research a case law for discrimination

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Watson v. McDonough, No. 19-3127 (8th Cir. 2021)

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the VA in an action brought by plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and a hostile work environment she experienced during her employment at the Kansas City VA. Applying the McDonnell Douglass burden-shifting framework, the court concluded that plaintiff's claims failed at the first step because she did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, or constructive discharge. In this case, many of the events plaintiff presents as adverse employment actions—the decision not to "board" the Coding Document Improvement Program (CDI) position, inadequate training on CDI duties, assignment of additional coding work, her performance review, and the written counseling—are not adverse employment actions for purposes of Title VII.

Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Title VII. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, or constructive discharge because she failed to show she suffered an adverse employment action, as none of the incidents she points to, either separately or taken together, amounted to an adverse employment action.

Applying the McDonnell Douglass burden-shifting framework, the Eighth Circuit concluded that plaintiff's claims failed at the first step because she did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, or constructive discharge.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Get free summaries of new Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

Case Summaries

Beneath the title of each case summary below are links that connect to lists of similar cases sorted by topic areas relevant to each case by protected class . Links within each case summary connect to important case documents including complaints, briefs, settlement agreements, consent decrees, orders, and press releases.

On March 18, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Section moved to intervene in A.B. v. Rhinebeck Central School District and Thomas Mawhinney , a sexual harassment case brought against the Rhinebeck Central School District and the former high school principal Thomas Mawhinney. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 9, 2003, by four current and former high school students and a school employee. The plaintiffs alleged that the school district and Mawhinney violated state and federal laws, including Title IX. The United States filed an intervention brief and complaint-in-intervention alleging that Mawhinney sexually harassed the four plaintiff students as well as other female high school students during his ten-year tenure as principal and that the school district violated Title IX by acting with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment of these students. The district opposed the United States' intervention, and the United States filed a reply . On August 25, 2004, the court granted the United States' intervention motion.

On March 22, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that requires the district to develop and implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a discrimination-free educational environment for all students. The district must retain an expert regarding sexual harassment training and prevention to assist in developing the comprehensive plan, to evaluate the district's sexual harassment policies, to conduct a school climate assessment, and to develop a mandatory training program. The consent decree also requires the district to educate school board members and employees regarding how to respond to sexual harassment complaints. Lastly, the district must pay $152,500 to compensate the student victims and to pay their attorney's fees. On December 9, 2009, the parties informed the court that the case could be closed based on the district's implementation of the consent order.

On October 3, 2018, the Section and the District of Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (collectively the “United States”) entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the Adams 12 Five Star Schools (“the District”) in Colorado to bring the District’s English Learner (EL) program into compliance with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). This is the United States’ second settlement agreement with the District. The first settlement agreement was reached in 2010 and aimed to resolve numerous EEOA violations that the Section had identified during a compliance review of all the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices. This 2010 agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: ensure timely, adequate and appropriate EL services; train EL teachers and administrators; recruit and hire qualified staff for EL students; provide translation services for parents and guardians; ensure EL students are appropriately evaluated for special education and receive dual services when eligible; provide adequate and appropriate materials for EL classes; monitor current and exited EL students; and evaluate its EL programs adequately. The Section ended its monitoring of the 2010 agreement in 2015.

In 2016, the United States began conducting a complaint investigation to determine whether the District was appropriately serving its approximately 5,600 EL students as required by Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. The second settlement agreement addresses the narrower set of conditions that the United States identified as noncompliant with the EEOA in 2018. The 2018 agreement requires the District to: provide adequate language services to all EL students; provide EL students with appropriate access to core content through sheltered instruction; adequately train the administrators and teachers who provide language services and implement the EL program, including on how to use its curricula for EL students; adequately monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and properly evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the 2018 agreement will remain in place for three years.

This desegregation case involves the Longview Independent School District ("LISD") in Longview, Texas, which was ordered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to desegregate on August 27, 1970. On January 24, 2011, as part of a district-wide consolidation plan, the court approved a consent order adopting LISD's revised attendance zones. On February 28, 2014, the court declared that LISD was partially unitary and had eliminated all vestiges of past de jure discrimination to the extent practicable in its facilities, transportation, extracurricular activities, and staff assignment. Following a comprehensive review of the school district's policies and practices, and subsequent negotiations, on December 22, 2014, the court approved the parties' proposed consent order. The Section is monitoring the district's compliance with this consent order, which requires LISD to publicize and broadly disseminate the application and assessment procedures it uses to admit students to the Hudson PEP Elementary School magnet program; permit and facilitate majority-to-minority transfers between certain schools; provide equal access to pre-advanced placement courses at its middle schools; and publicize and broadly disseminate its gifted-and-talented program admission procedures.

On October 12, 2022, the United States issued its Letter of Findings alleging the State of Alabama is violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Based on our investigation, we concluded the State of Alabama discriminates against students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the foster care system who have been enrolled at on-site schools on the campuses of Alabama’s psychiatric residential treatment facilities.  By enrolling students at the on-site schools without regard to each student’s ability to perform in local public schools, the State’s practices relegate them to unnecessarily segregated classes and unequal educational opportunities.  During our investigation, we found these on-site schools differ in many and substantial ways from general education schools, including in their physical attributes, the multi-grade composition of the classes, their heavy reliance on online programs in classrooms without certified staff, and an overall and profound lack of resources.  The on-site schools also lack grade-appropriate curricula; provide insufficient instructional services and supports, including through the use of shortened school days; and are often unable to provide students with access to facilities that are common in general education settings, such as libraries, gyms, and science labs, or opportunities to participate in sports and extracurricular activities. For more information, please see the press release .    

In this matter involving the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s (PDE) system of alternative education programs, known as Alternative Education for Disruptive Youth (AEDY), the Section conducted an investigation into complaints that Pennsylvania’s statewide system of alternative education discriminated against students with disabilities in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as English Language Learners (EL) students in violation of Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  On March 25, 2019 , the Section along with the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania entered into a settlement agreement with PDE .  The settlement agreement requires that PDE monitor the AEDY system to ensure that students with disabilities are not placed in AEDY in a manner that discriminates based on disability; that they are not unnecessarily segregated within AEDY programs on the basis of disability; that they are not denied equal educational opportunities; and that students with disabilities are transferred back to their home schools in a timely manner.  In addition, the agreement will require all local educational agencies referring EL students to AEDY to establish an EL service plan to ensure EL students are provided appropriate services.  Further, PDE will ensure that AEDY programs provide EL services by utilizing teachers who hold ESL teaching credentials and by using appropriate materials. The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.  For more information, please see this press release .

On February 16, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Anchorage School District in Anchorage, Alaska to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the district engaged in improper restraint and seclusion practices in its specialized schools and programs for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Under the settlement agreement, the district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other things: prohibit the use of seclusion; limit the use of restraint; document and review all instances of restraint and ensure they were justified; hire a district-level administrator to review incidents and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA; create classroom-wide behavior management plans to discourage restraint and promote positive behaviors; revise its complaint form to ensure it can receive complaints related to restraint and seclusion; provide training and professional development for all teachers and instructional staff at its schools and programs for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities; notify parents and guardians of all instances of restraint and seclusion; and offer compensatory counseling or education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices. For more information, please see this letter , press release , and summary of the agreement .

In this longstanding school desegregation case, the Section and a class of black plaintiffs opposed the school district's proposal, among other things, to build five new schools. The Section contended that the district's proposal would not further desegregation of the district's schools, would not afford black students equal educational opportunities, and would impose disproportionate transportation burdens on black students. The school district's transportation records showed, for example, that some black high-school students were required to ride a bus up to nearly two and one-half hours each way to and from school, while white students were bussed no longer than forty-five minutes to and from the same school; nonetheless, the school district proposed to build a new high school at a location that would reduce the transportation times of white students while maintaining the transportation times of black students. The Section also alleged that the school district had failed to comply with existing desegregation orders in the areas of faculty and staff hiring, assignment and compensation; transportation; facilities; and curriculum.

After a seven-day evidentiary trial in May 1999, the district court issued an order approving the school district's construction plan, but requiring the school district to address several of the matters about which we had complained. Among other things, the district court ordered the school district to take steps to reduce the transportation times to school for black students. The Section and the plaintiff class appealed from the district court's order relating to new construction. At the request of the Section and the plaintiff class, the district court entered an order "staying," or putting on hold, the school district's proposed new construction, pending a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into settlement discussions. In April 2000 the parties signed and the district court approved a consent order that both required the school district to address areas of its alleged non-compliance with federal law and resolved all but one of the issues on appeal. The remaining issue on appeal was whether the school district's proposed site for a new high school was consistent with the district's affirmative desegregation obligations. On November 6, 2000, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that allowed construction of the new high school to proceed at the contested location. In December 2000, the district court entered an order establishing a bi-racial advisory committee.

On August 5, 1965, the private plaintiffs brought this school desegregation case to enjoin the Monroe City School District from continuing to operate racially segregated schools.  The United States joined the case as amicus curiae in 1970 and intervened in the lawsuit in 1978.  On July 6, 1992, the Court declared the District unitary with respect to facilities, extracurricular activities, and “the hiring and retention of black teachers and administrators.”  However, the Court declined to declare the District unitary with regard to “teacher and principal assignments, student assignments and transportation.”  On March 30, 2010, the Court ordered the District to “offer the same courses at every high school in the District;” fully implement a medical magnet program at Carroll High School by the fall of the 2011-12 school year (in an attempt to increase the diversity of the student population at Carroll High); encourage each high school student “to attempt to qualify for the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS), which provides scholarships for qualified high school students who choose to attend a Louisiana state college or university;” “work with the Equity Assistance Center for the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) in order to ensure that all students have an equitable opportunity to participate in Gifted, Honors, pre-AP, and AP programming at all schools in the District;” and ensure that all principals, other administrators, faculty and certified staff are informed of the terms of the Court’s order.  On September 25, 2015, the Court declared the District unitary with respect to student assignment and transportation, but declined to pronounce the District unitary as to teacher and principal assignments.  In addition, the Court found that the District had not complied with the March 30, 2010 Consent Decree.  On December 11, 2015, the Court entered a Consent Decree designed to remedy teacher and principal assignment and course offerings.  Among other actions, the board must take steps to equalize course offerings and ensure that the racial makeup and credentials of the teachers and administrators at any given school does not indicate that a school is intended for black students or white students.  On March 23, 2016, in the interest of securing full compliance with the letter and spirit of the December 2015 Consent Decree, the United States and the District jointly filed a motion for the extension of certain deadlines therein.  The Court granted the motion and entered an Amended Consent Decree on March 24, 2016.  On April 14, 2016, the Court entered a Second Amended Consent Decree .

On July 24, 2013, the Section and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights entered into a resolution agreement with the Arcadia Unified School District in Arcadia, Calif., to resolve an investigation into allegations of discrimination against a transgender student based on the student's sex. Under the agreement, the school district will take a number of steps to ensure that the student, whose gender identity is male and who has consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years, will be treated like other male students while attending school in the district. The agreement resolves a complaint filed in October 2011. As detailed in the closure letter sent to the district, the complaint alleged that the district had prohibited the student from accessing facilities consistent with his male gender identity at school and on a school-sponsored overnight trip because he is transgender. The United States investigated this complaint under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both Title IX and Title IV prohibit discrimination against students based on sex. Under the agreement, the district will work with a consultant to support and assist the district in creating a safe, nondiscriminatory learning environment for students who are transgender or do not conform to gender stereotypes; amend its policies and procedures to reflect that gender-based discrimination, including discrimination based on a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity with gender stereotypes, is a form of discrimination based on sex; and train administrators and faculty on preventing gender-based discrimination and creating a nondiscriminatory school environment for transgender students. Additionally, the district will take a number of steps to treat the student like all other male students in the education programs and activities offered by the district. The district-wide provisions of the agreement will be in place until the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The student-specific provisions of the agreement will be in place as long as the student is enrolled in the district. For more information, please see this press release .

On July 23, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the South District of Texas in Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District .  In this case, the District disciplined two black boys when they refused to cut their locs to conform to the District’s hair length policy.  Because similarly situated girls would not have been in violation of the District’s policy, the boys and their parents brought suit, alleging that the hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex (among other bases) in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  Plaintiffs further allege that the District retaliated against one of the parents in violation of Title IX.  On June 21, 2021, the District filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal, arguing primarily that Fifth Circuit precedent establishes a per se rule barring judicial review of all school hair length regulations and that a parent lacks standing to bring a Title IX retaliation claim.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that there is no binding Fifth Circuit precedent barring review of plaintiffs’ sex-based challenges to the District’s hair length policy.  The United States further advises that Title IX applies to all aspects of a federal funding recipient’s education programs and activities, including its dress and grooming code, and that parents of minor schoolchildren have standing to bring Title IX retaliation claims.  Applying the proper Equal Protection Clause and Title IX standards, the United States concludes that plaintiffs adequately allege that the District’s hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, and that the District unlawfully retaliated against a parent who complained about the hair length policy’s discriminatory effect.  For this reason, the United States asserts that the District’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ sex discrimination claims should be denied. 

On January 28, 1975, Mississippi was sued for maintaining an unconstitutional dual system of higher education. Plaintiffs argued that Mississippi denied equal opportunities to black students and faculty members by favoring the State's historically white colleges and universities at the expense of its historically black colleges and universities, and by failing to remove the vestiges of racial segregation in the former de jure dual system. On April 21, 1975, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring Mississippi's higher education system into conformity with constitutional and statutory provisions.

After a trial, the district court and appellate court found for the defendants, but, in 1992, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case to the district court to determine if Mississippi had taken the necessary steps to ensure that a student's choice of college was indeed free and unconstrained by Mississippi's former discriminatory policies. The case marked the first time that the Supreme Court defined the applicable legal standards for higher education desegregation.

On February 15, 2002, the court entered a final judgment approving a $503 million settlement . Endorsed by the Mississippi legislature, the settlement will fund a comprehensive plan over a seventeen-year period aimed at improving academic programs, making capital improvements, and expanding summer programs at the State's historically black colleges and universities. The State also will recognize the historically black Jackson State University as a comprehensive university. The district court dismissed the case, but has retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

On January 30, 2017, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana approved a consent order that addresses the remaining issues in the desegregation case and when fully implemented will lead to its closing. The consent order, negotiated with the school district (the “District”) and private plaintiffs, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, puts the District on a path to full unitary status within three years provided it:

• Implements a new student assignment plan that desegregates its three nearly all-black elementary schools to the extent practicable, by revising feeder patterns and creating specialized academic programs that will attract a diverse student body;
• Revises the District’s code of conduct to ensure fairness and consistency in the handling of subjective disciplinary offenses that do not threaten safety, and provides District staff with additional tools to address student misbehavior in nondiscriminatory ways;
• Takes reasonable steps to recruit a diverse pool of applicants for faculty and staff vacancies that arise in the course of implementing the new student assignment plan; and
• Incorporates into its student handbook a statement prohibiting discrimination in extracurricular activities and encouraging participation by students of all races.

The consent order declares that the District has already met its desegregation obligations in the area of transportation. The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance. For more information, please see this press release .

This longstanding desegregation case was filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs, with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and local cooperating attorneys serving as counsel. The United States intervened later that year. In 1969, the Fifth Circuit entered a desegregation order permanently enjoined the District from discriminating on the basis of race or color in the operation of the Meridian schools. In 2010, as part of efforts to enforce the desegregation order, the department began to investigate complaints that the District had implemented a harsh and punitive student discipline policy that resulted in the disproportionate suspension, expulsion, and school-based arrest of black students in Meridian schools. The department found that these kinds of disparities persisted even when the students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a proposed consent decree filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 22, 2013. Along with the proposed consent decree, the parties jointly filed a motion to approve the decree , and the United States separately filed a memorandum of law . Under the consent decree, the district will take steps to create safe and inclusive learning environments in all Meridian schools, including providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On May 30, 2013, the Court adopted the consent order .

For more information regarding the proposed consent decree, please see this press release .

On June 21, 2010, the Division filed a Motion for Leave to file an amicus brief in Biediger, et al. v. Quinnipiac University. Plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac failed to provide female students an equal opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics, and that this failure constituted intentional sex discrimination in violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(1). The plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac misrepresented its athletic participation numbers by, among other things, requiring women’s teams to artificially increase their number of participants, resulting in some members lacking a genuine varsity athletic participation opportunity; underrepresenting the number of male athletes on teams; eliminating the women's volleyball program; and counting participants on its cheer squad as a sport under Title IX. The United States' amicus brief provided guidance as to what constitutes a genuine participation opportunity, as well as guidance concerning what constitutes a sport for Title IX compliance.

On October 1, 2010, the Section, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education (OCR), and the Boston Public Schools (BPS) entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve violations of English Language Learner (ELL) students' rights under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 20 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. The 2010 Agreement , which grew out of the Section’s and OCR’s joint compliance review of BPS' ELL programs, was needed to address as soon as possible its failure to test approximately 7,000 students in reading and writing to determine if they were ELL students and over 4,000 known ELL students whom it had misidentified as having opted out of ELL programs between 2003 and 2009. The 2010 Agreement secured ELL and compensatory services for the more than 4,000 misidentified “opt out” students and the 4,300 of the 7,000 students who were improperly identified as non-ELL students. The 2010 Agreement further required BPS to provide all ELL students with English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction by ESL-certified teachers and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) content classes by teachers trained to provide SEI instruction. While BPS was implementing the 2010 Agreement, OCR and DOJ completed the remainder of their compliance review and negotiated a Successor Agreement with BPS to resolve the additional areas of noncompliance identified in the review. The April 19, 2012 Successor Agreement replaced the 2010 Settlement Agreement and provides systemic, comprehensive relief across BPS’s ELL programs, procedures, and practices. The Successor Agreement requires, inter alia: accurate and timely identification of ELL students; appropriate ESL and SEI services provided by qualified faculty; meaningful communications with Limited English Proficient parents through translations and qualified interpreters; assessments and services specially designed to meet the needs of ELL students who face unique challenges, such as students with disabilities and students with interrupted formal education; and greater access for ELL students to the higher-level learning opportunities in BPS. To ensure these programmatic changes are effective, the agreement further requires BPS to evaluate the effect of these changes on student achievement over time through robust, disaggregated data analyses. For more information on both agreements, please see the 2010 press release and 2012 press release .

In this matter involving the Bound Brook New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs) as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; ELLs' access to basic skills instruction, special education services, and academic enrichment programs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; and monitoring of students currently enrolled in the ELL program and those students who have exited from the program. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues and on October 16, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement required the district to provide, among other things: timely assessment of all students with non-English speaking backgrounds; quality curricula and instruction for ELLs; adequate teacher training; and careful monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of current and former ELLs. After the district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement, the agreement ended on January 12, 2007.

