翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Washington University (medical school) ・ Washington University Bears ・ Washington University Bears football ・ Washington University Hilltop Campus Historic District ・ Washington University in St. Louis ・ Washington University Law Review ・ Washington University Libraries ・ Washington University Medical Center ・ Washington University School of Dental Medicine ・ Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Science ・ Washington University School of Law ・ Washington University School of Medicine ・ Washington University Sentence Completion Test ・ Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ・ Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation ・ Washington v. Davis ・ Washington v. Glucksberg ・ Washington v. Harper ・ Washington v. Recuenco ・ Washington v. Texas ・ Washington Valley Park ・ Washington Valley Schoolhouse ・ Washington Vermont Senate District, 2002–2012 ・ Washington Vigilants ・ Washington Village ・ Washington Village (Norwalk, Connecticut) ・ Washington Virginia Vale, Denver ・ Washington Vocational School ・ Washington W. Boynton ・ Washington Waldorf School Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Washington v. Davis ： ウィキペディア英語版 Washington v. Davis ''Washington v. Davis'', , was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially discriminatory effect, but that were not adopted to advance a racially discriminatory purpose, are not invalid under the United States Constitution. ==Facts== Two African Americans applied for positions in the Washington, DC police department and sued after being turned down. They claimed that the Department used racially discriminatory hiring procedures, including its use of a test of verbal skills (Test 21) that was failed disproportionately by African Americans. The plaintiffs sued the Department, alleging that the test constituted impermissible employment discrimination under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the United States Constitution. Since the respondents were filing the action in Washington, DC, which is a federal territory and not a state, the constitutional provision the plaintiffs sued under was the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment instead of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the Equal Protection Clause directly applies only to the states, but the Supreme Court ruled in ''Bolling v. Sharpe'' that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which applies to the federal government, contains an equal protection component. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Washington v. Davis」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.