1 before the united states department of education office for civil ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

egulations, or orders of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 200d. At least 40 federal agencieshave adopted regulations that prohibit disparate-impact discrimination pursuant to this authority.See Guardians, 463 U.S. at 619 (Marshall, J. dissenting). Department of Education regulationsstate:A recipient, in determining the types of services, financial aid, orother benefits, or facilities which will be provided under any suchprogram, or the class of individuals to whom, or the situations inwhich, such services, financial aid, other benefits, or facilities willbe provided under any such program, or the class of individuals tobe afforded an opportunity to participate in any such program, maynot, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilizecriteria or methods of administration which have the effect ofsubjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race,color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating orsubstantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of theprogram as respect individuals of a particular race, color, ornational origin.”34 C.F.R. § 100.3(b) (emphasis added). Pursuant to such regulations, all entities that receivefederal funding, including New York State and NYSED, enter into standard agreements orprovide assurances that require certification that the recipients will comply with theimplementing regulations under Title VI. Guardians, 463 U.S. 582, 642 n.13. The SupremeCourt has held that these regulations may validly prohibit practices having a disparate impact onprotected groups, even if the actions or practices are not intentionally discriminatory. Id;Alexander v. Choate, supra; see also Villanueva v. Carere, 85 F.3d 481 (10th Cir. 1996); NewYork Urban League v. New York, 71 F.3d 1031, 1036 (2d Cir. 1995); Chicago v. Lindley, 66 F.3d819 (7th Cir. 1995); David K. v. Lane, 839 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir. 1988); Gomez v. Illinois State Bd.Of Educ., 811 F.2d 1030 (7th Cir. 1987); Georgia State Conf. v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403 (11thCir. 1985); Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984).18
A recipient’s practices have a racially discriminatory impact if they have adisproportionate impact on a group protected by Title VI. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 at 568(1974). Disparate impact violations occur where recipients utilize policies or practices that resultin the provision of fewer services or benefits, or inferior services or benefits, to members of aprotected group. See Meek v. Martinez, 724 F. Supp. 888 (S.D.Fla. 1987) (Florida’s use offunding formula in distributing aid resulted in a substantially adverse disparate impact onminorities and the elderly); see also Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York, 86N.Y.2d 307, 655 N.E.2d 1178 (N.Y. Ct. App. Jun 15, 1995) (prima facie case established whereallocation of educational aid had a racially disparate impact); see Robinson v. Kansas, 295 F.3d1183 (10th Cir. 2002) (finding state and its education officials did not enjoy sovereign immunityfor claim based on “Kansas’ state school financing system [which,] through a provision for ‘lowenrollment weighting’ and ‘local option budgets,’ allegedly resulted in less funding per pupil inschools where minority students, students who were not of United States origin, and studentswith disabilities [were] disproportionately enrolled.”); Powell v. Ridge, 189 F.3d 387 (3d Cir.1999) (reversing dismissal and finding that complaint alleging that school districts with higherproportions of nonwhite students received less Commonwealth treasury revenues than districtswith higher proportions of white students stated a claim for disparate impact under Title VI).Claims of disparate impact under Title VI must necessarily rely on statisticalproof. See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 987 (1988). However, becausestatistical analysis can never scientifically prove discrimination, courts have held that a plaintiffmay establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination by proffering statisticalevidence which reveals a disparity substantial enough to raise an inference of causation. EEOCv. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of Joint Industry Bd. of Elec. Indus., 186 F.3d 110, 117 (2d19
Page 5: were eligible for free or reduced p
Page 8 and 9: Race to the Top application. 8The C
Page 10: school districts were assessed a De
Page 15: Middletown, a “minority-as-majori
Page 20 and 21: Cir. 1999) (quoting Bazemore v. Fri
Page 22 and 23: that the “minimum base level for
Page 24 and 25: 82 percent of students failed to ac
Page 26: Dated: Garden City, New YorkSyracus

1 before the united states department of education office for civil ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?