n i e d  e q u a l  e d u c a t i o n a l  o p p o r t u n i t i e s  w h i l e  

young, the " [ i I m p a r t ia l  a dm in is t ra t ion  o f  the . . .  

t e s t  today would serve on ly  to perpetuate  these 

i n e q u i t i e s  in a d i f f e r e n t  f o rm ."  395 U.S, at 297. 

P r a c t i c e s  which thus perpetuated  the e f f e c t  o f  

past d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in educat ion  would have been 

p a r t i c u l a r l y  o b n o x i o u s  t o  the C o n g r e ss  which 

e n a c t e d  the  F o u r t e e n t h  Amendment and th e  1866 

C i v i l  Rights A c t ;  that Congress was f u l l y  aware o f  

the f a c t  that  p r i o r  to  the C i v i l  War the Slave 

Codes o f  most s t a t e s  forbade teaching  s l a v e s ,  and 
in some cases even freedmen, to read and w r i t e ,  

and that s im i la r  p r o h i b i t i o n s  were s t i l l  in  e f f e c t  

in 1866. Brown v.  Board o f  E du cat ion , 347 U.S 

483, 490 (1954 ) . — ''

55/  Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. ,  1st S e s s . ,  pp. 39 
(remarks o f  Rep. W i lson ) ,  474 (remarks o f  Sen. 
Trumbull.  P r i o r  to  the C i v i l  War, teachers were 
a c t u a l l y  j a i l e d  f o r  i n s t r u c t i n g  b la c k  c h i ld r e n  to 
read.  H. Commager, Documents o f  American H is to ry ,  
pp. 327-29 (7th E d . ) .  A f te r  the C i v i l  War the Ku 
Klux Klan threatened and murdered north erners  who



-  32

P e t i t i o n e r s '  w r i t t e n  examinations perpetuate  

the d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  e f f e c t  o f  a centu ry  o f  purpose ­

f u l  r a c i a l  s e g r e g a t  i o n  o f  C a l i f o r n i a  p u b l i c  

s c h o o l s .  See Regents o f  U n iv e rs i ty  o f  C a l i f f o r n i a  

v . Bakke, 57 L.Ed.2d 750, 822 ( o p in io n  o f  J u s t i c e s  

Brennan,  W h ite ,  M a r s h a l l  and B l a c k m u n ) ( 1 9 7 8 ) .  

Soon a f t e r  the f i r s t  p u b l i c  " c o l o r e d  s c h o o l "  was 

opened in  San F r a n c i s c o  f o r  b l a c k  c h i l d r e n ,  

C a l i f o r n i a ' s  educati on  law was e x p r e s s ly  amended 

in 1860 to author ize  separate  s ch o o ls  f o r  "Negroes,  

M o n g o l i a n s  and I n d i a n s . " —  ̂ T h is  s t a t u t e  was 

r e p e a l e d  i n  1 8 8 0 , f o l l o w i n g  th e  c l o s i n g  o f

many o f  the separate b lack  sch oo ls  f o r  reasons o f  
5 8 /e c o n o m y ,—  but was r e p l a c e d  i n  1885 by a new

55/  C on t ' d .

had the e f f r o n t e r y  to teach southern b la c k s .  See 
Cong. G l o b e ,  39th  C o n g . ,  1s t  S e s s .  , p.  1834 
(remarks o f  Rep. Lawrence);  H. Swint, The Northern 
Teacher in the South, 1862-1870, pp. 94-142;  W. 
Fleming, Documentary H istory  o f  R e c o n s tr u c t i o n ,  
v .2 ,  pp. 203-206.

56/  1860 Cal.  S t a t s . ,  c . 3 2 9 ,  §8; see a l s o  1863
Cal . S t a t s . ,  c . 1 5 9 ,  §68.

57/  General School  Law o f  C a l i f o r n i a ,  §1662 at 
14 (1880) .

58/  C. Wollenberg ,  A l l  D e l ib e r a t e  Speed, Segrega­
t i o n  and Exc lus ion  in C a l i f o r n i a  Schoo ls  1855-1975, 
pp. 24-26 (1976) .



-  33 -

s t a t u t e  au t h o r i z in g  segregated  s c h o o l s  f o r  Chi­

nese ,  and l a t e r  Japanese,  Mongolian and Indian 
59/

c h i l d r e n . —  The s ta t e  Attorney  General  subse­

quently  issued an op in ion  that Mexican-Americans 

were Indians ,  and they were thus covered by th is  

l e g i s l a t i o n —  ̂; d e s p i t e  the absence o f  express 

s t a t u t o r y  a u t h o r i z a t i o n  f o r  e x c l u d i n g  b l a c k  

c h i ld r e n  from white s c h o o l s  the system atic  s e g r e ­

g a t io n  o f  b lacks  c o n t in u e d .—  ̂ The s t a t e  se g r e ­

g a t i o n  laws were n o t  r e p e a l e d  u n t i l  1947,  but  

d e s p i t e  t h a t  s t e p ,  and n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g  t h i s  

C o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  i n  Brown v .  Board o f  E duca ­

t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a  a u t h o r i t i e s  continued to  i n t e n ­

t i o n a l l y  exclude  b la ck  and Mexican-American c h i l ­
dren from white p u b l i c  s c h o o l s .  Within the la s t  

decade 20 major sch oo l  d i s t r i c t s  in C a l i f o r n i a ,

59/  1885 Cal.  S t a t s . ,  c . 1 1 7 ,  §1602 (C h in e se ) ;  
1893 Cal . S t a t s . ,  c . 1 9 3 ,  §1662 ( I n d i a n s ) ;  1921 Cal. 
S t a t s . ,  c . 6 8 5 ,  §1 (Japanese ) .

60/  22 C a l i f o r n i a  Department o f  J u s t i c e ,  Opinions 
o f  the Attorney  General ,  Opinion 6735a (January 
23, 1930) ,  931-32 (1930 ) .  See a l so  J. Hendrick, 
The Education o f  Non-Whites in C a l i f o r n i a ,  1849- 
1970, p. 87 (1977) .

61 /  See H e n d r i c k ,  s u p r a , at 7 8 - 8 0 ,  9 8 -1 0 0 .



-  34 -

6 2 /i n c l u d i n g  Los A n g e l e s , — ' h a v e  been  found  t o

be in v i o l a t i o n  o f  f e d e r a l  or  s t a t e  p r o h i b i t i o n s  
. . . 6 3 /a g a i n s t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ----  About h a l f  o f  a l l

b l a c k  and M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n  s t u d e n t s  a t t e n d i n g  

p u b l i c  s c h o o l s  in  C a l i f o r n i a  in  1970 were  in
rj f

d i s t r i c t s  operat in g  such segregated  s c h o o l s . — 'The 

d e l e t e r i o u s  impact on m in o r i ty  students o f  th is  
du a l  sy s t e m ,  which  J u s t i c e  D ou g las  p r o p e r l y  

c h a r a c t e r i z e d  as a " c l a s s i c  c a s e  o f  [ t h e ]  de 

ju r e  se g re g at io n  involved  in Brown v .  Board o f  
Educat ion , "— 'has  been conceded by s ta te  o f f i ­
c i a l s  . 66/

62/  See Kelsey v.  Weinberger, 498 F.2d 701, 704, 
n . 1 9  (D .C .  C i r .  1 9 7 4 ) ;  C raw ford  v .  Board o f  
Educat ion , 17 Cal.  3d 280, 130 Cal . Rptr . 724, 551 
P. 2d 28 (1976) .

63/  See B r i e f  Amicus Curiae f o r  the NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational  Fund, I n c . ,  in No. 76- 
8 1 1 ,  R e g e n t s  o f  U n i v e r s i t y  o f  C a l i f o r n i a  v . 
Bakke, pp. 13a-15a.

64/ I d . ,  p . 15a.

6 5 / Guey Heung Lee v .  J o h n so n ,  404 U. S 1215,
1215 -16 (1971 ) .

66/ See, e . g . , Governor ' s  Commission on the Los
Angeles R i o t s ,  V io len ce  in  the C i ty ,  pp. 49 et



-  35

In a d d i t i o n ,  o f  b l a c k  men i n  C a l i f o r n i a

between the ages o f  21 and 29, the age l i m i t s  f o r

e l i g i b i l i t y  to  take the d ispute d  examination,  50%
6 7/was bo rn  i n  the  s o u t h . ---- 'T h e  i n t r a n s i g e n t  r e ­

fu sa l  o f  southern sch o o l  a u t h o r i t i e s  to  comply 

with Brown i s  w e l l  known; vo lu n tary  a c t i o n  was 

r a r e ,  and n o t  u n t i l  a f t e r  A l e x a n d e r  v .  Holmes 

County Board o f  Educat ion , 396 U.S. 19 (1969 ) ,  did 

the f e d e r a l  cou r ts  achieve  meaningful  desegrega­

t i o n  in a s u b s t a n t i a l  number o f  southern sch oo l  

systems. Black students assigned to  b lack  sch oo ls  

in the south s u f f e r e d  not on ly  because o f  segrega­

t i o n  as s u c h ,  but  a l s o  b e c a u s e  b l a c k  s c h o o l s  

prov ided  in o ther  ways as w e l l  an educati on  far  

i n f e r i o r  t o  t h a t  a f f o r d e d  w h i t e s  in  the  same 

s t a t e s  or  elsewhere in the countr y .  In the black  

s ch o o ls  there was g e n e r a l l y  a h igh er  p u p i l - t e a c h e r

66/  Cont1d .

s e q .  ( 1 9 6 5 ) ;  C a l i f o r n i a  L e g i s l a t i v e  Assem bly  
Permanent Subcommittee on Post Secondary Educa­
t i o n ,  Unequal Access to  C o l lege  (1975) .  See a lso  
United States Commission on C i v i l  Rights ,  Mexican- 
American Education Study, Reports I -VI (1971 -74 ) .

