mere showing that there is a discriminatory effect to a particular action or policy is not sufficient to establish an equal protection violation. Washington, 426 U.S. at 242, 96 S.Ct. at 2049; see Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-66, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563-64, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Williams v. Anderson, 562 F.2d 1081, 1087 (8th Cir.1977); see also Minority Police Officers Ass’n v. City of South Bend, 617 F.Supp. 1330, 1348 (N.D.Ind.1985), aff'd, 801 F.2d 964 (7th Cir.1986) (noting in equal protection challenge to promotion policy in police department that official action will generally not be held unconstitutional solely because which it results in racially disproportionate impact); Betts v. McCaughtry, 827 F.Supp. 1400, 1404 (W.D.Wis.1993) (<HOLDING>). Whether discriminatory purpose was a
holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments holding that district court erred in dismissing inmates complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when court did not address inmates allegation that prison officials failed to provide necessary grievance forms holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury holding that the fact that nearly all music cassettes censored by prison authorities was afrieanamerican rap music failed to demonstrate that the purpose of the ban was to discriminate against africanamerican inmates holding that music and loud talking broadcast over prison intercom throughout 24hour period did not offend contemporary standards of deeency