Larry P. v. Riles
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
343 F. Supp. 1306 (1972)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Several black elementary-school children (plaintiffs) were placed into educable mentally retarded (EMR) classes in the San Francisco Unified School District (the district) (defendant) based on a intelligence quotient (IQ) tests. The plaintiffs scored below a 75 on the district’s IQ test. The plaintiffs scored significantly better than 75 on IQ tests given by black psychologists who adjusted the test for the plaintiffs’ cultural backgrounds. These psychologists made special attempts to establish rapport with the plaintiffs, overcome the plaintiffs’ defeatism and easy distraction, reword items in more common terms, and give credit to non-standard answers that showed an intelligent approach to the problem. Black students were substantially overrepresented in the EMR program. Black students represented 28.5 percent of the district’s overall population but 66 percent of the students in the EMR program. The EMR classes provided minimal academic instruction, and being placed in the EMR program subjected students to embarrassment and ridicule. Placement in the EMR program was noted on a student’s permanent record. The plaintiffs sued the district and sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the district from using the IQ test to determine placement into EMR programs for black students.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peckham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.