67/  U.S. Bureau o f  the Census, 1970 Census o f  
Populat ion ,  Ser ies  PC(2)-2A,  State o f  B ir th ,  p. 
156.



-  3 6

r a t i o  and l o w e r  p e r  c a p i t a  e x p e n d i t u r e s ,  the  

t e a c h e r s  were l e s s  w e l l  t r a i n e d  and had l o w e r  

s a l a r i e s ,  the p h y s i c a l  f a c i l i t i e s  were f r e q u e n t ly

i n f e r i o r ,  and in some cases the academic year was
, „  68 /s h o r t e r .—

We t h i n k  i t  u n l i k e l y  t h a t  in  a d o p t i n g  the 

1866 C i v i l  Rights Act f o r b id d in g  s t a t e  p r a c t i c e s  

which perpetu ate  the e f f e c t  o f  past d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  

Congress intended that the Act would not  p r o t e c t  

an e x - s l a v e  from V i r g i n i a  i f  he moved to  Georg ia .  

Such a d i s t i n c t i o n  would have had the incongruous 

e f f e c t  o f  f o r b id d in g  s t a t e s  to  apply t h e i r  vagrancy 

laws t o  t h e i r  own n a t i v e s ,  but  p e r m i t t i n g  the  

s t a t e s  to  apply those laws to  former s laves  from

68/  State by s t a t e  s t a t i s t i c s  on each o f  these  
f a c t o r s  were set  f o r t h  in the In t e r v e n o r s '  S t a t e ­
ment Of M ate r ia l  Facts As To Which There Is No 
Genuine Issue in New York v .  United S t a t e s , No. 
2419-71, D .D .C . .  Judgment in favor  o f  the i n t e r v e ­
nors in that case ,  which in vo lved  the a p p l i c a ­
b i l i t y  to  c e r t a i n  New York co u n t ie s  o f  the Voting 
Rights Act o f  1965, was af f i rmed  by th is  Court.  
419 U.S. 888 (1974 ) .  Some o f  these s t a t i s t i c s
are reproduced in the Motion o f  P l a i n t i f f s - I n t e r -  
venors To Af f i rm ,  No. 73-1740, pp. la -31a .



-  37 -

o t h e r  s t a t e s . — I t  a l s o  would  have  t e n d e d  t o  

d iscourage  e x - s l a v e s  from moving away from t h e i r  

former masters ,  one o f  the primary goa ls  o f  the 

Black Codes which Congress d e p lo re d .  We t h e r e f o r e  

suggest  that  the 1866 C i v i l  Rights Act f o r b i d s  Los 

Angeles from using  a non j o b - r e l a t e d  t e s t  which 

p e r p e t u a t e s  the e f f e c t  o f  p a s t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  

r e g a r d le ss  o f  whether that d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  occurred  

in C a l i f o r n i a  or  some o ther  s t a t e .

6 9 /

69/  General  T e r r y ' s  d e c i s i o n  to  annul the V i r g i ­
n ia  vagrancy laws was premised on the f a c t  that  i t  
would have an adverse impact on freedmen due, not 
to  any past d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  by V i r g i n i a ,  but to 
"wrongful  combinat ions"  by p r iv a t e  employers to 
reduce wages. See n .54 ,  supra . Congressman Windom 
e x p r e s s e d  a s i m i l a r  c o n c e r n  w i t h  such p r i v a t e  
c o n s p i r a c i e s ,  arguing they prov ided a reason f o r  
adopting  the C i v i l  Rights Act and annuling the 
Black Codes. Cong. G l o b e . ,  39th Cong. ,  1st Se s s . ,
p. 1160.



38

CONCLUSION

For the f o r e g o in g  reasons the judgment o f  the 
court  o f  appeals should be a f f i rm ed .

JACK GREENBERG 
0. PETER SHERWOOD 
ERIC SCHNAPPER 

Suite  2030 
10 Columbus C i r c l e  
New York, New York 10019

Counsel f o r  Amicus



ME1LEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. 219