On June 17, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in evaluating the Title IX and Equal Protection claims in B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. , Case No. 2:21-cv-00316.  In this case, the plaintiff, an 11-year-old girl who is transgender, challenged H.B. 3293, a state law that prohibits girls who are transgender from participating on female interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by any public secondary school or state institution of higher education.  She asked the court to enjoin West Virginia from enforcing H.B. 3293 and allow her to participate on girls’ sports teams consistent with her gender identity.  The plaintiff alleged that H.B. 3293 requires her school, a recipient of federal financial assistance, to exclude her from school athletics on the basis of sex, causing her harm in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The plaintiff also alleges that H.B. 3293 violates the Equal Protection Clause because the state law discriminates against her because of sex and gender identity and is not substantially related to an exceedingly persuasive justification.  In its statement of interest , the United States advised the court that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including because a student is transgender.  The United States concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on these claims in support of her motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Memorandum and Order - B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

On November 13, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Burlington School District in Burlington, Vermont, to resolve an investigation into allegations of sex discrimination.  The Section initiated its investigation in response to a complaint by a group of parents alleging that their children had been subject to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment, including assault, that went unaddressed by the District.  As a result, their children feared for their safety and several withdrew from the school.  Under the Agreement, the District will take a number of steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on sex.  Those steps include retaining the technical assistance of the Mid Atlantic Equity Center to support a review of the District’s sex-based harassment policies, practices, and procedures as well as the District’s training on and implementation protocols for such policies.  The Agreement further requires that the District work with the Equity Center to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District-level to ensure that all schools have the capacity to implement fully the District’s policies and procedures.  Under the Agreement, the District will provide particularized training for students and faculty at the elementary school implicated in the complaint, and will conduct climate surveys at that school to assess the presence and effects of harassment and bullying, the inclusiveness and safety of the educational environment, and the effectiveness of the measures taken pursuant to the Agreement.  The Agreement will be in place through the 2021-22 school year.    

On July 14, 2014, the Division filed a Statement of Interest in D.J. et al v. State of California , a state case brought by parents and guardians of English Language Learner (ELL) students against the State of California and the California Department of Education (CDE) among others, which alleged that the State violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (“EEOA”) by failing to respond to credible information that tens of thousands of ELL students were not receiving ELL instructional services.  The Division’s Statement of Interest articulated what the United States maintains are the correct legal standards governing the State’s obligations under the EEOA, including monitoring local education agencies (LEAs) provision of EL instructional services.  In an August 12, 2014 decision, the state court ruled that the State had violated the EEOA and ordered it to take remedial action, reiterating many of the legal standards discussed in the United States’ brief.  In November 2014, the State appealed the ruling, and then subsequently settled the appeal and all of D.J. plaintiffs’ claims in a private settlement approved by the state court.

Applying the standards in the Statement of Interest in its own EEOA compliance review of the State’s monitoring practices, the Division notified CDE and the California State Board of Education in a letter dated May 22, 2015, that the State was not meeting its obligations under the EEOA and needed to respond promptly and appropriately to ensure LEAs provide their EL students with appropriate EL instructional services.  On September 8, 2016, the Division and the State settled the matter in a two-year settlement agreement that requires the State to respond in a timely and effective manner to credible evidence that LEAs are failing to serve their ELLs, including notifying them of violations and providing a protocol by which they must submit to CDE documented evidence that resolves the violations.  The agreement also requires CDE to: consider LEAs’ reports of unserved ELs when selecting schools for monitoring reviews; improve CDE’s online monitoring tool; require that schools found to be out of compliance with specific requirements in this online tool receive onsite monitoring if they fail to provide adequate evidence that the noncompliance has been resolved; and develop and provide training on the monitoring, review, and corrective action processes associated with CDE’s system of monitoring schools for ELL service violations.  For more information, please see the press release .

In this religious discrimination case, the plaintiffs alleged that their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the school board excluded them from using school facilities for a "prayer meeting" at which civic and social issues would be discussed. The school board permits community groups and non-students to use school facilities for a wide variety of civic and recreational purposes such as luncheons, homeowner association meetings, seminars, and athletic activities. The policy permits groups to use school facilities to engage in discussions having a "religious viewpoint," but not to engage in "religious services or instruction." Relying on this distinction, the board denied facility access to the plaintiffs on the grounds that the proposed prayer meeting was a religious service rather than a meeting presented from a religious viewpoint. On April 25, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, arguing that (1) plaintiffs' proposed meeting fits well within the forum created under the school board's facility use policy, and (2) there is no legal or practical distinction between religious viewpoints on a topic and "religious services or instruction." On June 3, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On July 10, 2003, the court held a hearing on the parties' motions in which the Section participated. On July 29, 2003, the court issued an order granting summary judgment for plaintiffs. The court concluded that although the plaintiffs' proposed meeting was primarily a religious service, it also included a discussion of family and political issues from a legally protected religious viewpoint. Thus, the court held that the proposed meeting was not "mere religious worship," but included speech that the school district permitted through its facility use policy. The school district therefore improperly denied the plaintiffs access to school facilities for their evening meeting. On February 19, 2004, the case was dismissed.

On February 19, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio opened an investigation into Case Western Reserve University’s (“CWRU”) response to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, and sexual misconduct in its Greek Life community.  The Department’s investigation included interviews with former and current campus employees, students, and alumni, and an extensive review of CWRU’s polices grievance procedures, training, and response to reports of sexual harassment.

On August 22, 2023, the Department and CWRU reached a resolution agreement under Title IX to address the areas of noncompliance identified through the Department’s investigation.  Under the agreement, CWRU will, among other steps: reorganize the Title IX reporting structure to remove it from the purview of the Office of General Counsel and ensure CWRU follows its grievance procedures free from conflicts of interest; promote greater awareness about the Office of Equity and the Title IX Coordinator; require annual training for all students and employees; invest resources into enhanced prevention programming and training for CWRU fraternities and sororities; conduct campus-wide outreach; and implement a campus-wide student survey to better serve its community.  The Department will carefully monitor the CWRU’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2025-2026 academic year.  For more information, please see this letter , press release , and a plain-language summary  of the agreement.

On September 12, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Cedar Rapids Community School District in Cedar Rapids, Iowa to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: end its use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint, revise its restraint procedures and practices, and consistently implement those procedures and practices in all schools; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified; offer counseling and other services to students who are restrained; adopt policies and procedures to assess suicide risk, prevent suicide and self-harm, and implement immediate crisis intervention for students who threaten or engage in self-harm; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and hire two new administrators to oversee schools’ use of restraint and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this letter ,  press release , and  summary of settlement agreement .

In this matter involving Charleston County School District in Charleston, South Carolina, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina conducted an investigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The United States received complaints that the school district failed to communicate essential information to Spanish-speaking, limited English proficient (LEP) parents, denying their children full and equal access to the school district’s education programs and services.  The United States found that, over the course of several years, the school district often failed to use qualified interpreters to communicate with Spanish-speaking LEP parents and guardians, even when their need for an interpreter was documented or otherwise evident.  The United States also found that the school district did not consistently translate essential written information into Spanish, and asked parents who can only communicate in Spanish to make important decisions about school programs and services without explaining the options in a language they understand. 

On March 2, 2021, the United States entered into a settlement agreement  with the school district to ensure that the school district and each its 80 schools and programs use qualified interpreters and translators to communicate with LEP parents about matters essential to their children’s education, including special education services.  The agreement requires, among other things, that the district take proactive steps by: developing and implementing effective language access policies and procedures; training faculty and staff on how to properly identify and meaningfully communicate with LEP parents and guardians; informing LEP parents and guardians of their right to language access services at special-education related meetings and receive translated special-education related documents; and providing a language-assessment report and bi-annual compliance reports to DOJ.  For more information, please see this press release  and a translated version in Spanish .  A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

On July 9, 2004, Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF), an organization that sponsors after-school Good News Bible Clubs, filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that officials of the Upland Unified School District (California) discriminated against CEF by allowing non-profit organizations such as the Boy Scouts free use of school facilities while at the same time charging religious organizations such as CEF rent equal to “direct costs.”

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States’ motion.

The United States filed a brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States argued that the district’s practice of charging religious groups a fee to use school facilities for activities serving local youth when the district does not charge secular groups a fee to use facilities serving local youth violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the fee discriminated against CEF’s religious viewpoint.

On November 15, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction thereby enjoining the district from requiring CEF to pay any rental fees or other fees that are not required of other non-profit community organizations for use of the district’s facilities.

Then, on February 4, 2005, the Court entered a Stipulated Dismissal without prejudice with an attached Settlement Agreement stating that the district agreed, among other terms, to permit CEF equal access to school facilities on the same terms and conditions as other similar non-profit groups.

The department conducted a compliance review of the English Language Learner (ELL) program at the Clay County School District in Alabama to determine whether ELL students were receiving services required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 19, 2014, a settlement agreement was reached that will ensure that this rural district takes appropriate action to serve its small but growing population of ELL students, including: increasing services for ELL students, obtaining additional English as a Second Language-certified instructors, conducting significant professional development for teachers, providing adequate materials and classroom supports for ELL students, monitoring the academic performance of current and former ELL students and improving language-accessible communication with limited English proficient parents. For more information, please see this press release .

Settlement Agreement in: Spanish

Press Release in: Spanish

In this matter involving the Clay County School District, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida investigated whether the District was providing appropriate language services to its English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). The investigation revealed that the District was not appropriately identifying EL students or providing them with the educational services and supports needed for EL students to become proficient in English and participate equally in school. On October 30, 2023, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement . Under the agreement, the District will modify its practices so that EL students are properly assessed and identified shortly after their enrollment, promptly provided with language services if they qualify and have the opportunity to equally benefit from the academic and behavioral supports provided to their peers. The District will also make certain that all teachers are qualified, trained and provided enough support and resources to help EL students become fluent in English and understand their core-content courses. The District will also translate and interpret important school information for parents who are not fluent in English. For more information, please see the press release in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole . The agreement is available in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole , and summaries of the agreement are available in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole .

In this matter involving the Colton Joint Unified School District in California, the United States investigated whether the district’s programming for English learners was adequate under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. After a multi-year investigation conducted by the Educational Opportunities Section along with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office for the Central District of California, the United States found that English learners in the district did not receive adequate English language instruction, and that core content teachers did not have the requisite training to meet English learner needs in math, science and social studies courses. On December 19, 2022, the United States entered an out-of-court settlement agreement with the district to ensure that every English learner in the district receives English language instruction, and that teachers working with English learners are trained and qualified to meet their needs. The district will also implement additional changes to ensure that English learners have an equal opportunity to participate in the district’s various programs, including programs for gifted and talented students. The agreement will remain in place for three years. For more information please see this press release in English and Spanish ( español ).

In this sex discrimination case, high school girls in Michigan filed a complaint alleging that the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that MHSAA refused to sanction additional sports for high school girls, provided inferior practice and playing facilities for post-season tournaments held in certain girls' sports, and required girls to play certain sports in disadvantageous seasons. This last contention allegedly reduced participation opportunities for high school girls by shortening playing seasons, thereby preventing participation in club competitions and all-star competitions involving players from other states and negatively affecting their chances of being recruited for collegiate-level sports programs. On September 7, 1999, the Section was granted leave to participate as litigating amicus curiae and filed an amicus brief at the summary judgment stage, arguing that the case should go forward under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On January 21, 2002, the court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

In the summer of 2001, the parties participated in mediation which resulted in a settlement of all claims except for the issue of playing seasons. The court conducted a two-week bench trial in September 2001 and received evidence concerning the following questions: (1) whether MHSAA, by assuming controlling authority over interscholastic athletics from member schools that receive federal funds, is subject to Title IX; (2) whether MHSAA is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) whether MHSAA's scheduling of only girls' sports in disadvantageous seasons violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On December 17, 2001, the court issued its ruling finding in favor of the plaintiffs and the Section on all three issues. See Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n , 178 F. Supp.2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001). The court held that MHSAA is subject to Title IX and is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In so holding, the court further concluded that MHSAA's scheduling practices violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Lastly, the court ordered MHSAA to submit a compliance plan to remedy the discriminatory scheduling of girls' sports.

The Section filed an opposition to the compliance plan in June 2002. After reviewing briefing on the issue of the remedial plan and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court issued a ruling requiring MHSAA to switch girls' basketball and volleyball to their traditional, advantageous seasons of the winter and fall respectively. The Court ultimately approved the rest of MHSAA's remedial plan, finding that the switching of the remaining sports at issue (soccer, golf, tennis, swimming, and diving) balanced the inequity of nontraditional playing seasons amongst high school boys and girls in Michigan.

MHSAA appealed the district court's rulings on liability and the remedial plan to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit. The Division filed an amicus brief in August 2003. In July 2004, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that MHSAA's scheduling of sports violates the Equal Protection Clause. MHSAA then appealed to the Supreme Court, which instructed the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the case. On August 16, 2006, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion that again affirmed the district court's ruling that the sports schedule discriminates against female athletes on the basis of sex. On December 7, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied review of MHSAA's petition for certiorari.

In 1999, the Section intervened in this lawsuit alleging the Denver Public Schools (DPS) violated Title VI and the EEOA by failing to take appropriate actions to overcome language barriers of its English Language Learner (ELL) students. On June 16,1999, the district court approved a new English Language Acquisition Plan for the Denver Public Schools.

The result of compliance monitoring by the Section and the Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE), and DPS’s recognition that the 1999 order no longer reflected the district’s own best practices for serving ELL students, moved the parties to develop a new consent decree to replace the existing plan. On April 16, 2013 the district court in Denver approved a comprehensive consent decree between the Department of Justice, CHE, and DPS that requires DPS to provide language services to the more than 28,000 ELL students enrolled in the district’s 170 schools.

The consent decree requires the district to implement comprehensive measures to ensure that ELLs have equal opportunities to succeed academically in district educational programs, starting with the proper identification of ELL students when they enter DPS.  Among other things, the consent decree requires DPS to: provide language acquisition services to ELL students in district schools, including charter schools, until they are proficient in English and to monitor ELL students after they exit services to ensure they are participating meaningfully and equally in mainstream classes; to make translation and interpretation services available for thousands of Limited English Proficient parents who speak more than 130 different languages – ensuring that all parents have access to essential information about their children’s education;  to provide Pre-K language services at each school where DPS offers early childhood education; and to make  appropriate language services available for ELL students who face unique challenges, including refugee students and students with disabilities.

For more information about the 2013 Consent Decree, please see the following fact sheet available in: English | አማርኛ (Amharic) | العربية (Arabic) | မြန်မာစကား (Burmese) | Soomaali (Somali) | Español (Spanish) | Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) .

The June 16, 2009 complaint alleges that FHSAA’s new policy discriminates against female students by reducing the maximum number of competitions that a school can schedule by 20% for varsity teams and 40% for sub-varsity teams while exempting 36,000 boys who play football and only 4,300 girls and 201 boys who participate in competitive cheerleading. The complaint also alleges that OCR has not recognized competitive cheerleading as a sport under Title IX and that even if it were recognized as a sport, the new policy exempts nearly nine times as many boys than girls from the reductions in their competition schedule. The complaint further alleges that FHSAA sanctions football for a total of 23 weeks of coaching, practices, and competitions, while the majority of girls’ sports operate for only a total of 15 weeks. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 19, 2009. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July1, 2009. On July 14th, the Division filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The United States’ amicus brief argues that plaintiffs’ allegations establish claims of intentional discrimination, not just disparate impact, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause that are sufficiently detailed to survive the motion to dismiss. The brief also argues that there is a substantial likelihood that the Title IX and Equal Protection claims will succeed on the merits, and that the court should preliminarily enjoin new Policy 6. On July 15, the court granted the United States’ motion for leave to file its brief and its request for oral argument at a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for July 17. Shortly thereafter on July 15, FHSAA voted unanimously to rescind its challenged policy. On July 16, 2009, the court cancelled the preliminary injunction hearing because the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that FHSAA’s rescission of the policy rendered the motion for a preliminary injunction moot. On October 21, 2009, the court issued an order granting the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss the case without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement until December 31, 2010.

In this matter involving the Coolidge Unified School District (“the District”) in Arizona, the Section examined whether the District’s instructional services and materials for English Learner (EL) students and its training for their teachers and administrators complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Opportunities Act of 1974.  On April 16, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to improve and increase language instruction for EL students so they can become fluent in English and understand the coursework in all of their academic subjects.  The agreement also requires the district to provide robust teacher and administrator training, obtain the special materials and curricula that English learner students need to succeed academically, and actively evaluate students’ progress over time.  The agreement will remain in place for three full school years.  For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish . A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

In this longstanding desegregation case involving the Franklin County Board of Education (North Carolina), the Section monitors the school district's compliance with existing court orders. The school district achieved partial unitary status in certain areas in 2002 and additional areas in 2018 . The court retains jurisdiction over the Green factor of student assignment, including the school district’s administration of discipline and its gifted and talented programs.

On April 13, 2000, the school district moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that it had attained unitary status. On November 22, 2000, the Section filed a  memorandum  opposing, in part, the school district's motion. On June 24, 2002, the district court held that the school district was partially unitary with respect to school transportation, extracurricular activities, school construction and facilities, student transfers, and faculty desegregation. On June 17, 2003, the Court approved a Consent Order governing the school district’s remaining areas of obligation (student assignment, staff desegregation, and quality of education). A new student assignment plan was approved in a May 2005 order .

At the court’s request, in a January 2018 response to the school district’s annual report the Section identified two areas of ongoing district noncompliance with the 2003 Consent Order that pertain to the assignment of students within schools: (1) discipline that excludes students from schools and classrooms; and (2) the referral and assignment of students to the gifted and talented program. With the consent of the  school district, the Section simultaneously filed a joint motion to declare the district partially unitary and approve a proposed stipulation with regard to several of the school district’s remaining desegregation obligations. Separately, counsel for Plaintiffs asked the Court to require the school district to provide notice of the proposed changes and invite public comment before dismissing any part of the 2003 Order. The Court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s request.

Having provided the public appropriate notice and an opportunity to submit comments pursuant to a court-approved schedule, the United States and the school district filed a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Support on December 14, 2018, to declare the District partially unitary with respect to desegregation of staff and the following quality of education areas governed by the 2003 Order: academic achievement, advanced course offerings and enrollment, special education program, and student dropouts. The court granted the joint motion in an order dated December 18, 2018.

