Law & Courts

Civil Rights Ruling Could Affect Education Bias Cases

By Mark Walsh — May 02, 2001 5 min read

The U.S. Supreme Court last week substantially curtailed a key federal civil rights law, ruling that there is no private right to sue over so-called disparate-impact discrimination in programs receiving federal money.

The 5-4 decision could have a significant effect in education because civil rights plaintiffs have been suing for years over alleged discriminatory effects in a variety of educational programs, such as testing and school finance.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally financed programs. But regulations adopted by many federal agencies, including the Department of Education, extend the law’s prohibition to action that merely has a discriminatory impact on protected groups.

Lower federal courts have long assumed there was a private right to sue under the disparate-impact regulations adopted by agencies under the Civil Rights Act.

But now the Supreme Court has said that the Title VI regulations cannot be enforced through private lawsuits because Congress never explicitly authorized such suits when it passed or amended the Civil Rights Act.

“It is most certainly incorrect to say that language in a regulation can conjure up a private cause of action that has not been authorized by Congress,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in Alexander v. Sandoval (Case No. 99-1908). “Agencies may play the sorcerer’s apprentice but not the sorcerer himself.”

He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in a dissent joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer, noted that “every Court of Appeals to address the question had concluded that a private right of action exists” to enforce Title VI regulations against nonintentional discrimination. “And Congress had adopted several statutes that appear to ratify the status quo,” Justice Stevens wrote.

Education Cases

The case was a challenge by a Mexican immigrant, Martha Sandoval, to Alabama’s policy of requiring that its driver’s test be administered only in English. Neither opinion had much to say about the underlying issue of “official English” policies because the Supreme Court appeal was focused on the question of private lawsuits under Title VI.

Legal experts said the impact of the court’s ruling would be felt well beyond the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles.

“This opinion eviscerates the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” argued Thomas K. Gilhool, a lawyer with the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. The private legal organization is helping represent the Philadelphia school district and a class of low-income families in a novel federal lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s school funding system.

The lawsuit cited the federal Department of Education’s Title VI rules against disparate- impact bias as the basis for a claim that the state illegally discriminates against districts with large numbers of minority students.

After a federal district judge dismissed the suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, reinstated it in 1999 and ruled there was a private right to sue over the alleged disparate-impact discrimination.

Several other prominent lawsuits in education have relied in part on a Title VI disparate-impact claim, including:

  • A school finance lawsuit pitting New York City minority families against the state. Although that lawsuit is in state court, a state judge in January allowed the lawsuit to proceed based in part on a Title VI disparate-impact claim.
  • A lawsuit challenging the Texas high school graduation test was allowed to proceed in federal district court in San Antonio last year on the theory that the test had a discriminatory effect on minority students.
  • A federal lawsuit challenging the University of California’s use of the SAT in college admissions is based on Title VI disparate-impact bias, among other claims.

Mr. Gilhool said the Philadelphia case was not doomed by the Supreme Court’s ruling because the case also makes claims of intentional discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and an older federal civil rights law.

But he and other civil rights activists acknowledge that it is much more difficult to prove there is intentional discrimination in a program receiving federal money. Furthermore, while there is no longer a private right to sue over discriminatory effects, federal agencies can still use their enforcement powers against that type of bias by withholding federal aid, for example. But federal agencies have limited resources, and private lawsuits have traditionally been viewed as a way to extend the protections of a civil rights law.

John H. Findley, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., hailed the court’s ruling, saying that Congress never intended to allow lawsuits over discriminatory effects.

Sexual Harassment

Separately last week, the justices unanimously threw out a sexual-harassment suit filed by an administrator against the Clark County, Nev., school district.

Shirley A. Breeden, a human resources administrator in the 231,000-student district, which includes Las Vegas, alleged that she had suffered retaliation for complaining about a brief incident with co-workers that she considered to be sexual harassment. At a 1994 meeting, two male co- workers laughed about a job applicant’s comment to a another worker that “making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon.” The statement was disclosed in a psychological report.

Ms. Breeden alleged the district moved her from the central office to a remote location and changed some of her job duties in retaliation for her complaints.

In an unsigned opinion in Clark County School District v. Breeden (No. 00-866), the court ruled her allegations did not amount to a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers job discrimination.

The single incident “cannot remotely be considered extremely serious, as our cases require,” the court’s opinion said.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the May 02, 2001 edition of Education Week as Civil Rights Ruling Could Affect Education Bias Cases

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Equity & Diversity Webinar
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to Advance Educational Equity
Schools are welcoming students back into buildings for full-time in-person instruction in a few short weeks and now is the perfect time to take a hard look at both our practices and systems to build
Content provided by PowerMyLearning
Classroom Technology Webinar Making Big Technology Decisions: Advice for District Leaders, Principals, and Teachers
Educators at all levels make decisions that can have a huge impact on students. That’s especially true when it comes to the use of technology, which was activated like never before to help students learn
Professional Development Webinar Expand Digital Learning by Expanding Teacher Training
This discussion will examine how things have changed and offer guidance on smart, cost-effective ways to expand digital learning efforts and train teachers to maximize the use of new technologies for learning.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts 'I Just Want to Play.' Judge Halts W. Va. Law Barring Transgender Girls From Girls' Sports
Ruling for an 11-year-old transgender girl, the judge holds that the law likely violates the equal-protection clause and Title IX.
3 min read
Image of a gavel.
Marilyn Nieves/E+
Law & Courts Praying Coach v. District That Suspended Him: What's Next in Fight Over Religious Expression
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to reconsider an earlier panel ruling that sided with the school district.
4 min read
Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy, center in blue, kneels and prays after his team lost to Centralia in Bremerton, Wash., on Oct. 16, 2015. Kennedy, who was suspended for praying at midfield after games, has filed a discrimination complaint on Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2015 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission according to The Liberty Institute, a Texas-based law firm representing the coach.
Joe Kennedy, center in blue, kneels and prays after a game in October 2015 when he was the assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Wash. In a long-running legal fight, Kennedy contends he has First Amendment free-speech and free-exercise-of-religion rights to express his Christian faith while on the job. The case is likely headed back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lindsey Wasso/The Seattle Times via AP
Law & Courts Appeals Court Again Backs Transgender Student, But on Narrower Grounds Amid Signs of Rift
A federal appeals panel removed a holding for student Drew Adams based on Title IX, perhaps to ward off a rehearing by the full court.
4 min read
Image of a gavel.
Marilyn Nieves/E+
Law & Courts Schools Will Get At Least $25 Million From Opioid Lawsuit
Lawyers are aiming to place significantly more money into the grant program as school districts' lawsuits against opioid companies continue.
3 min read
This June 17, 2019, photo shows 5-mg pills of Oxycodone.
This June 17, 2019, photo shows 5-mg pills of Oxycodone.
Keith Srakocic/AP