Is there any case law that supports the Fourteenth Amendment or abridgment?

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., Supra, 401 U.S 424, 433, 91 S.Ct. 849, 854, 28 L.Ed.2d 158, as noted, holds that: "(The Civil Rights Act ) authorizes the use of 'any professionally developed ability test' that is not 'designed, intended Or used to discriminate because of race . . . ."

Washington v. Davis, Supra, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597, appears to be the controlling Fourteenth Amendment authority on the immediate issue. In that case, as above noted and as in the case hand, there was no " 'intentional discrimination or purposeful discriminatory acts,' " but instead a claim that a police department employment test had " 'a highly discriminatory impact in screening out black candidates.' " (P. 235, 96 S.Ct. p. 2045.) Giving effect, arguendo, to that claim the high court found no Fourteenth Amendment or other abridgment. We repeat, for emphasis, some of its conclusions: