Griffin v. Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions
113 So. 3d 1257
Miss.2013Background
- Griffin pursued Mississippi Bar admission since 1992 and challenged the February 2011 bar exam result.
- July 2010 exam: Griffin scored 127.2 on Essay, 127.6 on MBE, total 127.4; Board denied his appeal; chancery court dismissed as moot after he opted for February 2011 exam.
- Griffin attempted to transfer July 2010 MBE score to February 2011; Board warned that a below-passing MBE could contribute to failing the overall score.
- February 2011 exam: Griffin failed with 127.6 MBE, 127.8 Essay, total 127.7; Board affirmed; also denied transferring two July 2010 essay scores.
- Griffin asserted discriminatory impact and lack of due process/equal protection; challenged Board rules, carry-over rules, and the claimed minimum MBE requirement.
- Chancery and Supreme Court concluded no discriminatory purpose shown and the 132 total passing requirement complies with precedent; no minimum MBE score exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection viability from discriminatory impact | Griffin alleges discriminatory impact of Board rules. | Board argues no purposeful discrimination; impact alone insufficient. | Disparate impact alone insufficient; no purposeful discrimination shown. |
| Whether 132 total score and lack of minimum MBE violates precedent | Board effectively imposes a minimum MBE score via overall threshold. | Passing requires 132 total; MBE portion is 40% and no minimum MBE score is required. | No minimum MBE score; 132 total passes per Rule 9 §9(D). |
| Whether carry-over of scores and related procedures were properly applied | Carry-over rules disadvantage Griffin and create discrimination. | Carry-over decisions are within Board’s_RULES and have rational basis. | Discrimination claims fail; carry-over issue not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watkins v. Miss. Bd. of Bar Admissions, 659 So.2d 561 (Miss.1995) (review standard for agency decisions; de novo consideration in discrimination claims)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1976) (disparate impact alone cannot state EP claim without discriminatory purpose)
- Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.1997) (purposeful discrimination required in EP analysis)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1987) (discriminatory impact requires evidence of purposeful discrimination)