Golden Gate University Law Review


This Note examines Darensburg and the evidentiary problems faced by plaintiffs entangled in the bus-versus-rail controversy that are inherent to disparate-impact litigation. Part I discusses the factual background of Darensburg and relevant federal and state law concerning claims of both intentional and disparate-impact discrimination. Part II examines disparate-impact jurisprudence in the context of the unequal distribution of municipal services as background to the complexity of the issues presented in Darensburg. Part III analyzes the Darensburg opinion in light of that background and shows that the burden-of-proof issues faced by plaintiffs are illustrative of the lack of effective guidance to plaintiffs seeking relief from institutional disparities.