Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc. – Case Brief
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991).
Facts: Edmonson (P), a black construction worker, sued his employer, Leesville (D), for injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of one of Leesville’s employees. During voire dire, Leesville used two of its three statutory peremptory challenges to remove blacks from the jury, resulting in a jury with eleven white members and one black member. The court denied Edmonson’s request that Leesville provide a race-neutral explanation for its challenges.
The jury returned a verdict for P but determined that he had been 80% at fault and his actual award was reduced to $18,000. P appealed, arguing that race-based peremptory challenges were unconstitutional. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the bar to race-based peremptory challenges applied only to criminal prosecutors and not to civil litigants. The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert.
Issue: May civil litigants use peremptory challenges to strike jurors based on race?
Holding and Rule (Kennedy): No. Civil litigants may not use peremptory challenges to strike jurors based on race.
Batson v. Kentucky made clear that a prosecutor’s race based peremptory challenges violated the equal protection rights of those excluded from jury service. The guarantees of equal protection apply only to State actions. Racial discrimination only violates the Constitution when it is attributable to State action. State action is present when a private civil litigant uses race-based peremptory challenges.
In Lugar v. Edmondson we applied a two step analysis and we look to whether the constitutional deprivation resulted from the exercise of a privilege or right deriving from state authority, and to whether the private party is a state actor. Peremptory challenges are merely permitted by law and are not constitutionally demanded.
To determine if a party is a state actor we look at the extent to which the actor relies on the assistance and benefits of the government, whether the actor is performing a traditional governmental function, and if the injury is aggravated by governmental authority. When private litigants participate in jury selection, they serve a government function and act with the substantial assistance of the judge, who ultimately must exclude the jurors. State action is present when private parties make extensive use of state procedures assisted by state officials. Therefore, State action permeates the entire process of jury selection even if the trial is a civil action.
Under established principles of third-party standing, a civil litigant may assert the rights of the excluded jurors. Applying the standard in Batson v. Kentucky, P must make out a prima facie case of race-based peremptory challenge by establishing a pattern of strikes against members of a particular race. It remains to be considered if a prima facie case of racial discrimination has been established such as to require D to present race neutral explanations for its exclusion of black jurors.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.
Dissent (O’Connor): A peremptory challenge by a civil litigant is a private matter. There is no state action involved and Due Process is not implicated.
Dissent (Scalia): Minority litigants will no longer be able to use race-based peremptory challenges to obtain racially diverse juries. This decision puts an unjustified, heavy burden on trial courts to determine if race is a factor in peremptory challenges. Now both sides will be able to lodge race based challenges to such selections and if the objections are denied an appeal may result and a judgment that may be overturned.