This case was brought by the Henrico County School Board (board) to appeal a Virginia hearing officer’s decision in favor of R.T.’s parents’ private school placement. R.T. is an autistic child entitled to a free and appropriate education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The hearing officer agreed with R.T.’s parents that the board failed to provide R.T. with a FAPE and that the private school placement was a FAPE. One issue before the federal district court was which party should pay for the private school placement pending the board’s appeal of the state hearing officer’s decision. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s regulation, 34 C.F.R. §300.514(c), which implements the IDEA’s stay put provision, 20 U.S.C. §1415(j), the board should fund the placement while litigation is pending. The board challenged the validity of the statutory and regulatory stay put provisions, and the Section filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education to defend both provisions. The Section argued that the regulation was consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory provision and that the statutory provision was a valid exercise of the Spending Clause power. On June 22, 2006, the court issued an opinion rejecting the board’s Spending Clause challenge and agreeing with the United States that the board must pay for R.T.’s private pendent placement.

On January 18, 2017, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Covington Independent Public Schools to ensure the District does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its administration of school discipline. The agreement will guarantee that the District provides reasonable modifications of school policy for students with disabilities to avoid the use of exclusionary discipline, isolation, seclusion, or restraint, and contact with law enforcement. The agreement will also replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate.

This is a cooperative resolution of the Justice Department’s investigation, opened in November 2015 in response to complaints that the District’s discipline practices discriminated on the basis of race and disability. As a part of the settlement agreement, the District will continue its current practice of not stationing School Resource Officers (SROs) at elementary schools; cease requesting SROs to enforce disciplinary rules; eliminate the use of seclusion and isolation rooms; prohibit the use of restraints unless there is imminent danger to the physical safety of the student or others; develop a protocol to identify students who are disproportionately subject to disciplinary referrals, particularly those students who receive exclusionary discipline as a result, and provide those students with interventions and supports intended to reduce disciplinary actions; take prompt and effective steps to help students who are in crisis; implement a code of conduct that focuses on positive interventions, rather than punitive discipline; and train administrators and teachers on how to provide all students with effective interventions and supports.

On August 7, 2017, Cleveland Central High School and Cleveland Central Middle School opened in Cleveland, Mississippi, a major milestone in this longstanding desegregation case, which was initially filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs (the United States intervened in 1985).

On May 2, 2011, the United States had filed a motion for further relief asking the court to find that the district had violated its desegregation obligations under several previously-entered desegregation orders governing the District, and to compel the district's compliance with federal law. In its brief , the United States argued that, while the district had been governed by desegregation orders for more than 42 years, the predominantly black schools on the east side of the District had never been desegregated. The United States further asserted that the ratio of black and white faculty at numerous District schools reinforced the reputation of those schools in the community as "white" or "black" schools. The district filed an opposition brief on August 18, 2011, and the United States filed a reply brief on October 6, 2011.

In an opinion issued on March 28, 2012, the court determined that two schools, a middle school and high school that were formerly de jure black schools, had never been desegregated. The court also found that the ratio of black and white faculty at every school in the District deviated from the district-wide faculty ratio. The court ordered the district to submit a proposed desegregation plan addressing these issues. On December 11, 2012, following a hearing on the District’s proposed plan, the Court issued an order and opinion , finding that the District's proposal did not meet constitutional requirements and ordering the District to implement a "freedom of choice" plan for its middle and high school students.

On February 21, 2013, the United States filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its remedial order, arguing in its brief that "freedom of choice" was an inadequate remedy in this case. The Court denied the motion in an April 30, 2013 order . On April 1, 2014, following the United States' appeal of the court's remedial order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding for further proceedings. On January 23, 2015, the United States submitted a proposed desegregation plan to the Court. The district filed two separate plans. The United States objected to the District's plans on February 13, 2015 and responded to the District's objections to its plan on February 27, 2015. The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing on the proposed plans in May 2015. 

On May 13, 2016, the Court approved the U.S. plan and ordered the Cleveland School District to consolidate its secondary schools, rejecting as unconstitutional both of the District’s proposals. For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release .  After several months during which the District proceeded with an appeal of the Court’s May 2016 decision to the Fifth Circuit and submitted additional proposals to the district court, the Parties reached an agreement.  On February 8, 2017, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Modification of the Court’s May 2016 Order that would end the appeal and remove the additional proposals from the district court’s consideration.  In a March 13 order , the Court granted the Parties’ motion, and on March 17, 2017, the Court issued an updated implementation timeline . For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release .

Cleveland Central High School opened to all District 9th-12th graders and Cleveland Central Middle School opened to all District 7th-8th graders in August 2017.  The Department of Justice will continue to monitor the District’s compliance with the Court’s orders and federal law.

In this matter involving the Crestwood School District in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, the Department investigated a complaint alleging violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. §1703 et seq., related to the district's English Language Learner (ELL) program, as well as claims of employment discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On August 13, 2014, the Department and the district entered into a comprehensive, multi-part Settlement Agreement. The agreement requires the district to ensure all of its ELL students, most of whom are native Arabic speakers, receive appropriate English as a Second Language and sheltered content instruction taught by teachers who are properly qualified and trained. The district also must provide ELL students and limited English proficient parents with meaningful access to important information, including discipline and special education materials and procedures. Pursuant to the agreement, the district will work with the Department' Community Relations Service to improve parental outreach and community engagement, establish a community advisory panel, and implementing training on cultural competency. The district also will retain a qualified consultant to help it draft a comprehensive recruitment and hiring policy and implement best practices for recruiting, hiring, and retaining a qualified and diverse faculty and staff. The agreement also requires the district to institute internal complaint processes to investigate and resolve allegations of employment discrimination and/or retaliation. The district's compliance with the agreement will be monitored for four years. For more information, please see this press release .

Settlement Agreement in: Arabic

Press Release in: Arabic

On June 16, 2004, the parents of a 5th-grade student at the Hadley School Program for the Creative and Academically Talented sued the school district of the City of Saginaw, Michigan for allegedly discriminating against the student’s religious beliefs. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the district prohibited him from “selling” candy cane ornaments with an attached card explaining the religious origin of the candy cane as part of “Classroom City”–a multi-disciplinary marketplace town simulation that was part of the school’s social studies curriculum. The district conceded that the student had properly followed the assignment’s directions and received a grade of A for the simulation. Both the plaintiffs and the district filed cross motions for summary judgment.

The United States filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The United States argued that the district’s censorship of student religious speech that otherwise fulfills the assignment criteria violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments proscribing government regulation of speech that discriminates against a particular point of view–here a religious viewpoint. On September 18, 2006, the Court issued an opinion finding that the district had abridged the plaintiff student’s First Amendment free speech rights, but granted the district’s motion for summary judgment on other grounds.

On September 7, 2022, the Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Czerwienski, et. al. v. Harvard University, et. al .  The plaintiffs in this case are doctoral students at Harvard University who allege that they were retaliated against for reporting sexual harassment by a professor.  Harvard argues that it cannot be held liable for any retaliatory acts by the professor.  The United States’ brief clarifies that a recipient of federal financial assistance, like Harvard University, may be held liable for damages under Title IX where retaliatory conduct amounts to an official act of the recipient or where the recipient is deliberately indifferent to its employee’s retaliatory conduct.

On July 17, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah notified the Davis School District in Utah that we had opened an investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to parent complaints that Davis deprived students of equal protection of the law based on race. The Department’s investigation principally focused on Davis’s response to serious and widespread racial harassment of Black and Asian-American students.  The Department also investigated reports that Davis disciplined Black students more harshly than their white peers for similar behavior and that Davis denied Black students the ability to form student groups while supporting similar requests by other students.  After conducting over 100 interviews and an extensive review of Davis’s policies, trainings, discipline and other records, and responses to reports of racial harassment and other discrimination, the Department concluded that Davis violated students’ equal protection rights.

On September 15, 2021, the Department issued a  letter  notifying Davis of the Department’s conclusions, and on October 20, 2021, the Department entered into a settlement agreement  with Davis to address its violations of the Equal Protection Clause.  Under the Agreement, Davis will take significant steps to prevent and appropriately respond to racial harassment and other discrimination, including to: create a new department to handle complaints of race discrimination; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; create a centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and Davis’s response to complaints; implement student, staff, and parent training and education on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; analyze and review discipline data and amend policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies; and develop a districtwide procedure to assess requests for student groups and treat such requests fairly.  The Department will carefully monitor Davis’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2024-2025 school year. For more information, please see this  summary and the  press release . An Amendment to the 2021 Agreement is available, here .

In October 2012, counsel for the Sikh Coalition filed a complaint with the Department of Justice alleging that a middle school student had been repeatedly targeted with verbal and physical harassment because of his Sikh faith. The United States has authority to investigate and resolve complaints of religious and national origin harassment through its enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Following an inquiry into the student-specific complaints, the United States notified the district of its concerns that the district had failed to respond promptly and appropriately to the Sikh Coalition's allegations of harassment, including allegations that the student was called "Aladdin" because he wore a turban and was told by a fellow student to "go back to his country." The United States also raised concerns that the district had not investigated witness statements that the student had been called a "terrorist" and that there was a history of fellow students targeting him because of his turban. The United States also found that the disciplinary measures the district did take had not been effective in ending the harassment, and that the student feared continued harassment.

The district worked cooperatively with the United States to resolve the complaint and ensure greater protections for the student. The May 2013 Resolution Agreement, which will be in effect until the end of the 2014-2015 school year, requires the district to: work with a consultant to develop and implement anti-harassment training at the student's middle and high school; immediately implement a safety plan to ensure that the student is safe at school and, should incidents of harassment occur, that the district responds quickly and effectively; and meet with the student, his family, and administrators from his middle school and the high school where he will enroll, to identify key school personnel who can support the student should any future incidents of harassment occur. The Parties also agreed to continue to work collaboratively to resolve the United States' remaining concerns regarding the district's anti-harassment policies, procedures, and practices, and to ensure that district students and employees had appropriate training and guidelines on their federal civil rights and obligations as they pertain to harassment based on religion and national origin.

As a result of that joint effort, the district and the United States agreed to a second Resolution Agreement in November 2014 that supplements the existing and operative May 2013 agreement. The districtwide agreement, which will be in effect through the 2016-2017 school year, is designed to enhance the district's ability to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on national origin and religion and to provide clear and consistent procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to such conduct. The agreement requires the district to: review and revise all district anti-harassment and discipline policies and procedures to ensure consistency with the district's obligations under federal law; ensure that parents and students with limited English proficiency have access to essential information, including discipline policies and procedures, in a language they understand; develop and implement annual age- and position-appropriate trainings on religious and national origin harassment for all students, district and school administrators, faculty, and staff; and continue to build upon the district's existing anti-bullying initiatives and the May 2013 resolution agreement.

For more information, please see this press release .

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA (Punjabi)

The Department of Justice, through the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, filed a statement of interest on July 7, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Doe v. Fulton County School District.  In this case, the plaintiff, a middle school girl with significant physical, developmental, and intellectual disabilities, alleges that the Fulton County School District   subjected her to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.  Her claims of discrimination arise from an escalating series of sexual assaults and rape that she endured at the hands of other students while riding on a District special needs school bus, all with no intervention by the bus driver.  The plaintiff seeks damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as injunctive relief under the Georgia Open Records Act.  On June 15, 2020, the District filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing primarily that the knowledge of a bus driver categorically may not be attributed to the District for purposes of plaintiff’s discrimination claims.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that determining whether a school district employee is an “appropriate person” under Title IX is fact-dependent and thus may not be based on the employee’s title alone.  The United States concludes that proper application of Title IX case law requires that plaintiff be permitted to demonstrate facts in support of her allegations and that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should therefore be denied.

In November 2010, the Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that students in the school district were being harassed by other students because they didn't dress or act in ways that conform to gender stereotypes. Pursuant to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Departments of Justice and Education conducted an extensive investigation into sex-based harassment in the district's middle and high schools. Many students reported that the unsafe and unwelcoming school climate inhibited their ability to learn.

Six student plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Anoka-Hennepin School District in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in July 2011. In August 2011, the Court asked the United States to join in the mediation of the lawsuit. On March 5, 2012. The United States, the six student plaintiffs, and the District filed a Consent Decree , which was entered by the Court on March 6, 2012. Also on March 5, 2012, the three parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree and a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree , and the United States filed its Complaint-in-Intervention .

The Consent Decree requires the school district to retain an expert consultant in the area of sex-based harassment to review the district's policies and procedures concerning harassment; develop and implement a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment at the middle and high schools; enhance and improve its training of faculty, staff and students on sex-based harassment; hire or appoint a Title IX coordinator to ensure proper implementation of the district's sex-based harassment policies and procedures and district compliance with Title IX; retain an expert consultant in the area of mental health to address the needs of students who are victims of harassment; provide for other opportunities for student involvement and input into the district's ongoing anti-harassment efforts; improve its system for maintaining records of investigations and responding to allegations of harassment; conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation of its anti-harassment efforts; and submit annual compliance reports to the departments during the five year life of the Consent Decree. For more information on the Consent Decree, please see this press release .

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating Colorado Springs' Falcon School District 49 in response to complaints that the District was not adequately responding to incidents of racial harassment and discrimination in its schools. On January 25, 2010, the parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve the United States' concerns. A modified settlement agreement designed to address the District's non-compliance with the parties' original settlement agreement was executed on October 14, 2014. The modified settlement agreement requires the District to adequately address incidents of racial harassment by keeping adequate records, analyzing those records, training teachers and students, and providing appropriate disciplinary responses. For more information on this settlement, please see this press release and agreement.

On November 12, 2020, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington entered into a Settlement Agreement with Federal Way Public Schools in Federal Way, Washington to resolve an investigation into allegations of peer-on-peer harassment on the basis of religion and national origin between 2014 and 2018, and that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians who are not English language proficient. The Department initiated its investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to complaints by parents alleging their children had been subjected to severe and pervasive religion- and national-origin-based harassment that went unaddressed by the District. The complaints alleged that other students repeatedly called Muslim students “terrorists,” pulled off their hijabs, and physically assaulted them, and told a Latina student to “Go back to Mexico,” threatened to kill her, and physically assaulted her. The Department also investigated complaints that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians with English language barriers as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. Under the Agreement, the District will take proactive steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on religion and national origin. Those steps include retaining consultants to provide technical assistance to support a review of the District’s harassment policies, practices, and procedures, as well as the District’s training on and implementation of protocols for such policies. The Agreement also requires the District to work with the consultants to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District level to ensure that antiharassment policies are properly implemented. The District will also provide training for students and faculty, and will survey the educational environment and effectiveness of measures taken pursuant to the Agreement. Lastly, the District will ensure that it communicates essential school-related information in a language that parents and guardians with limited English proficiency understand so that their children can access the District’s educational programs. The Section will monitor compliance with this three-year agreement. For more information, please see this press release  and Extension Agreement .

Settlement Agreement: English | Español (Spanish) | العربية (Arabic) | Soomaali (Somali)    

On February 6, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona approved a Unitary Status Plan ("USP") filed by the Department of Justice, together with private plaintiffs and the Tucson Unified School District. The USP is the latest step in this longstanding desegregation case, originally filed in 1974. The United States intervened in the case in 1976. In 2012, after extensive negotiations, the parties jointly submitted the USP, a four-year plan requiring the District to undertake a robust set of measures to desegregate its schools. The USP touches on nearly every aspect of school operations and lays a strong foundation for a high quality educational environment for all students. For more information, please see this press release .

On December 1, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Frederick County Public School District in Maryland to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into complaints that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained children enrolled in the district’s specialized programs for students with autism and emotional and behavioral disabilities.  Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities.  The district will, among other things: prohibit the use of seclusion; report all instances of restraint and evaluate whether they were justified; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; design and implement procedures for handling complaints about restraint; offer counseling and compensatory education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices; and hire an administrator to supervise school-based staff and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA.  For more information, please see this letter , press release , and summary of the agreement .

In this matter involving the Ganado Unified School District in Arizona, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner (“ELL”)  students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).  On February 18, 2014, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the EEOA.  The agreement requires the district to: improve language acquisition instruction to ELL students; conduct significant training for staff and teachers of ELL students; provide adequate materials to support their acquisition of English and academic content; monitor ELL students who opt out of ELL services and after they exit such services to ensure they are participating equally in instructional programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL program.  The training-related remedies require teachers to facilitate ELL students’ access to the grade-level core content curriculum by using appropriate instructional strategies and providing a culturally responsive learning environment.  For more information, please see this press release .

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) partnered with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division - Educational Opportunities Section (DOJ) to initiate a compliance review of the Gallup-McKinley County School District (District). The purpose of the review was to determine whether the District discriminated against Native Americans by excluding them from college and career readiness programs and courses, such as Gifted and Talented (GATE), Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and honors courses. We also evaluated whether the District discriminated against Native American parents by failing to ensure meaningful access to the information surrounding the aforementioned programs and courses.

On June 16, 2017, the District entered into a Resolution Agreement to address OCR and the DOJ’s concerns. As part of the Agreement, the District agreed to (i) retain a consultant to examine and make recommendations to address the underrepresentation of Native American students in the college and career readiness programs and courses; (ii) improve outreach to the Native American community to ensure that Native American students and their parents are timely informed about the various college and career readiness programs and courses, including the application and admission processes and procedures; (iii) review and revise its practices and procedures for identifying and recommending students to college and career readiness programs and courses; (iv) provide mandatory training to teachers involved in the identification or referral of students to the college and career readiness programs and courses; (v) increase the number of college and career readiness programs and courses offered in its high schools; (vi) monitor the academic performance of students enrolled in the college and career readiness programs and courses, providing academic support where necessary; and (vii) provide language assistance, including translation services, for limited English proficient parents/guardians.

On January 4, 2001, the court approved a five-year consent decree negotiated by the parties to eliminate further the vestiges of segregation in the Tennessee system of public higher education. Under this consent decree, the State committed to creating new high-demand programs at TSU, particularly at the downtown campus (the former UT-N site), to appeal in particular to nontraditional students. Other efforts included revitalization of the downtown TSU campus, an increase in system-wide efforts to recruit black undergraduate students, and the creation and funding of a TSU endowment for educational excellence. In an order dated September 21, 2006, the court recognized the parties' efforts and achievements in the case in establishing a unitary system of public higher education in Tennessee, and approved the parties' joint motion for a final order of dismissal and terminated this longstanding litigation.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest on June 29, 2015 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board.  In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that the Gloucester County School Board unlawfully discriminated against him and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex when it passed a policy that prohibited transgender students from using facilities matching their gender identity.  The plaintiff, represented by the A.C.L.U., asked the court for a Preliminary Injunction to permit him to use the boys’ restrooms the beginning of next school year.  In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments also stated that a sex-stereotyping claim can be based on an individual’s anatomical features, as well as behavior and appearance.  The departments concluded that the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction had a likelihood of success on the merits under Title IX and that granting the relief would serve the public interest.

A sixth-grade student who practiced Islam wore her hijab, a religious head covering, for several weeks at the beginning of the 2003-04 school year in the Muskogee Public School District. On September 11, 2003, school officials told the sixth-grader that she could no longer wear her hijab because of the “no hats” policy in the school’s dress code. The dress code, however, had not been applied consistently, and the school district had allowed students to wear hats for medical, educational, and other secular purposes. When the sixth-grader refused to remove her hijab, she was suspended for eight days.

In October 2003, the student, through her father, sued the school district for alleged violations of her constitutional rights and Oklahoma law. The United States opened an investigation in November 2003, and then intervened in the lawsuit upon finding evidence to support a claim based on the denial of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 6, 2004, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying memorandum in support .

On May 20, 2004, the parties negotiated a consent order . Under the six-year consent order, the school district must: allow the plaintiff to wear her hijab; make similar religious accommodations for any other student in the school system who has a bona fide religious objection to the dress code; implement a training program for all teachers and administrators regarding the revised dress code; and publicize the revisions to students and parents. The district also must certify its compliance with the terms of the order to the United States for a four-year period. The private plaintiffs and the school district also negotiated a confidential damages settlement and the claim for expungement of her school records. For more on this settlement, please see the press release linked here.

In this matter involving the Horry County Schools, the Section examined whether South Carolina’s third-largest public school district was providing appropriate services to its rapidly growing population of English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). On August 24, 2017, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the district would take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement required the district to: properly identify and place EL students when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English and access grade-level core content instruction; secure enough teachers certified in English as a Second Language to serve all EL students; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time. The agreement required the district to regularly report to the Section on the agreement’s implementation; the agreement was terminated December 2023.

In a long-standing desegregation case, the Huntsville City Schools proposed plans for construction to replace or expand several schools. Following negotiations, the United States agreed not to oppose the district's proposed motion for approval of school construction plan, which the district submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The court approved the plan on May 20, 2013. On April 21, 2015, the court issued an opinion setting forth its reasons for approving a consent order jointly filed by the United States and the Huntsville City Schools. The consent order revises attendance zones and strengthens magnet offerings across the school district; expands access to pre-K, gifted programs, advanced course offerings, academic after-school programs, and college counseling; and includes comprehensive remedies to address racial discrimination in student discipline, among other areas.

On August 28, 2023, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas entered into a Settlement Agreement with Highland Community College in Kansas to resolve an investigation into allegations it discriminated against Black students—primarily Black student-athletes—on the basis of race in the administration of its discipline, housing and campus security policies and procedures, and its response to complaints of racial discrimination. The investigation was conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the settlement, the college will strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure an effective response to  students’ complaints of racial discrimination and clarify campus security policies, procedures, and training to promote consistent, non-discriminatory interactions between security personnel and students. The college will, among other steps, train relevant staff on how to respond to and resolve allegations of discrimination; promote fair and equitable application of discipline policies and analyze discipline data to ensure non-discrimination; train campus security and other staff on effective de-escalation techniques and non-coercive methods of gathering information; survey and improve the climate and culture of the college’s main campus and cultivate safe, welcoming spaces for Black students; and ensure students’ equitable access to the college’s education programs and activities regardless of race. For more information, please see the cover letter to the agreement and press release .

On November 22, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with Illinois Central College in Peoria, Illinois, to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the College’s programs, and to address concerns related to the College’s process for investigating complaints of disability discrimination. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that a student with a hearing disability was denied access to the College’s theatre program, and that the College failed to adequately investigate the student’s complaint. Under the settlement agreement, the College will update its investigation process to ensure that student complaints of disability discrimination are handled in a fair and timely manner. In addition, the College will train the managers and staff involved in investigations, as well as staff in the College’s theatre department, on the new complaint investigation procedures and the requirements of the ADA. Finally, the College will appoint an ADA Coordinator charged with overseeing implementation of the revised processes and compliance with Title II of the ADA.

In this matter involving the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), the Section conducted a review to determine whether ISBE was providing appropriate guidance and monitoring of school districts' services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). The Section determined that ISBE was violating the EEOA because its administrative rules and guidance did not ensure that districts serve ELL students beyond the three-year requirement under State law for transitional bilingual education (TBE) and transitional program of instruction (TPI) services. Although ISBE denied violating the EEOA, it agreed to revise its administrative rules and guidance to make clear that ELLs must receive services until they achieve English proficiency on the State's mandated test. The amended rules were approved by ISBE on June 24, 2010, were cleared by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules on July 13, 2010, and will take effect once filed with the Illinois Secretary of State. See press release . The amended rules require school districts that terminate TBE and TPI services at year three to submit to ISBE a plan explaining the ELL services to be provided beyond year three, the staff providing such services, and the resources available to implement those services. ISBE also agreed to monitor these plans to determine if they are sufficient and appropriately implemented. ISBE further agreed that it will issue guidance identifying educationally sound ELL services that could be provided in lieu of TBE and TPI services after year three. ISBE released this guidance in March 2011. Pursuant to the agreement between the Department and ISBE, ISBE will apply the amended rules and this guidance when monitoring districts' ELL programs.

Following negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order , which the court approved on July 14, 2000. The order required the district to take steps to increase African-American student participation in its gifted program and its advanced classes. To decrease the number of African-American students in resource classes, the order also required the district to annually evaluate students in resource classes to determine if placement in a regular class would be more appropriate. The JISD provided three reports in conjunction with its requirements under the order, as well as supplemental reports requested by the Section. On October 16, 2001, the parties agreed to, and the court signed, an agreed order of dismissal , indicating that the JISD had achieved unitary states in all facets of its operations.

In September 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights began investigating the Jefferson Parish Public School System ("JPPSS") after the Departments received several complaints alleging violations of federal civil rights laws. Specifically, the complaints concerned JPPSS's policies and practices for student registration, enrollment, and graduation; JPPSS's policies and practices for communicating with national origin minority parents who have limited English proficiency; and JPPSS's response to alleged harassment of Latino students based on their national origin. After requesting and reviewing documents and information provided by JPPSS, the Departments visited Jefferson Parish and interviewed many administrators, faculty, and students in May 2013. At the conclusion of the Departments' visit, JPPSS voluntarily agreed to resolve the investigation by entering into an agreement that includes school-specific and parish-wide remedial measures to address the United States' concerns.

The agreement, signed by the parties on July 9, 2014, will ensure that all students who reside in Jefferson Parish can enroll in school regardless of their or their parents' national origin or immigration status. The agreement also requires JPPSS to review and revise its policies and practices for communicating with national origin essential parents who have limited English proficiency to make sure that parents receive important information in a language they can understand. Additionally, JPPSS will review and revise its policies and practices to ensure that all complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, including allegations of harassment, are appropriately investigated and resolved.

For more information, please see this press release and the full agreement available in English and Spanish.

Summary in: Spanish.

Summary in: Arabic.

Summary in: Vietnamese.

On January 14, 2010, in the Northern District of New York, the Section moved to intervene in J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District. The lawsuit was filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of J.L., a 15-year-old student in the District. J.L. alleged that the District violated state and federal laws including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, both of which prohibit discrimination based on sex, including discrimination based on failure to conform to gender stereotypes. According to the United States' motion , J.L. failed to conform to gender stereotypes in both behavior and appearance. He exhibited feminine mannerisms, dyed his hair wore makeup and nail polish, and maintained predominantly female friendships. The alleged severe and pervasive student-on-student harassment based on sex escalated from derogatory name-calling to physical threats and violence. The United States further alleged that the District had knowledge of the harassment, but was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take timely, corrective action, and that the deliberate indifference restricted J.L.'s ability to fully enjoy the educational opportunities of his school. The District denied all allegations. Prior to the court ruling on the United States' intervention motion, an out-of-court settlement was reached among J.L., the District, and the United States. The court approved the settlement agreement on March 29, 2010. The agreement requires the District to (1) retain an expert consultant in the area of harassment and discrimination based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation to review the District's policies and procedures; (2) develop and implement a comprehensive plan for disseminating the District's harassment and discrimination policies and procedures; (3) retain an expert consultant to conduct annual training for faculty and staff, and students as deemed appropriate by the expert, on discrimination and harassment based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation; (4) maintain records of investigations and responses to allegations of harassment for five years; and (5) provide annual compliance reports to the United States and private plaintiffs. Lastly, $50,000.00 will be paid to J.L. and $25,000.00 in attorneys' fees will be paid to the New York Civil Liberties Foundation.

On May 5, 2006, Junior Does filed a complaint against the Allentown School District alleging that, as six- and seven-year-old students, they were sexually assaulted by another student in the bathrooms at Central Elementary School during the 2003-2004 school year. On April 21, 2009, Junior Does amended their complaint to include a sex discrimination claim pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and on July 10, 2009, the Division intervened. On August 3, 2011, Junior Does again amended their complaint to include allegations that a fifth student was sexually assaulted, adding another minor plaintiff as a party.

In the case, the Division alleged the following: that sexual assaults occurred on at least five separate occasions; that the district was made aware of each incident immediately after it occurred; and that despite this notice, the district did not take appropriate action, and in some circumstances took no action, to prevent the harassment from recurring. Furthermore, the department alleged that both before and after the sexual harassment of the students, the district failed to adopt and implement adequate and effective sexual harassment policies and procedure as required by federal law; had the district adopted and implemented such policies and procedures, the district would have prevented the continued sexual assault of students.

After extensive discovery, the Division and the school district negotiated a consent decree . The court approved the proposed consent decree on July 31, 2012. The consent decree provides for substantial systemic relief and requires the school district to take the following steps: develop and implement a comprehensive plan for addressing and preventing sexual harassment in all district schools; retain an expert consultant in the area of student-on-student harassment to draft and implement a sexual harassment policy and procedures; provide training to administrators, faculty, staff, students and parents on sex-based harassment; select qualified district and school-based equity coordinators to ensure proper implementation of the district's harassment policies and procedures and compliance with Title IX, including prompt investigation, resolution and reporting of sexual harassment complaints and allegations; create procedures for identifying, monitoring, and supervising students with a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students; develop and implement policies and procedures for communicating with outside agencies, such as police, hospital and child protection agencies, of allegations of sexual harassment in the district; and submit annual compliance reports to the Division.

On July 1, 2016, the Section and the United State Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas filed two statements of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with evaluating the Title IX sexual assault claims in T.F. v. Kansas State University and S.W. v. Kansas State University . In these cases, the plaintiffs, both students of Kansas State University (K-State), allege that K-State discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when K-State allegedly refused to respond to or investigate their reports of sexual assault by K-State students during parties hosted at and by fraternities recognized and supported by K-State. In the statements of interest responding to K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the United States advised the court that Title IX imposes an obligation on federally-funded schools to respond to reports of rape that occurred at off-campus school-recognized fraternity houses and events and to determine if a hostile educational environment exists in such school-recognized activities or other education programs or activities. The United States further argued that under the proper Title IX standards, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages and equitable relief should be allowed to proceed. On March 14, 2017, after considering the parties pleadings and the United States’ statements of interest, the court denied K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, holding that both plaintiffs had alleged the elements required to state a plausible Title IX harassment claim. Specifically, the court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that K-State had substantial control over the alleged assailants and the context of the assaults, which were so severe as to deny plaintiffs access to educational benefits and opportunities, and that K-State’s alleged deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ reports of rape made them “liable or vulnerable” to further harassment or assault.

Memorandum and Order - T.F. v. K-State       

Memorandum and Order - S.W. v. K-State

In this case, formerly known as Lau v. Nichols, the United States Supreme Court held that the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and its implementing regulations by failing to provide special programs designed to rectify the English language deficiencies of students who do not speak or understand English, or are of limited English-speaking ability, and by failing to provide these students with equal access to the instructional program. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). The Supreme Court remanded the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief. On October 22, 1976, the parties entered into a Consent Decree that incorporated a Master Plan that requires bilingual-bicultural education for the English Language Learner (ELL) students who speak Chinese, Filipino, and Spanish. Chinese and Spanish bilingual programs continue subsequent to the passage of California's Proposition 227. The Consent Decree also requires the provision of other special programs and English as a Second Language (ESL) for ELL students of other language groups, as well as the provision of bilingual instruction, whenever feasible. The Consent Decree calls for annual reporting to the Court by the SFUSD regarding its ELL programs and the establishment of a Bilingual Community Council (BCC) to assist the SFUSD in filing these annual reports.

On August 24, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the Court should not relieve the SFUSD of responsibility for reporting under the extant Consent Decree. The United States filed a response to the show cause order that identified problems with the ELL programs and recommended continued reporting by the SFUSD, additional on-site visits of the ELL programs, and the development of an updated Master Plan for ELL programs. The SFUSD and the private plaintiffs filed responses agreeing to this approach for going forward. The Court continued the reporting obligations and assigned the case to an active judge. On May 1, 2007, the new judge held a status conference in which he agreed to let the parties continue their school visits and work collaboratively on developing an updated Master Plan. The United States' consultant and members of the BCC completed visits to twenty-four schools on May 18, 2007. The parties agreed to a new Master Plan that would replace the outdated plan and filed a stipulated application to modify the 1976 Consent Decree. On September 11, 2008, the Court approved the new Master Plan and entered an order modifying the 1976 Consent Decree.

The United States and the Private Plaintiffs then monitored SFUSD's implementation of the 2008 Master Plan through the District's annual reports, regular site visits, community meetings, and communications with parents and students. To resolve the United States' and Private Plaintiff's consistent concerns about SFUSD's compliance, the parties negotiated a Modified Consent Decree (MCD) . On June 24, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion and supporting memo seeking court approval of the MCD. The MCD, approved by the court on June 29, 2015, requires SFUSD to, among other things: promptly identify, assess, and place EL students in effective EL programs; offer a range of EL programs and services to meet the needs of all EL students, including newcomers, students with disabilities, and long-term EL students; expand translation and interpretation services for LEP families; adequately train employees who serve EL students so that they can fulfill their roles; and conduct robust monitoring. The MCD also protects the educational rights of the district's most at-risk and vulnerable EL students who are learning in alternative education or juvenile justice settings. If SFUSD implements the MCD fully and in good faith, the MCD and this historic case are expected to end in the fall of 2018. For more information about the MCD, please see the June 24, 2015 press release . Translated copies of the MCD are linked here in Chinese , Spanish , Vietnamese , Filipino , and Arabic .

This statewide settlement resolved issues relating to the overrepresentation of black students in the mental retardation and emotional disturbance special education classifications and the underrepresentation of black students in the specific learning disabilities and gifted and talented special education classifications. This consent decree , approved by the court on August 30, 2000, involves special education issues that were raised as a result of information gathered during unitary status reviews in eleven desegregation cases pending before the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. Parties to the decree include the United States, private plaintiffs, and the Alabama State Department of Education.

The settlement required the State of Alabama to undertake initiatives in providing teacher training, to establish a program to improve reading achievement, and to make changes to Alabama administrative law in the areas of pre-referral, referral, evaluation procedures, and eligibility criteria. This emphasis on pre-referral intervention services resulted in substantial changes over the six years of implementing the consent decree. There have been significant reductions in racial disparities in the special education classifications of mental retardation (MR), and disparities have been virtually eliminated in the classifications of emotional disturbance (ED) and specific learning disabilities (SLD). There also has been an overall decrease in the number of students classified as MR or ED, and increases in students classified as SLD. The number of black students classified as gifted also has increased.

The settlement also required reevaluation of certain categories of minority students who had been identified as MR. As a result, several hundred students who had been inappropriately placed as MR were exited from special education. These students were provided with appropriate supplemental services to help transition successfully into the general education program, and were carefully monitored during this process.

On February 12, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a consent order filed by the Justice Department, together with private plaintiffs and the Calhoun County, Alabama School District, in this longstanding desegregation case. The order found that the district has met its desegregation obligations in certain areas and providing for additional, comprehensive relief in the areas of faculty and staff hiring and recruitment and student discipline and school climate.

In approving the consent order, the district court declared that the 9,200-student school district has eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation in the areas of student assignment, extracurricular activities, school facilities, and transportation, thereby ending the court's supervision in those areas. The order requires the district to take additional steps to reach full compliance, including adopting measures to promote racial diversity in its faculty and staff, expanding its use of positive behavioral supports and interventions throughout its schools, and revising its student discipline policies and procedures to ensure they are fair, non-discriminatory, and limit the use of exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions.

In this school desegregation case, the parties entered into a consent decree , which provided for the closure of two K-12 schools and the consolidation of the students into two central school zones. One of the K-12 schools to be closed had a virtually all-white student body and had never graduated a black student. The day after the decree was filed, the school board voted to rescind its consent. The Section filed a motion to enforce the consent decree , arguing that once the board had given its consent, granted authority to counsel to sign on its behalf, and jointly filed the consent decree, the board was bound by the terms of the consent decree.

At the same time, two groups moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of opposing the consent decree. The groups comprised parents, students, and other citizens from each of the two schools scheduled for closure. The Section filed briefs opposing both motions for intervention – one against the Mellow Valley School intervenors and one against the Bibb Graves School intervenors – arguing that the proposed intervenors did not express a cognizable interest in furthering desegregation, and, even if they had, the United States and private plaintiffs adequately represented any such interest.

On May 13, 2003, the district court accepted all of the Section's arguments and entered an order (1) denying the Board's motion to rescind its consent, (2) denying both motions to intervene, and (3) enforcing the consent decree. The parties worked to implement the consent decree, and the two schools were successfully closed prior to the beginning of the 2003-04 school year. The two groups of unsuccessful intervenors appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter involving the Lewiston, Maine school district, the United States reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs)–particularly among the district’s large population of Somalian refugees–as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 4, 2007, the school district and the United States entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement requires the district to develop, among other things: standardized curricula for ELLs; adequate teacher training and collaborative opportunities; systematic monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of ELLs; and a comprehensive ELL program evaluation model.

The Section investigated complaints about whether (i) the Lewiston Public School District’s shortening school days for students with disabilities by placing them on an “abbreviated” school day schedule violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and (ii) the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). The investigation found that the District routinely shortened school days for students with disabilities because of behavior related to their disabilities without considering their individual needs or testing alternative interventions or supports to keep students in school for the full day.  The investigation further revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support needed to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.  On May 27, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the compliance issues identified by the United States, including: ensuring students with disabilities receive supports they need to remain in school for the full day; developing policies and procedures for non-discriminatory abbreviated school day placements; and ensuring that all special education personnel, school counselors, and school psychologists receive training on appropriately responding to disability-related behaviors. The agreement also requires the District to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction to all of its EL students and targeted programming for those ELs with limited or interrupted formal education; fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers; provide training to principals and teachers; communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities; and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years.  For more information, please see this press release in  English , Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese . Translated versions of the agreement are also available in Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese .

This historic desegregation involving the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) began in 1972.  The Section continues to monitor the SPLS’s compliance with a 1999 Agreement that set forth requirements to ameliorate the effects of segregation through voluntary interdistrict transfers, remedial programs, school improvement and accountability, and the provision of funds from the state to the SLPS.  This Agreement has been consensually modified by new orders and agreements in recent years, including a 2011 agreement that allowed for the use of desegregation funds for specific programs, such as magnet school transportation, principal leadership training, early childhood, and enhanced computing and technology in the SLPS.  Section 10 of the 1999 Agreement set aside funds for “construction and site acquisition costs to accommodate any reasonable anticipated net enrollment increase caused by any  reduction or elimination of the voluntary transfer plan.” 1999 Agreement, Section 10, at 12 .  While the parties anticipated in 1999 that the voluntary transfer program would continue for a number of years, Section 10 was designed to provide for SLPS’ capital needs if the transfer program ended and numerous students returned at one time to the SLPS.  Over the years, however, the assumptions underlying creation of the Section 10 fund did not come to pass, primarily as a result of population declines, the advent of charter schools, and the ongoing commitment by both city and county schools to the voluntary transfer program. Accordingly, in 2013, the court approved the parties’ agreement to allow the use of certain remedial funds set aside in the desegregation account to provide continued funding for the St. Louis Community Monitoring and Support Task Force.

On July 30, 2007, Kimberly Lopez filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) alleging her son was sexually assaulted by another student while riding a special education school bus operated by Metro. On April 30, 2008, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a sex discrimination claim against Metro pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Recognizing the United States’ substantial interest in ensuring recipients of federal funds do not discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX, the Court issued an order granting the United States Motion to Intervene and permitting the United States to file its complaint in intervention. In January 2009, the United States moved for summary judgment , and subsequently opposed Metro’s cross-motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim and submitted a reply brief in support of its own motion. On July 7, 2009, the Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment but adopting the Section’s interpretation of Title IX in numerous key respects. On February 8, 2010, the parties entered into a consent decree that obligates the Nashville Public School District to take substantial steps to enhance the security of students with disabilities on its public school transportation system. These steps include staffing bus monitors to assist drivers on all special education buses; implementing comprehensive screening procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are not assigned to buses where they would be at risk of harassment; expediting the investigation of suspected acts of sexual harassment involving students with disabilities; and ensuring open lines of communication between transportation officials and school-based personnel. Metro also agreed to pay Plaintiff $1.475 million as part of the settlement.

The Section intervened in this same-sex peer harassment case alleging the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to respond appropriately to harassment of a student on the basis of sex. Specifically, the Section alleged in our complaint-in-intervention : from the eighth grade through the eleventh grade, Jeremy Lovins was subjected to harassment on the basis of sex (ostensibly because other students believed he was gay); Jeremy and his parents repeatedly informed school officials of the harassment but the harassment continued; and Jeremy was eventually subjected to an assault and forced to leave school because of the harassment. On July 31, 2000, the Court entered a consent decree settling the case

The consent decree included monetary relief for Mr. Lovins in the amount of $72,500 and injunctive relief. Under the consent decree, the school district agreed, among other things: to conduct a climate assessment of student-to-student and teacher-to-student relations within its schools; to develop a comprehensive plan to identify, prevent, and remedy harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation; to educate and train teachers, staff, and students about the operation of the policy and procedures; to maintain written records of complaints and investigations; and to file implementation reports with the Section and the court.

The two plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Sullivan County Board of Education (SCBE) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to appropriately address known student-on-student harassment on the basis of race. Specifically, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that both Michael and Marquita Madison, who are black, were subjected to ongoing racial harassment while attending Sullivan East High School (East). This harassment included a constant barrage of racial slurs, some made within earshot of teachers, racially derogatory graffiti on walls and desks, and racially offensive paraphernalia. Though school officials knew or should have known of the harassment, they failed to take appropriate steps to address it. Marquita eventually transferred to another school after her sophomore year. Michael fell victim to a racially-motivated assault outside the school cafeteria his junior year. He did not return to East after the assault and finished high school on homebound studies.

The Section filed its complaint-in-intervention , motion to intervene , and supporting memorandum in November 2000. In our complaint-in-intervention, we sought monetary relief for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief, such as policies and procedures to prevent or address such harassment in the future. The court granted the Section's intervention on November 28, 2000. The parties conducted discovery in 2001 and early 2002. Following discovery, the parties negotiated a consent order and monetary settlement of the Title VI and equal protection claims. Under the consent order , which was approved by the Court on October 16, 2002, the school system agreed to retain an expert to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination; provide an education and training program for teachers, staff, and students about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination; and maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations. For more details about the settlement, please see the press release linked here .

On June 12, 2023, the Section entered into a  settlement agreement  with the Madison County School District to address complaints of race-based harassment in its schools. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on allegations that the school district denied students equal protection of the laws based on their race. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will undertake significant institutional reforms. The district will, among other steps: revise its anti-discrimination policies and procedures; create three new central office positions to oversee effective handling of complaints of race discrimination; update its racial harassment and discipline policies to more accurately track and consistently respond to complaints of race-based harassment; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; update its centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and the district’s response to complaints; implement focus groups, conduct surveys, training and educational events on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; and analyze and review its discipline data and amend its policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies. For more information, please see this  letter  to the District and  press release .

In this matter involving the Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School of Excellence (“the School”), the Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts examined whether the School was adequately serving its English Learner (EL) students, including EL students with disabilities, as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On March 10, 2020, the School and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the issues identified by the United States and ensure the School’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the School to: provide all EL students – who make up nearly a quarter of the School’s population – with an adequate amount of daily English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction taught by an ESL-certified teacher; actively recruit qualified, certified staff for ESL, core content area, and special education teaching positions; ensure all ELs with disabilities receive both ESL and special education services unless their parents/guardians voluntarily and knowingly waive one or both services; train special education and ESL-certified teachers who work with EL students with disabilities on how to provide services to ELs with disabilities; communicate with Limited English Proficient parents about essential school information in a language they understand; and properly monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place through the end of the 2021-22 school year. 

Private plaintiffs filed this school desegregation case in 1965; the United States intervened later that year. On July 31, 1969, the Court approved the District's 1969-70 Revised Desegregation Plan, which was subsequently modified with the court's approval in 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, and 1978. In 2007, the United States initiated a review of the District's compliance with the court's desegregation orders and applicable federal law. This review resulted in the filing of negotiated consent order, which was approved by the court on February 5, 2009. On July 27, 2012, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on August 21, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on July 12, 2013 . The consent order requires the district to close four of its seven elementary schools, including three racially identifiable schools; construct a new school; modify its attendance zones; and implement a controlled choice program at two of its elementary schools. The consent order also will require the district to continue certain intra-district transfers that have the effect of furthering the desegregation of the district's schools. On March 5, 2014, the court approved amendments to the July 12, 2013 consent order, which extended the timeline for implementing the elementary desegregation plan and established monitoring and reporting requirements sought by the United States.  On October 11, 2023, the court declared the district had met its desegregation obligations in several areas of operations, including staff assignment, facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities, and approved a negotiated consent decree that requires the district to take measures to desegregate its gifted program and advanced and dual enrollment courses.  The consent order also requires the district to implement changes to its student discipline policies designed to reduce racial disparities in discipline and eliminate the use of corporal punishment.

In this matter involving the Mercer County School District in West Virginia, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA"). After determining that the school district was not complying with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district on January 31, 2012. This agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: timely identify and assess all students with a primary or home language other than English; serve ELLs with appropriate instruction; provide adequate teacher training; and carefully monitor the academic progress of current and former ELLs.

On September 26, 2016, the Division filed a Statement of Interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims under Title VI, its implementing regulations, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) in Methelus v. School Board of Collier County .  The plaintiffs filed on behalf of their newly-arrived, foreign-born English Language Learner (ELL) children ages 15-17, arguing that the Collier County School Board (Board) has violated the EEOA and Title VI by refusing to enroll these children in its regular high schools and diverting some to enroll in Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs that charge a fee and do not earn credit toward a high school diploma.  Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the Board’s practices did not constitute “appropriate action to overcome language barriers” under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA and intentionally discriminated against these foreign-born, ELL children on the basis for their national origin in violation of Title VI.  The Board moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims in their Amended Complaint.  The United States’ Statement of Interest , filed in response to the motion to dismiss, sets forth the legal standards applicable to the claim under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, including the Castaneda v. Pickard standards binding on the Florida federal court. The filing explains why under those standards the plaintiffs adequately pled facts supporting a plausible Section 1703(f) claim.  The filing also sets forth the well-established Arlington Heights factors for evaluating intentional discrimination claims under Title VI, explaining how the plaintiffs’ factual allegations addressed many of these factors and sufficed to state a plausible Title VI claim.

On April 24, 2013, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township, Indiana to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment in schools. The agreement resolved the Section's review of the district's policies and practices related to harassment and bullying, which was initiated in June 2011 after reports of possible racial harassment at a district school. The agreement requires the district to take a number of steps to prevent and address harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability, and to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. These steps include forming a district-wide anti-harassment task force to review and revise the district's policies and procedures related to harassment, bullying, and discipline; establishing a cohesive process for receiving, investigating and monitoring complaints of harassment and bullying, enabling the district to track repeated incidents involving individual students or groups targeted for their membership in a protected class; and providing training, professional development and school climate assessments for both students and staff at two of the district's schools. For more information, please see this press release .

On November 18, 1963, private plaintiffs filed this case complaining that the Gadsden City Board of Education was maintaining a segregated school system. On May 9, 1966, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring the school system into conformity with federal constitutional and statutory provisions.

Over the years, the court issued a series of orders aimed at eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination and completely desegregating the school system. In July 2003, the court approved the parties' proposed consent order that required the school district to take remedial actions in the areas of student assignment, personnel assignment, facilities, and quality of education. The consent order required the district to assign students randomly to classrooms and to enforce attendance zone lines strictly. With respect to personnel assignment, the consent order required the district to increase efforts to recruit minority teachers and to ensure that each school had a faculty whose racial diversity was reflective of the district-wide faculty. The consent order also required the district to make substantial improvements to its secondary schools so that these facilities were all of comparable quality. Finally, with respect to quality of education, the consent order required the district to equalize its offering of and access to advanced and honor classes among secondary schools. Having fulfilled these obligations, the district was declared unitary on August 26, 2005.

In this long-standing school desegregation case, the Jackson-Madison County School Board filed a motion for unitary status in December 1999, asserting that it had complied in good faith with prior desegregation decrees and had eliminated the vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable. The Section and the private plaintiffs opposed the board's motion for unitary status. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations, which resulted in an agreement shortly before trial in November 2000.

The agreement, which the court approved in December 2000, permits the board to proceed with its plan to construct five new schools and implement revised student attendance zones over the next four years. The agreement includes numerous measures that will further desegregation by voluntary means, including the construction of magnet schools and the introduction of other school choice options. The board is also required to take additional remedial action in faculty and staff assignments, and to encourage minority student participation in all programs and activities. Implementation and monitoring of the agreement is ongoing

Parents of students with disabilities who allege that their children were not properly identified, evaluated, and provided with special education services filed a class action lawsuit against the Newark Public Schools, the State of New Jersey, and several state officials. The lawsuit alleges that Newark does not have adequate systems in place to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and that New Jersey has violated its obligation to supervise local implementation of IDEA requirements.

In its motion to dismiss, New Jersey raised a constitutional challenge to the IDEA, claiming that the Eleventh Amendment afforded it immunity against a private lawsuit to enforce the IDEA. The Section sought and was granted intervention to defend the constitutionality of the IDEA. In its brief , the Section argued that New Jersey had agreed to comply with the IDEA and waive its sovereign immunity when it accepted federal IDEA funds to defray the cost of educating students with disabilities. In the alternative, the Section argued that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court accepted both arguments and denied the State's motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed the denials of their motions to dismiss, and the Appellate Section defended the IDEA's constitutionality on appeal. On September 16, 2003, the Third Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's holding that the State of New Jersey had waived its sovereign immunity.

In this matter involving the Nashua School District (“the District”) in New Hampshire, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire investigated whether the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support they need to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.  On May 24, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction to all of its EL students, fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers, provide training to principals and core academic teachers of EL students, communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities, and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years. For more information, please see this press release in English , Spanish , and Portuguese .

Settlement Agreement: Español (Spanish) | Português (Portuguese)      

The United States initiated this litigation against the Nettleton Line Consolidated School District on September 8, 1969, and the court subsequently approved consent decrees requiring the District to desegregate on December 8, 1969 and June 19, 1970 .  On August 8, 2011 , following negotiations between the United States and the District, the court issued a consent order requiring the District to revise its policies and procedures and to terminate its race-based selection and election procedures for extracurricular activities (e.g., elections for class officers, homecoming court, and class superlatives).  After the United States completed a review of the District’s operations and compliance with the Court’s orders, on September 2, 2020 the court approved an additional consent order .  The 2020 Consent Order granted partial unitary status and found that the District had eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of student assignment, staff, extracurricular activities, and facilities.  The 2020 Consent Order also required the District to complete more work to demonstrate that it has eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of faculty and transportation.  Therefore, the 2020 Consent Order requires the District to take steps to (i) increase its recruitment of black applicants for teacher vacancies; (ii) conduct its hiring with the goal of eliminating any real or perceived racial barriers in hiring; (iii) retain qualified, black faculty members who are employed by the District; (iv) eliminate overlapping or duplicative bus routes; and (v) eliminate or reduce the number of racially identifiable bus routes or at least mitigate the disparities between the percentages of black and white students assigned to each racially identifiable bus.  The District may file a motion with the court for full or partial dismissal of the case after three full school years of compliance with the relevant provisions of the 2020 Consent Order .

In this matter involving the Newark Public Schools (“the District”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey examined whether the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  The United States initiated its investigation in response to a complaint alleging that the District was failing to appropriately communicate with parents who have limited proficiency in English (“LEP parents”).  In addition to corroborating the District’s LEP parent communications failures, the United States found  that the District failed to hire and retain enough qualified teachers to support its program, resulting in limited instruction time for some students, and for others, no language services at all.  On September 1, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; and locate and re-offer services to EL students who were exited improperly from the District’s programs without achieving English proficiency.  The agreement also requires the District to ensure that English as a Second Language (“ESL”) classes and bilingual classes are taught by ESL-certified and bilingual-endorsed teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with LEP parents about District and school programs and activities; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL programs over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for at least three school years until the District has fully complied with its obligations. Translations of the Agreement are available in Spanish , French , Haitian Creole , and Portuguese . For more information, please see press releases available in English , Spanish , Portuguese , Haitian Creole , and French .

On September 15, 2022, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the district to resolve the Section’s investigation of the district’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA).  The Section opened the investigation in 2020, after the U.S. Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that the district violated the EEOA by failing to communicate effectively with K’iche’-speaking Limited English Proficient parents and denying K’iche’-speaking EL students equal educational opportunities.

Through its investigation, the Section identified that the district: (1) failed to communicate adequately with Limited English Proficient parents, including K’iche’ speakers, about school-related programs and activities; (2) did not adequately train its faculty on providing appropriate services to its EL students, including training to address the specific needs of K’iche’ speakers to overcome language barriers; and (3) did not adequately evaluate its EL programs for effectiveness, including assessing the performance of K’iche’-speaking EL students to determine if they are overcoming language barriers.

The agreement requires, among other things, that the district implement effective measures to correctly identify the languages spoken by students and parents/guardians, so that school staff do not assume K’iche’ speakers are native Spanish speakers based on their country of origin.  The district also agreed to improve its practices and professional development to address the specific needs of EL students who speak K’iche’ so that they can access the same educational opportunities as other students in the district.  For more information on this settlement, please see this press release  (in Spanish , Portuguese , and Cape Verdean Creole ).

On September 28, 2012, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division entered into a settlement agreement with the Northeastern Local School District (NELSD) in Springfield, Ohio, to resolve allegations of racial harassment of African-American students in the district.

In December 2011, the Section received a complaint alleging incidents of racial harassment, including race-based death threats, directed at an African-American student enrolled at Kenton Ridge High School in NELSD. The Section's investigation of the complaint revealed that the student had been subjected to significant harassment based on race and retaliation for reporting the harassment of which the District knew or should have known. In violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District failed to investigate the alleged harassment and retaliation adequately, address it effectively, and prevent it from recurring. Because of the severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment and retaliation, the student was afraid to go to school and eventually left the district out of fear for her own safety. The investigation also revealed that other African-American students in the district had experienced racial harassment and retaliation for reporting racial harassment.

Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent racial harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. These steps include revising policies and procedures for handling racial harassment complaints; conducting trainings for faculty, staff, students, and parents; and reporting data to the Department of Justice for three years. For more information, please see this press release .

On December 31, 2020 the Section entered into a settlement agreement  with the North Gibson School Corporation in Princeton, Indiana to address and prevent the discriminatory secluding and restraining of students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into a complaint that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the district’s self-contained classrooms. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will, among other things: change its policies to prohibit use of seclusion rooms; report all instances of restraint and review whether they were justified; take steps to avoid placing students with emotional and behavioral disabilities on an abbreviated school day or homebound instruction and document those steps; create and implement a procedure for handling complaints of disability discrimination; provide appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and appoint an Intervention Coordinator to ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this press release .

In this matter involving the North Plainfield, New Jersey school district, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes.  The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on September 3, 2004, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on September 3, 2007.

On December 20, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Okaloosa County School District in Fort Walton Beach, Florida to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities and the district’s responses to allegations of physical and verbal abuse. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices and failed to appropriately respond to known physical and verbal abuse of students. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: continue to prohibit the use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint; clarify and improve crisis response team procedures and post-restraint procedures; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified and complied with district policy; reform district complaint procedures and improve internal district investigations into allegations of employee abuse or improper use of restraint or seclusion; develop and deliver appropriate trainings for personnel who restrain students and personnel who review restraint reports; and deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement. For more information, please see this letter and press release .

In this matter involving Old Dominion University (ODU) in Norfolk, Virginia, the Section conducted an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The Section received a complaint alleging that ODU discriminated and retaliated against a graduate student based on her disability and her related request for acknowledgement of her right to reasonable modifications of policy.  The Section found that, in a series of retaliatory acts, ODU terminated the student’s relationship with her professor-advisor and his research lab, withdrew her from a professional conference where she was scheduled to present, and forced her to change her graduate course of study.  On February 3, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with ODU to ensure that the University provides reasonable modifications of policy for students with disabilities.  The agreement requires that ODU develop and disseminate a retaliation policy; train staff and faculty on the requirements of the ADA and Section 504; and provide compliance reports to DOJ.  In addition, under the agreement ODU will pay the complainant $40,000 in compensatory damages. For more information, please see this press release .

This religious discrimination case arose after the principal of an elementary school in New Jersey prohibited an eight-year-old girl from singing a Christian song in a voluntary after-school talent show. On May 20, 2005, the student’s parents filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the school violated her constitutional rights by censoring her speech. The school defended the censorship by asserting that (1) the song had an overtly religious and proselytizing message and (2) permitting the song would have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

On June 19, 2006, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of the student’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the school engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by censoring her performance based solely on the religious perspective of her song. The brief also contended that the school’s Establishment Clause justification was unavailing because the song clearly represented the student’s expression, not the school’s.

On December 11, 2006, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment. In its opinion , the court held that the school’s censorship of “Awesome God” constituted unlawful viewpoint discrimination because the song conformed to the talent show guidelines and the school permitted other acts with religious and “proselytizing” content. The court found that the school did not have “a legitimate pedagogical concern in distancing itself from proselytizing religious speech.” The court further ruled that the school’s Establishment Clause concerns could not justify censoring the plaintiff’s song because the performances in the talent show did not represent school-sponsored speech.

On April 12, 2011, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the Owatonna Public School District ("District") in Owatonna, Minnesota, to resolve a complaint regarding the student-on-student harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students based on their race and national-origin.

The complaint arose from a November 2009 fight between several white and Somali-American students at Owatonna High School and alleged severe and pervasive harassment. Following DOJ's and OCR's investigation, the Section and OCR worked with the school district to resolve the complaint. The departments gathered evidence indicating that the district meted out disproportionate discipline for the students involved in the November 2009 incident and that the district's policies, procedures and trainings were not adequately addressing harassment against Somali-American students.

The District took affirmative steps to address the harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students, and voluntarily entered into the resolution agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the District will take all reasonable steps to ensure that all students enrolled in the district are not subject to harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and to respond promptly and appropriately to all reports of harassment. To that end, the District has agreed to improve its policies and procedures concerning harassment and discipline as necessary to make them effectively protect students from racial or national origin-based harassment. For more information, please see this press release .

This case involves religious harassment by students against a Jewish public school teacher in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Mr. Owen, a veteran teacher of more than 30 years, filed his lawsuit in federal district court in March 2000 after an investigation by the Detroit office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that his complaint had merit. The United States intervened in October 2000, alleging that the L'Anse Area Schools subjected Mr. Owen to religious harassment while he was employed by the school district. The United States alleged that Mr. Owen had been the target of numerous incidents of anti-Semitic harassment by his students, including the drawing and etching of swastikas and hate messages such as "Die Jews," "Kill Owen," "KKK," and "White Power" in and around his classroom on multiple occasions and the placement of a hangman's noose on his classroom door. The United States alleged that the school district failed to take effective measures to remedy the harassment and to keep it from recurring despite Mr. Owen's repeated complaints. Further, the United States alleged that as a result of the harassment, Mr. Owen was forced to take an extended medical leave and ultimately retire from the school district.

Following discovery and an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment by the school district, the parties entered mediation, reaching a settlement agreement in March 2002. Under the agreement , which the district court approved on April 11, 2002, Mr. Owen was paid $265,000. The agreement also required the school district to review and revise its policies ; train its employees to recognize, investigate and address harassment and discrimination; and educate its students about the inappropriateness of harassment and discrimination. In addition, the agreement required the district’s faculty and staff to report actual or suspected incidents of harassment or discrimination to appropriate school officials. The Justice Department monitored the school district's compliance with the settlement agreement for three years, and the case was dismissed on December 15, 2005.

In September and November 2011, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice notified the School District of Palm Beach County that it had received complaints regarding the District's enrollment and registration practices, as well as its practices of administering school discipline. The Division then conducted an investigation, including reviewing documents and data; conducting a site visit that included tours of schools and interviews with Principals, Area Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, District Office staff, the School District of Palm Beach County Police Department, and the Superintendent; meeting with community members and local stakeholders; and reviewing and providing comments regarding the District's enrollment and discipline policies. The United States conducted its investigation with the full cooperation of the District.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a settlement agreement signed by the Parties on February 26, 2013. Under the settlement agreement, the district will enroll all area students regardless of background and will provide translation and interpretation services throughout the registration process. The district will also limit the use of disciplinary measures that remove students from the classroom and implement behavior management and discipline practices that support and protect students. Among other things, the agreement requires that ELL students and parents who are limited English proficient receive translation and interpretation services throughout the enrollment and discipline processes; expands the use of language-accessible positive behavior interventions and supports ("PBIS"); places limits on the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; establishes clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; requires school law enforcement officers to communicate with students in a language the student understands, including by securing an interpreter when appropriate; requires providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and requires expanding data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On July 25, 2016, the parties agreed to an eighteen month extension of the Agreement . 

On March 5, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Pasco County School District in Pasco County, Florida to resolve the department’s investigation into alleged discrimination against students with disabilities in school discipline, threat assessment practices and referrals of students to law enforcement. The agreement followed an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The investigation found that the district routinely suspended students or called police for disability-related behavior that could have been addressed through proper support and de-escalation. The investigation also found problems with how the district conducted threat assessments (a process to identify, evaluate and respond to potential school security concerns). When these assessments involved students with disabilities, the district systematically failed to consider the relationship between a student’s disability and their behavior, and whether appropriate support for the student would address the behavior that prompted the assessment. Instead, the district often unnecessarily referred students to law enforcement to be arrested or to start the process for an involuntary admission into a mental health facility under Florida’s Baker Act. 

Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: ensure that personnel accurately assess disability-related behaviors, identify appropriate interventions, and monitor their implementation; hire a consultant who will assist in updating policies and practices; update its student code of conduct, threat assessment process, and law enforcement referral process to ensure that the district is adequately considering disability-related behaviors; improve data collection and analysis and regularly evaluate data to ensure students with disabilities do not face discrimination as a result of the district’s discipline, threat assessment and law enforcement referral practices. The Section will monitor the district’s implementation of the agreement and will also continue to monitor and enforce an ongoing desegregation order that covers the district.

For more information, please see this letter , press release ( español ), and summary of the settlement agreement .

In this matter involving sex discrimination, several high school girls and their representatives filed a complaint alleging that the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the SDHSAA discriminated against female athletes by requiring girls to play certain sports (basketball and volleyball) in disadvantageous seasons. Playing in disadvantageous seasons can result in substantial harms that deny female high school athletes equal athletic opportunities, including, among others, the ability to participate in interstate competition and club competition, the opportunity to be recruited for collegiate-level sports programs, and the opportunity to have the same number of games and practices as similarly-situated boys' sports teams.

On October 17, 2000, the Department was granted leave to intervene in the lawsuit as a plaintiff-party in support of the high school girls. Subsequently, the SDHSAA moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether the association was subject to Title IX and whether it is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before any further briefing was completed, however, the parties agreed to engage in mediation and ultimately reached a settlement. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court entered a Consent Order on December 5, 2000, requiring the SDHSAA to schedule girls' high school volleyball during the traditional fall season and girls' high school basketball during the traditional winter season beginning with the 2002-03 school year. The SDHSAA submitted a detailed plan which was subsequently agreed to by the plaintiff-parties and approved by the Court.

In June of 2002 and shortly before the season switch was to take place, a group of parents and students filed a separate lawsuit in state court that was removed to federal court, Hoffman v. South Dakota High Sch. Activities Ass'n , C.A. No. 02-4127 (D. S.D.), seeking to challenge the Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case, or in the alternative, to delay the season switch for four more years. The Hoffman plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the season switch immediately. The Department moved to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant to uphold the prior Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case and the district court granted the Department's motion to intervene. The Department also filed a motion to dismiss the Hoffman lawsuit on procedural grounds that the district court held in abeyance until after the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Hoffman case at which the Department presented evidence. Shortly thereafter, the district court issued an opinion denying the Hoffman plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 22, 2003, the district court granted the Department's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Hoffman lawsuit with prejudice.

In this matter involving the Plainfield, New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on June 30, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure that it complies with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on June 30, 2006.

In April 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging, inter alia, that the Indian River Central School District, its Board of Education, and eight of its employees violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. On June 11, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX claims. On August 13, 2010, the United States filed a motion seeking leave to participate as amicus curiae in order to provide the court with the proper legal standards governing harassment on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The United States argues in its amicus brief that harassment based on sex stereotyping is a legally cognizable claim under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause; that sexual orientation harassment does not preclude a harassment claim based on non-conformity to sex stereotypes; and that a hostile environment claim in primary and secondary schools can span classes, grades, and schools.

In this matter involving the Prince William County School District, the Section conducted a compliance review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and other services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On September 5, 2013, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps the district will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement requires the district to: provide all ELL students with adequate English Language Development and sheltered content instruction by qualified ELL teachers; ensure that ELL teachers and administrators receive appropriate training; monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its ELL programs; modify its enrollment and registration practices to ensure that students have access to educational programs regardless of race, national origin, or immigration status; provide ELL students and Limited English Proficient parents meaningful access to district and school-level information, such as discipline and special education forms and meetings; and take measures to ensure discipline is administered in a nondiscriminatory way, such as instituting cultural responsiveness training for teachers. The district-wide review and agreement grew out of an investigation of a complaint regarding the Fred Lynn Middle School. That investigation resulted in a 2010 agreement requiring remedial measures at that school, which was later amended by a 2011 agreement . This school and all others in the district are now subject to the 2013 agreement , which requires the district to report to the Section on the agreement's implementation through 2016.

In this matter involving the Providence Public Schools (“the District”) and the Rhode Island Department of Education (“RIDE”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island examined whether the District was identifying and serving its approximately 8,000 English Learner (“EL”) students as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On August 9, 2018, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and to ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; ensure that the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) components of its EL program are taught by ESL-certified teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities; provide equal opportunities for EL students to participate in specialized programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  On November 1, 2019, RIDE took control over the District, and on December 19, 2019, the parties agreed that the 2018 EL agreement would be binding upon both the District and RIDE.  On September 29, 2021, the parties executed a letter agreement , which modifies and extends the 2018 EL settlement agreement through at least the 2022-2023 school year.

2021 Letter Agreement: English  |  Español (Spanish)  | العربية (Arabic) | ខ្មែរ (Khmer) |  Kiswahili (Swahili)

In this peer-on-peer sexual harassment case, a student alleged his rights were violated under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the student contended the school district failed to take adequate steps to protect him from an ongoing campaign of sexual harassment by his peers.

The harassment included: three written death threats, repeated and unwanted sexual contact, offensive and hostile verbal abuse, and other acts involving intimidation and humiliation.

In response to defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Section submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff. In this brief, the Section argued a Title IX claim was appropriate because of the nature and severity of harassment involving conduct of a sexual nature. Furthermore, the Section argued the student's Equal Protection claim, challenging discrimination based on his actual or perceived sexual orientation, should not be dismissed. Following the amicus participation of the Section and mediation between the plaintiff and defendants, the case settled. In addition to monetary relief for the plaintiff, the school district modified its sexual harassment policies, applicable to both students and employees, to prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. The modified policies also describe the school district's responsibilities and the recourse available to victims of discrimination.

In this matter involving the Robertson County Schools in Tennessee, the United States reviewed the status of the District's compliance with its desegregation obligations as a former de jure segregated public school system. The Section determined that the district had not complied with its desegregation obligations in the areas of student assignment and school construction. In its letter of September 5, 2014 , the Section identified a series of district decisions that, over decades, impeded desegregation by building and expanding almost all-white schools while leaving African-American students disproportionately in overcrowded schools with portable classrooms. In February, 2015, the United States and the district entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the district's noncompliance with federal law. The agreement requires the district to: assign students and construct and maintain schools in a desegregated and nondiscriminatory manner; implement a new elementary school plan that furthers desegregation; eliminate overcrowding at predominately minority schools; develop a secondary school student assignment plan that will further desegregation; and provide cultural sensitivity and competency training for teachers and staff. On August 4, 2015, the United States and the district entered into another settlement agreement to further desegregation in the secondary schools through a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) magnet program and attendance zone line changes. For more information about the February 2015 agreement, please see this press release . For more information about the August 2015 agreement, please see this press release .

On August 8, 2023, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho filed a  statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho in  Roe, et. al. v. Critchfield, et. al .  The plaintiffs in this case are transgender students attending K-12 public schools in Idaho who are challenging S.B. 1100, a state law that prohibits transgender students from using public school facilities, including restrooms and changing facilities, consistent with their gender identity.  The United States’ brief provides its view that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Title IX and Equal Protection Clause claims.   

In this matter involving the Rowan-Salisbury School System (“the District”) in North Carolina, the Section investigated whether the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation found system-wide failures to provide these students with the instruction and support they need to learn English and fully participate in school.  On June 17, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to increase language instruction for all EL students, including those with disabilities, so they can become fluent in English.  The District will also train its teachers and administrators on how to support EL students in academic subjects such as math, science, and social studies.  The District will continue to improve its translation and interpretation services for Limited English Proficient parents so all parents can fully participate in their children’s education.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years.  For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish .

On December 15, 2022, the Educational Opportunities Section along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California entered into an agreement with the San Bernardino City Unified School District resolving a multi-year investigation of the district’s English learner program under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. During the investigation, the United States found that the district failed to offer adequate instruction to English learners, in either the English language or in core content areas like math, science and social studies. In addition, the United States identified problems with the special education evaluations conducted by the district and the services offered to English learners with disabilities. The United States also found that English learners did not have equal access to the district’s gifted programs, and advanced coursework. In the out-of-court settlement agreement the district will ensure that students receive adequate English language instruction from trained and certified personnel. It will train core content teachers on how to work with English learners, and it will update its special education policies and trainings to meet the needs of English learners with disabilities. In addition, the district will take steps to improve access to gifted and advanced programs for English learners. The agreement will remain in place for three years. For more information please see this press release in English and Spanish ( español ).

On June 29, 2020, the Educational Opportunities Section and United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California initiated a Title IX compliance review of San José State University (“SJSU”).  The Department’s investigation principally focused on SJSU’s response to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, by an athletic trainer spanning more than a decade.  The Department also investigated reports of retaliation against two SJSU Athletics Department employees.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of SJSU’s policies, grievance procedures, training, and response to reports of sexual harassment and retaliation, the Department concluded that SJSU violated Title IX.

On September 21, 2021, the Department reached a resolution agreement with SJSU to address its noncompliance under Title IX and issued a letter  summarizing the Title IX violations.  Under the terms of the agreement, SJSU agreed to take significant steps including, among others: providing resources to the Title IX Office; publicizing Title IX policies and protocols and improving SJSU’s response to complaints of sex discrimination; developing informational materials to educate the SJSU community how to report Title IX concerns; delivering training to student-athletes and SJSU Athletics employees on giving and receiving informed consent for medical treatments and athletic training services; and providing supportive measures and remedies to student-athletes who were sexually harassed by the athletic trainer.  The agreement also requires SJSU to pay a total of $1.625 million in financial relief to individuals who were sexually harassed by the athletic trainer and participated in the Department’s or SJSU’s investigations.  The Department will carefully monitor the University’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place through the 2024-2025 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release .   

The Tri-Creek Corporation School District in Indiana had an attendance policy that allowed for only one day of excused absences for religious observance. After a student missed more than one day for religious worship, the District’s attendance policy stated that the student would be given an unexcused absence and subjected to various sanctions including loss of academic credit, inability to make up work, and suspension. The policy also stated that legal action may be taken against the parent.

After receiving a complaint about the enforcement of Tri-Creek’s policy, the United States intervened in the case on behalf of Ruth Scheidt and her son, M.S., both adherents to the religious tenets of the United Church of God. During the 2004-05 school year, M.S. was given eight unexcused absences for documented religious attendance; teachers failed to allow him to make up classwork and the district threatened expulsion and legal action, including the filing of educational neglect charges against Ms. Scheidt. On August 10, 2005, the Section filed a brief asserting that Tri-Creek’s attendance policy violated Ms. Scheidt and her son’s right to exercise their religion freely, and Ms. Scheidt’s right to raise her son consistent with her religious beliefs.

Shortly after the Section's intervention, the District and the plaintiffs reached a settlement that: (1) absences for religious observances will be recorded as “excused” and credit given for timely make-up work; and (2) school attendance policies will be revised to accommodate religious observances. Unlike in the past, there is now no limit on the number of excused absences a student may receive for religious observance.

In this race discrimination case, the plaintiffs sued the University of South Florida (USF), alleging that it had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by retaliating against black players on the USF women's basketball team who had complained to university officials about discriminatory treatment by the head coach. At the summary judgment stage, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that Title VI prohibits retaliation against individuals who complain of racially discriminatory treatment, and that this prohibition is necessary to protect the victims of racial discrimination and concerned third parties who come forward with their complaints. Prior to the court ruling on the summary judgment motion, the parties settled the case.

On January 30, 1970, the Court ordered Defendants, including the Concordia Parish School Board, to adopt a desegregation plan.  Concordia Parish School District (“District”) is still operating under the requirements of this 1970 federal desegregation order and further orders mandating the desegregation of the District.  A January 4, 2013 consent order addressed a new charter school’s obligations to comply with the court’s orders in the case and take measures to ensure equal access to the school.

A review of the Somerville School District in Massachusetts concerning the instruction and services provided to English Language Learners (ELLs) revealed the school district was not comporting with the requirements of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On November 25, 2008, the Section and the Somerville School District entered into a settlement agreement addressing concerns raised by the Section including specific provisions requiring: adequate registration, identification, and placement of all ELLs; ongoing training of all personnel involved in the registration, identification, and placement process; maintenance of a database of qualified and available translation and interpretation services; sufficient and appropriate instruction for ELLs; development of an English Language Development (ELD)/English as a Second Language (ESL) curricula; qualified and trained teachers of ELLs; the provision of adequate materials; appropriate special education services and language services for ELLs who are eligible for both services; careful monitoring of current and exited ELLs; and evaluation of the district’s ELL program.

On April 17, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement  with the Spokane Public Schools in Spokane, Washington to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into complaints that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained children with disabilities and failed to use appropriate behavior interventions.  The Department’s investigation concluded that the school district inappropriately and repeatedly secluded and restrained students with disabilities and did not limit its use of restraint and seclusion to emergency situations, as required by state law and the district policy.  Instead, the district restrained and secluded students with disabilities to address noncompliant behavior, even when those actions appeared to escalate the behavior or when students showed clear signs of trauma.  As a result, the District’s restraint and seclusion practices segregated hundreds of students with disabilities from their classmates and resulted in students missing hundreds of hours of instructional time.

Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students on the basis of disability. The district will, among other steps: prohibit the use of seclusion; limit the use of restraint; document and report all instances of seclusion and restraint; appoint a district-level administrator to review all incidents of seclusion and restraint to ensure proper follow-up occurs; create classroom-wide Behavior Management Plans for its programs serving students with high-intensity behaviors that are based on data analysis and that promote and reinforce positive behaviors; provide copies of and explain classroom plans to parents and guardians; develop a complaint procedure and respond in a timely fashion to all complaints regarding the use of restraint or seclusion; offer counseling and compensatory education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this letter ,  press release , and  summary of settlement agreement .

In this matter involving the Stamford Public School District, the Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut (“USAO”) conducted a comprehensive review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner (“ELL”)  students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).  On February 28, 2014, the Section, the USAO, and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the EEOA.  The agreement requires the district to: provide language acquisition services to all ELL students until they reach the state’s English proficiency criteria; ensure that teachers of ELL students are qualified to provide these services; make appropriate language services available for ELL students with disabilities; obtain adequate materials for ELL students; and monitor students after they exit ELL services to ensure they are participating meaningfully and equally in the district’s instructional program.  Under the Agreement, the district will implement a tiered services plan to ensure that ELL services are appropriate to ELL students’ English language proficiency levels, designed to address their individualized needs, and effective.  The district will ensure that ELL students who are not making sufficient yearly progress receive additional ELL services.  For more information, please see this press release .

In February of 1970, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi entered separate orders requiring the Starkville Municipal Separate School District and the Oktibbeha County School District to desegregate. In 2015, the Mississippi Legislature consolidated the two school districts, and, in 2016, the new Starkville-Oktibbeha Consolidated School District (the “District”) and the United States filed a joint motion to approve a new desegregation order. The District Court granted the motion and approved the consent order on March 3, 2016.

The consent order requires the District to eliminate segregative policies and practices in its operations regarding student assignment, faculty and staff hiring, transportation, extracurriculars, and facilities. Specific provisions in the consent order require the District to, among other things, provide equal access to gifted-and-talented and advanced programs; analyze the equity of bus assignments and routes; and hire, promote, pay, demote, discipline, non-renew, and dismiss faculty and staff without regard to race, color, or national origin. The District must also have a Biracial Advisory Committee, which will advise the District on the desegregation plan.  The Section is monitoring the District’s efforts to achieve unitary status and comply with the consent order.

This case involves claims against the Department of Education of the State of Hawaii and various government officials for alleged violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants intentionally discriminated against Aaron L. because of his disability (Down Syndrome), failed to provide him with appropriate special education services, and denied him a free appropriate public education, all in violation of Section 504 and the IDEA. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief.

Both defendants and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs asserted that they should be able to demonstrate discriminatory intent, for purposes of obtaining compensatory damages under Section 504, with evidence that defendants acted with deliberate indifference or conscious disregard for their federal rights.

In its intervention brief filed on May 25, 2001, the Section defended the constitutionality of Section 504 and the IDEA. The Section also filed an amicus brief arguing that a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages under Section 504 may rely on the deliberate indifference standard to prove discriminatory intent.

On June 18, 2001, the district court upheld the constitutionality of Section 504 and the IDEA, and ruled that a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages under Section 504 may establish intentional discrimination by showing that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights.

On June 30, 2011, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the Tehachapi Unified School District in Tehachapi, California, to resolve a complaint regarding the harassment of a middle school student based on his nonconformity with gender stereotypes. The complaint arose from the September 2010 death of Jacobsen Middle School student Seth Walsh, who took his own life at the age of 13. Following OCR's investigation, the Section joined OCR in working with the school district to resolve the complaint. The investigation found that Walsh suffered sexual and gender-based harassment by his peers for more than two school years because of his nonconformity with gender stereotypes.

As summarized in a detailed letter of findings , the departments determined that the harassment, which included ongoing and escalating verbal, physical and sexual harassment by other students at school, was sufficiently severe, pervasive and persistent to interfere with his educational opportunities, and that the school district failed to appropriately respond to notice of the harassment. The departments concluded that the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights of 1964, both of which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes and sexual harassment. Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent sexual and gender-based harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. These steps include adopting revised policies and procedures for handling sexual and gender-based harassment complaints, conducting trainings for faculty, staff, and students, and reporting data to OCR and DOJ for five years. For more information, please see this press release.

On July 20, 2023, the Section entered into a resolution agreement with Teton County School District #1 in Wyoming to resolve the department’s investigation into the district’s responses to alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, and disability discrimination conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The agreement requires the school district to work with a consultant to review and revise its anti-harassment policies and practices and ensure it responds appropriately to discrimination complaints and adopts appropriate supportive and remedial measures using the district’s Multi-Tiered Support System.  The district also will: prohibit and take reasonable steps to prevent retaliation; implement school climate assessments; implement an engagement plan; train its civil rights coordinator and other staff on their obligations under the district’s antidiscrimination policies and resolution procedures; and institute internal monitoring and auditing procedures to ensure compliance and regularly evaluate its antidiscrimination program. For more information, please see the press release .

On June 11, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska in evaluating the Title IX peer sexual assault and retaliation claims for damages in Thomas v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska , Case No. 4:20-cv-03081. In this case, the plaintiffs, current and former students of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), allege that UNL discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when UNL allegedly responded to their reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and/or retaliation with deliberate indifference that created and/or left them in a hostile educational environment. Plaintiffs also allege that UNL violated Title IX by engaging in retaliatory actions against them in response to their reports of peer retaliation and sexual assault. In the statement of interest responding to UNL’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the United States set forth the proper legal standards for the court to apply to plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages based on alleged sexual assaults and retaliation. The United States took no position on whether plaintiffs’ allegations in their complaint state plausible Title IX claims for damages under those legal standards.

This is a longstanding desegregation case in the Western District of Louisiana, where the St. Martin Parish School Board has not fulfilled its desegregation obligations in the following areas: student assignment, faculty assignment, and quality of education in graduation pathways and discipline.  To remedy the student assignment issues, the United States, the School Board, and the Private Plaintiffs represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, entered into a consent order on June 9, 2023 . The 2023 consent order provides for  student transfers to promote desegregation across the District and establishes a plan to develop a robust magnet program to further desegregate the St. Martinville zone.  The parties are still negotiating and litigating remedial measures for creating attendance zone changes that  desegregate the District’s schools.  Following a period of litigation from 2021-2023 regarding the District’s compliance with a 2016 Superseding Consent Order , the District Court  entered an order on May 25, 2023 that requires the District to take additional steps regarding faculty assignment, graduation pathways, and discipline.  The Court will retain jurisdiction over the case and consent order, and the Justice Department will monitor the District’s compliance.  For more information, please see this press release .

Additional Documents:

On July 31, 2020, the district and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address and prevent discriminatory discipline of students based on race or disability and to require appropriate language services for limited English proficient (LEP) parents on matters essential to their children’s education.  The agreement followed a federal civil rights investigation by the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio into complaints of discriminatory treatment of African-American students and students with disabilities in school suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement agencies, which was conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  The Department also investigated under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 allegations concerning the district’s communications with parents and guardians with language barriers.  Under the settlement agreement, the district will take proactive steps to ensure its discipline practices do not discriminate against students based on race or disability.  The district will, among other things, regularly review how schools handle discipline incidents to ensure non-discriminatory treatment, expand its use of positive behavior supports, and provide appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement, including training for teachers, administrators, and school safety officers.  In addition, for parents and guardians with language barriers, the district will ensure it communicates essential school-related information in a language that they understand so their children can access the district’s instructional programs.  The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the three-year agreement.  For more information, please see this press release .  On December 15, 2023, the parties executed an extension agreement , which modifies and extends the 2020 settlement agreement through the 2024-2025 school year.

Settlement Agreement: English  |  Acuerdo de Conciliación:  Español (Spanish)  | Extension Agreement

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest  on February 20, 2015 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Tooley v. Van Buren Public Schools. In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that several Michigan school districts unlawfully subjected him to harassment and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex. In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, or nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments concluded that plaintiff's allegations of sex discrimination on each of these bases under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause were sufficient to deny the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Wyandotte Public Schools.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest on January 25, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in T.R. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 15-04782.  This case involves Limited English Proficient (LEP) parents of students with disabilities who allege that the Philadelphia School District intentionally discriminates against them based on national origin by not providing complete and timely translations and interpretations of special education and regular education documents.  In the statement of interest, the departments explained that under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 case law and federal regulations and guidance, school districts have an obligation to provide LEP parents with a meaningful opportunity to participate in their children’s education.  The statement of interest also supported the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) by explaining that “appropriate action” under the EEOA includes translations and interpretations for LEP parents.  On November 30, 2016, the court issued a memorandum opinion denying the district’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and relied on the United States’ brief in the discussion of why the court was not dismissing the EEOA and Title VI claims.

On March 16, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Twin Valley School District in Whitingham, VT to address the District’s response to complaints of student-on-student harassment based on race and sex. The Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont jointly conducted the investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq . Under the settlement agreement, the school district will implement the following reforms: modify district policies and procedures to prevent and address peer harassment; undertake periodic assessments of school climate at Twin Valley Middle-High School and implement responsive programming to remedy hostile educational environments; and improve training for district employees who receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints of harassment. For more information, please see this cover letter and press release .

In this matter involving Union Public Schools, the Section examined whether the Oklahoma school district was providing appropriate services to its approximately 3,500 English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On June 26, 2018, the Section and the District entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the District will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; ensure that the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) components of its EL program are taught by ESL-certified teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  The parties anticipate the agreement will remain in place through 2021. 

This desegregation case was in active litigation for two years when the school district moved to have the case dismissed in November 1998. Following a review of information provided by the district, a tour of district schools and subsequent rulings by the court, the parties entered into a consent order in November 1999. The agreement set forth a plan for the district to take additional steps to desegregate the school system and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination from the former segregated system.

Under the settlement, the district agreed to: (1) implement a new elementary school assignment plan and convert two historically minority schools into magnet schools; (2) eliminate general tracks in secondary schools while keeping certain advanced and gifted and talented tracks; (3) implement reforms to its bilingual education and English as a Second Language programs; (4) develop an action plan in each secondary school to increase minority participation in extracurricular activities; and (5) implement a mentoring program to identify potential minority candidates for administrative intern and teaching positions. As a result, minority enrollment increased in advanced and gifted classes, the magnet schools enrolled diverse student bodies, and the English Language Learner program was significantly improved. On September 12, 2002, the court declared the district unitary and dismissed the case.

This English Language Learner (“ELL”) case originally arose from a desegregation order entered against the State of Texas and the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”). In 1972, the League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”) and GI Forum were allowed to intervene in the desegregation case as representatives of Mexican Americans in Texas. Most recently, on February 9, 2006, LULAC and GI Forum filed a motion for further relief under the statewide desegregation order and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). Their motion alleges that Texas and TEA have failed to sufficiently monitor and enforce programs for ELL students in public schools across the state, thereby wrongfully denying those students equal educational opportunities.

In their briefs responding to the motion for further relief, the state defendants claimed immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and argued that the EEOA failed to validly abrogate this immunity. On July 10, 2006, the Section filed a response to these briefs, asserting that the EEOA abrogated states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity because the statute constituted a reasonably tailored legislative response to a long history of unconstitutional discrimination against national origin minorities. In its August 11, 2006 memorandum opinion , the district court agreed with the Section’s analysis and held that the EEOA abrogated the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

On November 30, 2007, the United States filed a motion for further relief asserting that the Evangeline Parish School Board had failed to fully implement an earlier agreed upon school reorganization plan. The United States sought additional relief, including, either, completion of certain renovations at a majority black high school, construction of a new facility at this high school, or grade restructuring and mandatory reassignment of students from other schools to eliminate the racial identifiability of the school. On December 22, 2009, after significant litigation the court entered a consent order negotiated by the parties that requires the District to take remedial measures in the areas of personnel assignment, facilities, student assignment and quality of education.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Board of Visitors of The Citadel voted to admit women to its Corps of Cadets, and, in August 1996, four women joined the entering class of students. When allegations surfaced in December 1996 that two of the women had been harassed and physically abused, the United States initiated an investigation into The Citadel's assimilation efforts. This investigation was separate and apart from the contemporaneous criminal investigation initiated by federal and state law enforcement authorities.

Subsequently the court required The Citadel to submit a revised plan for the assimilation of women. This led to a consent order that, among other things, required The Citadel to: hire a full-time Assistant Commandant to coordinate the assimilation of women into the Corps of Cadets, a fulltime Dean of Women and a full-time recruiter to coordinate female recruitment efforts; institute regular, mandatory sexual harassment-prevention training of all students and staff; undertake specific efforts to recruit women; develop formal assessment tools to evaluate assimilation; hire and station eight additional adult officers in each of the barracks to increase supervision; establish a female assimilation study group to evaluate assimilation efforts and make reports to the president of the college; promptly complete all facilities modifications to accommodate women in all barracks; revise school publications to eliminate sex-restrictive language; and establish informal complaint reporting mechanisms, including the establishment of a college Ombudsman to serve as a confidential recipient of complaints of harassment or abuse. On March 28, 2002, the court entered an agreed order of dismissal to which the parents had agreed, thereby dismissing the case.

The Section filed a complaint alleging that defendants engaged in race discrimination by failing to provide equal educational opportunities for the American Indian students residing in Navajo Mountain. Specifically, the district failed to provide a secondary school located reasonably near their place of residence, as is done for all other students residing in the district. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, American Indian students who lived in the Navajo Mountain community attended boarding schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 90 miles away from home. The nearest district high school was 171 miles away from the Navajo Mountain area. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. One year later, the parties entered into a settlement agreement , and the new Navajo Mountain High School opened for classes in 1998.

This case arose out of a long-standing school desegregation suit filed by the United States against the State of Texas, Texas Education Agency (“TEA”), and various school districts. In 1971, the district court entered a desegregation order that, among other things, prohibited TEA from approving or funding interdistrict student transfers that have the cumulative effect of reducing or impeding desegregation in one of the districts. In 2003, Hearne Independent School District (“Hearne”) intervened in the underlying suit, claiming that transfers from Hearne to Mumford Independent School District (“Mumford”) had reduced or impeded desegregation in Hearne, and that TEA improperly continued to fund those transfers. In 2004, the Division filed a motion to enforce the desegregation order against TEA and Mumford.

After a bench trial, the district court found that the transfers from Hearne to Mumford reduced desegregation in Hearne, that Mumford had engaged in fraudulent conduct to circumvent the requirements of the desegregation order, and that the TEA had not complied with the order. The district court enjoined Mumford from accepting–and TEA from funding–all of the transfers that reduced or impeded desegregation in Hearne. Mumford and TEA subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 24, 2006, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s judgment. In its opinion , the Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and that its remedy was overly broad. The Fifth Circuit further held that Mumford could not be held liable for violating the desegregation order without a finding that it intentionally engaged in segregative conduct because it was not a party defendant to the original desegregation lawsuit.

This is a long-standing desegregation case in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 9, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that obliges the district to take measures in the areas of student attendance and assignment, facilities, employee assignment, and student transfers. These measures include, but are not limited to: maintaining facilities and resources at Ruth Hill, a former black school, that are comparable to those at other elementary schools; implementing new attendance zones and policies; and assigning principals and instructional staff in a manner that does not identify a school as intended for one race.

The Section assessed whether the Dublin City School District (Dublin) was complying with its school desegregation orders and applicable federal law. In the course of its review, the Section determined that Dublin’s ability grouping and heterogeneous class assignments were violating a desegregation order. The Section also determined that Dublin was using race-based class assignments to dissuade white students from transferring to the surrounding majority white district of Laurens County (Laurens) and that transfers from Dublin to Laurens were negatively impacting desegregation in Dublin’s schools. The Section attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate voluntary relief with Dublin and Laurens.

On April 15, 2004, the Section filed a motion and supporting memorandum to hold Dublin in contempt for its class assignment violations and for further relief against Dublin and Laurens to enforce an order governing interdistrict transfers. Dublin moved for unitary status, and the Section filed an opposition . Pursuant to the court’s instructions, the United States filed a motion to join Laurens as a necessary defendant and a supplemental complaint against Laurens.

On June 23, 2005, after extensive discovery, the United States and Dublin agreed to a consent order and a settlement agreement that resolved all issues between them, except for the interdistrict transfer issue. The consent order , which was approved by the court on July 1, 2005, governs student assignments to classes and schools, extracurricular activities, and transportation. The settlement agreement governs faculty, administrators, staff, gifted programs, special education, and diploma tracks. Many of the black students improperly classified as having a Mild Intellectual Disability or an Emotional/Behavioral Disorder have been exited from special education under the agreement.

On February 21, 2006, the Section moved for summary judgment against Laurens on the interdistrict transfer issue. Laurens filed an opposition, and the Section filed a reply . The Section also moved for summary judgment against Dublin. Dublin opposed by adopting Laurens’s opposition. Laurens moved for summary judgment on the transfer issue, but Dublin did not. The Section filed an opposition to Laurens’s motion and a motion to exclude Laurens’s expert report. This motion and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment are fully briefed and pending before the court. To obtain copies of the unsealed exhibits to any of the linked documents, please call (202) 514-4092.

This case arose out of a long-standing school desegregation suit filed by the United States on August 1, 1969 against the State of Georgia and 81 individual school districts. Subsequent to substantive rulings from the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the District Court approved a comprehensive consent decree in 1974.  Thereafter, in March 2013, the District Court approved a consent decree with provisions addressing each of the Green factors: (1) student assignment, including school assignment, student transfers, classroom assignment, gifted and talented, and discipline; (2) faculty and staff, including faculty assignment and faculty hiring; (3) transportation; (4) facilities; and (5) extracurricular activities. On May 25, 2017, the District Court approved a new consent decree , which replaced the March 2013 consent decree and all previous orders in the matter. The May 2017 consent decree provides that the district has satisfied its obligations in the areas of transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities, and includes remedial measures to address outstanding concerns related to the remaining Green factors, student assignment and faculty and staff. The consent decree is intended to enable the district to establish the record needed for a declaration of full unitary status.

In the late 1980's, the litigation was reactivated when the United States and the plaintiff-intervenors moved to compel Meriwether to comply with the July 23, 1973 permanent injunction. Those proceedings resulted in an order dated June 28, 1990, which established a new student attendance zone plan, prohibited most intra-district and inter-district transfers, and required teaching and staff assignments at schools to remain within 5% of the district-wide racial percentages for teachers and staff. The court also ordered Meriwether to offer the same courses above the core curriculum at both Manchester and Greenville High Schools. In 1996, the court approved a five-year facilities plan proposed by the district. In 1999, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s approval of the plan. United States & Ridley v. State of Georgia (Meriwether Co. Bd. Of Educ.) , 171 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 1999).

On August 28, 2003, Meriwether moved for a declaration of unitary status. The United States objected to the district’s motion. Subsequent to comprehensive discovery and negotiations, the court approved a Consent Decree on October 21, 2004, which essentially requires the district to fully implement the plan previously approved by the court and to see unitary status in 2007.

The Section intervened in a suit filed by plaintiffs who sought relief from violations of a court-ordered settlement agreement made between private plaintiffs and the district in 1976. The suit involved allegations that defendants failed to provide equal educational services to American Indian students in the district. Our complaint-in-intervention alleged that the district failed to provide equal educational opportunities to American Indian students and failed to provide an appropriate program of education for limited-English-proficient Navajo students. The case was settled by consent agreement and covered the issues raised in our complaint. The settlement called for the establishment of four committees to review the district's programs in general curriculum, special education, and bilingual education and to hear disputes that arise under the agreement. The district has adjusted its educational programs accordingly, including its program for students who are limited English proficient.

This case was brought by the Section in 1980 as both an education and housing desegregation case against the City of Yonkers, the Yonkers Board of Education (YBOE), and the Yonkers Community Development agency. The Yonkers Branch of the NAACP (NAACP) intervened as plaintiffs in 1981, and the case was certified as a class action on behalf of all parents of minority (black and Hispanic) children attending the Yonkers Public Schools (YPS) and all minority residents of Yonkers currently residing in, or eligible to reside in, publicly assisted housing. In 1985, the district court found that the defendants had intentionally segregated the City's public schools and housing over a forty-year period. The court order designed to desegregate the schools became known as the Educational Improvement Plan I (EIP I). EIP I, which primarily involved a magnet school program, desegregated the district with respect to student and faculty assignment.

In September 1987, the YBOE filed a cross-claim against the State of New York, alleging that the State also was liable for the prior segregation in housing and education and that there were continuing vestiges of the prior school segregation that were not being addressed by EIP I. In 1993, the district court found that vestiges of segregation existed in the YPS but that precedent from the Second Circuit precluded the court from holding the State liable as a defendant. In 1996, a panel of the Second Circuit distinguished this precedent and ruled that the State could be held liable for the prior segregation. In 1996,the City filed a third-party cross-claim against the State to obtain state contributions to the costs of implementing the school desegregation orders. In 1997, the district court held that the same vestiges identified in 1993 still existed in 1997, and it ordered the State and City to fund a remedial plan known as EIP II. These defendants appealed.

In June 1999, a panel of the Second Circuit initially reversed the district court's 1993 and 1997 vestiges findings and remanded the case to end the action. In a November 1999 decision, the panel withdrew the June 1999 decision, but maintained its reversal of the vestiges findings and remanded the case to the district court to determine if any other vestiges existed. In November 2000, the district court found that five vestiges of segregation existed in YPS as of 1997: (1) disproportionate academic tracking of minority students into the least demanding classes; (2) disproportionately high discipline of minority students; (3) disproportionately high referrals of minorities to special education; (4) inadequate pupil personnel services; and (5) inadequate services for limited-English-proficient students. The court directed the court-appointed monitor to determine whether evidence since 1997 showed that these five vestiges still existed, and it urged the parties to settle the case.

The Section and the other parties were actively involved in negotiations until they reached a settlement of the case in January 2002. In March 2002, the court conducted a fairness hearing and approved the settlement . The settlement dismissed the education portion of the case with prejudice while retaining court jurisdiction to enforce the settlement's terms. In the settlement, the parties did not agree that the YPS was entitled to a court declaration of unitary status, but rather that the YPS was unitary with respect to the six Green factors and that disputed issues regarding vestiges were resolved by the educational programs and funding provided under the settlement. The settlement required the State to provide $300 million over a five-year period to fund over forty remedial educational programs. The settlement ended on its own terms on June 30, 2006, effectively ending the case.

In this long-standing desegregation case, a consent decree negotiated between the Section and the school district was approved by the court on October 15, 2004. The consent decree includes provisions requiring the district to: cease assigning students to classrooms in a manner that creates racially segregated classrooms; conduct an investigation of racial differences in assignment to its gifted and talented program; alter its method for assigning students to honors classes; cease allowing the use of race-conscious policies or procedures in all of its extracurricular activities; and desegregate certain bus routes.

This longstanding desegregation case was filed by the United States in 1967, and a private plaintiff was granted the right to intervene in 1987. On July 23, 1969, the court approved the school district's first desegregation plan, and, in response to a motion for further relief, the court issued a new order concerning student assignment on April 20, 1987, which was subsequently modified in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, and 2005. On May 28, 2009, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying, in part, a motion filed by the school district for approval of a new desegregation plan. The court subsequently declared the school district partially unitary status in the areas of transportation (March 9, 2012), faculty and staff assignment (Sept. 2, 2012), and extracurricular activities (Dec. 14, 2012). The school district also filed a motion for a declaration of partial unitary status in the area of facilities, which was denied and later renewed on August 18, 2013. On April 6, 2014, the district filed a motion for a declaration of full unitary status, which the United States opposed on June 3, 2014. On October 8, 2014, the court issued an order directing the parties to participate in mediation on all unresolved issues, and on May 21, 2015 approved a negotiated consent order that requires the district to implement a new student assignment and transfer policy; adopt new outreach and admission procedures at the district's charter and magnet schools; and implement a new student discipline policy.

In this long-standing desegregation case involving the Bertie County (North Carolina) Board of Education, the Section commenced informal discovery to assess whether the school district was complying with its desegregation order and applicable federal law. Based on its review of the district, the Section identified concerns regarding the school district’s assignment of students, faculty and staff assignments, and student transfer policies. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, but were not able to develop a mutually satisfactory agreement.

On September 26, 2002, the Section filed a motion requesting further relief. In its supporting memorandum of law , the Section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student, faculty, and staff assignments as well as student transfers. On April 22, 2003, the district court issued an order granting the Section's motion and directing the school district to file a new desegregation plan to address the vestiges identified in the Section's motion.

On December 19, 2003, the school district filed its proposed desegregation plan. After discovery and negotiations, the Section filed a response to the plan on February 24, 2005. In this response, the Section objected only in part to the proposed student assignment plan, which would have failed to desegregate Askewville Elementary School to the extent practicable. The Section also recommended consideration of more effective alternatives for desegregation and raised the issue of the poor condition of JP Law Elementary School, a small historically black school with declining enrollment. The parties reached an interim agreement on these lingering issues, which culminated in a consent order entered on June 24, 2005. This order called for the reconfiguration of attendance zone lines for Askewville, an independent facilities assessment of the elementary and middle schools in the district, and the development of a new student assignment plan.

Following the completion of the facilities assessment and further negotiations, the parties reached agreement about student assignment, transfers, and facilities. This agreement, reflected in the court-approved consent order of March 17, 2006, established a timeline for closing Askewville and JP Law Elementary Schools and required the re-drawing of elementary school attendance zone lines. The order also prohibited the consideration of race in classroom assignments in other elementary schools and enumerated annual reporting requirements. Finally, the order declared that the school district had complied with its desegregation obligations with respect to transportation, extra-curricular activities, and faculty and staff assignment.

This longstanding school desegregation case was initiated by the United States in 1970.  On January 13, 2017, the United States and the Hendry County School Board filed a joint motion for declaration of partial unitary status and sought court approval of a stipulation governing faculty and staff recruiting and student discipline.  On January 23, 2017, the court granted the parties’ motion , declaring that the school district had achieved partial unitary status with respect to student assignment between schools, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities.  The court also approved the parties’ stipulation regarding faculty and staff recruiting and student discipline and will retain jurisdiction over these areas.

In 1980, the United States filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education alleging the board was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by unlawfully segregating students in its schools on the basis of race and national origin. On the same day the United States filed its complaint, the parties filed a school desegregation consent decree the court entered on September 24, 1980.

In January 2003, the court directed the parties to examine the continued viability of the 1980 consent decree. The parties evaluated the board’s compliance with its desegregation obligations and jointly developed a modified consent decree sought to achieve the goals of the original consent decree under the changed factual and legal circumstances facing the board. On March 1, 2004, the Court approved the modified consent decree , which required the board to fulfill obligations in the following areas: student assignment; faculty assignment; facilities; transportation; compensatory and supplemental programs; desegregation funding; discipline; higher level course offerings; extracurricular activities; and English Language Learner (“ELL”) programs.

The United States moved to enforce the modified consent decree on four occasions. On one such occasion, the United States filed a motion to enforce the board’s desegregation funding obligations and its duty to provide majority-to-minority (“M-to-M transfers”). The board filed an opposition, and the United States filed a reply . On December 7, 2004, the court issued an opinion in favor of the United States. On August 26, 2005, the United States filed a motion to show cause because the board once again failed to comply with its desegregation funding duties. The board filed an opposition, and the United States filed a reply . On September 21, 2005, the court ruled that the board’s 2005-06 desegregation budget did not comply with the modified consent decree. The parties resolved this dispute through a stipulated settlement the court approved on November 9, 2005.

In the fall of 2005, the court asked the parties and amici to file position papers on whether the modified consent decree should be dismissed or continued in an altered form. The parties filed briefs requesting court approval of a second amended consent approving the parties’ settlement with slight modifications. The August 10, 2006 order requires the board to: continue magnet and specialized schools, offer M-to-M transfers, monitor open enrollment transfers to ensure they do not negatively impact desegregation, fund compensatory programs at racially isolated schools, take steps to diversify the applicant pool for principals, and provide adequate services to ELL students.

On February 16, 2008, the United States filed a motion to enforce the ELL provisions of the 2006 amended consent decree. The United States argued the board had failed to comply with these ELL provisions in three ways: (1)the board had not demonstrated 30% of its special education ELLs were appropriately served, (2) thousands of ELLs received no ELL services or untimely and inadequate ELL services, and(3)the board failed to provide native language instruction and materials for many of its Transitional Bilingual Education programs. After conducting fact and expert discovery, the parties participated in a twelve-day trial in early 2009 regarding whether the board had achieved unitary status in all areas. At the trial, the board sought dismissal of the entire case, and the United States vigorously opposed dismissal of the ELL provisions. On February 20, 2009, the United States filed a post-trial brief, urging the court to require the board to file a proposal regarding how it intends to operate the magnet and specialized schools so the court can assess the board’s good faith, and to order appropriate relief to ensure ELLs receive the services required by the August 10, 2006 order. The parties await a ruling from the court.

On February 20, 2009, the United States filed a post-trial brief , urging the court to require the board to file a proposal regarding how it intends to operate the magnet and specialized schools so the court can assess the board’s good faith, and to order appropriate relief to ensure ELLs receive the services required by the August 10, 2006 order. On September 3, 2009, the United States filed a supplemental brief in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Horne v. Flores. On September 24, 2009, the court vacated the August 10, 2006 order and dismissed the case.

In this longstanding desegregation case, January 7, 2009, the Court entered a consent decree negotiated by the parties finds the district unitary in all areas except student assignment and quality of education. Pursuant to the terms of the consent decree, the District will seek the Southeastern Equity Center’s assistance in the administration of disciplinary measures and ensuring students equal access to admission in the District’s gifted programs.

This school desegregation lawsuit was initiated by the United States on November 30, 1970. On April 1, 1971, the court ordered defendants to implement a desegregation plan, which was modified by subsequent court orders in 1979, 1981, and 1992. On June 30, 2008, the court approved a consent decree declaring the school district partially unitary in the areas of student assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. To address the United States' concerns that a number of Valdosta's schools were racially identifiable in terms of the demographics of school-based personnel, the 2008 consent decree required the Board to take additional steps to meet its obligations in the areas of faculty and staff. The Board was required to develop personnel policies and procedures related to the recruitment, hiring, and assignment of faculty and certified staff; to assign school-based personnel so that no school would be racially identifiable by its faculty; to maintain applications for employment for a three-year period; and to submit periodic compliance reports to the United States and the court. On March 21, 2011, the Board filed a motion for unitary status and motion to dismiss. The United States, finding that the Board had not fully complied with the terms of the 2008 Consent Decree, opposed the Board's motions in a response filed on November 21, 2011. Following settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order , approved by the court on February 29, 2012, which modifies and extends the terms of the 2008 Consent Decree for two years. Pursuant to the 2012 Consent Order, the Board agreed to withdraw its motion for unitary status and motion to dismiss. For more information on the 2012 Consent Order, please see this press release .

In this desegregation case, the United States determined that the Calhoun County school district was permitting students to transfer to any school in the district without regard to the impact these transfers had on the school district's desegregation obligations. The United States and the school district agreed on a transfer policy that governs the transfer of students within the school district and to other school districts. The parties presented the transfer policy as part of a consent decree that was submitted to the federal district court for its consideration and approval. In 2004, the parties also agreed to the consolidation of all middle school grades at one school located in the district. This agreement was approved by the court and became effective in the 2004-05 school year.

In 2001, the Section received complaints from Asian students at Lafayette High School (LHS) in Brooklyn, NY that alleged numerous instances of national origin discrimination. This discrimination took many forms, ranging from inadequate services for English Language Learner (ELL) students to school officials’ indifferent reaction to persistent verbal and physical peer harassment of Asian students. In one well-publicized case, four Chinese students returning to LHS for their senior year were informed that they had graduated the previous year, though guidance counselors had erroneously informed them otherwise. School officials initially prohibited the graduated students from returning to high school for an additional year of college preparation, notwithstanding the fact that it was too late for them to apply for college admission or receive financial aid. In other cases, Asian students at LHS who assumed they were on track to graduate were forced to return for additional semesters after falling one or two credits short of their graduation requirement when counselors failed to schedule them for the correct classes.

After a lengthy investigation the United States filed a complaint against the City of New York and the Board of Education of the New York City School District on February 2, 2004. The United States alleged violations of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act stemming from defendants’ failure to ameliorate the hostile environment for Asian students at LHS, and further charged that defendants violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) by failing to take appropriate action to help ELL students overcome their language barriers. Four months later, the parties entered into a consent decree that obliged defendants to develop a compliance plan to remedy the transgressions alleged in the United States’ complaint. The Section, in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York, is currently monitoring the defendants’ performance under the compliance plan to ensure that there is no recurrence of the events that gave rise to the complaint.

The Section brought suit against Virginia in 1990 under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after receiving a signed, written complaint from a female high school student in Virginia about the males-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia had failed to justify its exclusion of women from VMI's unique educational program.

Following the Supreme Court's decision and VMI's admission of women in 1997, the Section monitored the integration of women into the institution. As a result of a March 21, 2000 Order requiring Virginia to provide more extensive information on its integration efforts at VMI, the Section reviewed reports regarding male and female students in the areas of recruitment and admissions, retention, financial aid, gender relations, physical training, and women's varsity athletics. The Section worked cooperatively with Virginia to resolve its concerns arising from information contained in the reports, and, as a result, the parties signed and the court entered a Joint Motion for Dismissal on December 6, 2001.

On February 23, 2024, the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas approved a consent order in the England School District desegregation case to ensure the District broadens its recruitment efforts and conduct hiring on a non-discriminatory basis. As part of the consent order, the district will be required to:

• Collect data on the race of applicants for administrator and Certified Staff vacancies, track whom the District interviews, selects and hires for those positions, and to document the reasons for the hiring decisions;
• Maintain a recruitment and retention team;
• Ensure vacancies are properly advertised on employment sites, social media, and local sources of publicity;
• Develop recruiting partnerships with specific colleges; and
• File with the Court twice yearly status updates and share the information in those status reports with the public at school board meetings.

The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, which is expected to last two years, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance.  

On December 6, 2016, the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas approved a consent order to address the remaining issue in the Watson Chapel School District desegregation case, the administration of school discipline. The consent order will replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate.   As part of the consent order, the district will be required to:

• Revise its Code of Conduct, which currently allows the harshest discipline to be imposed for the most minor offense, to instead strictly limit the use of exclusionary discipline, including prohibiting expulsions or out-of-school suspensions for offenses that do not threaten safety;
• Stop the use of corporal punishment, which has been disproportionately applied against black students and undermined the creation of a positive school climate;
• Assess the district’s support services for students with disabilities to ensure that students, particularly students of color, are not disciplined for their disabilities; and
• Enter into an agreement with the law enforcement agencies that provide School Resource Officers to the district that makes clear that Officers will not become involved in enforcing school discipline rules, prevents students from being arrested for minor misconduct and requires the Officer to provide a report to the District any time the Officer becomes involved in an incident at a school.

The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, which is expected to last three years, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance.  For more information, please see this press release .

In this long-standing desegregation case involving the Covington County (Mississippi) School District, the Section had concerns about the district’s two virtually one-race schools, how the district’s staff assignment and school construction have reinforced those two virtually one-race schools, and the district’s use of race in extracurricular activities and awards (to include race-based homecoming queens). Despite the fact that the district overall enrolled about half-black students and half-white students, the district nevertheless maintained one virtually one-race black elementary school, Hopewell (grades K-6), and one virtually one-race white attendance center, Seminary (grades K-12), that enrolled over 60% of all of the white students in the district. Hopewell is the only school in the district without a neighborhood middle or high school. Upon graduating from Hopewell, Hopewell students attended grades 7-12 at a majority black middle and high school (ranked passing and Level III in academic achievement by the state) about 10-12 minutes by bus from Seminary (ranked highest achieving and Level V in academic achievement by the state). The district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, but were not able to develop a mutually satisfactory agreement.

On November 25, 2003, the Section filed a motion requesting further relief and a memorandum of law in support of that motion. In its filings, the Section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student assignment, staff assignment, school construction, and extracurricular activities.

On April 28, 2005, the United States filed a motion for partial summary judgment, challenging the district’s race-based extracurricular activities. The district then agreed to enter into a Consent Decree that required it to cease any practices utilizing a student’s race, color, or national origin in the selection or eligibility for participation in any extracurricular activity and to develop written racially non-discriminatory extracurricular activity policies.

On March 8, 2006, after additional discovery and extensive settlement discussions, the district and the United States entered into a Consent Decree resolving the remaining issues in the case. As a result of this Consent Decree, the district made the following modifications, among others, to its existing desegregation plan for the following school year: (1) all students attending Hopewell for grades K-6 will attend Seminary for grades 7-12, thereby eventually desegregating Seminary for grades 7-12; (2) the district committed to publicize its Majority-to-Minority transfer program; (3) the district committed to implement a compensatory enrichment program at Hopewell (a pre-K program) with the primary purpose to “enhance education” at Hopewell and the secondary purpose to “encourage white students who reside in other attendance zones” to attend Hopewell; (4) the district is required to conduct a facilities organization study and to submit all plans for construction and renovation to the United States prior to commencing any construction and renovation at Seminary; and (5) the district is required to engage in a comprehensive analysis of the bus routes for Hopewell students in order to reduce the length of all such bus routes to the extent practicable.

This longstanding school desegregation case was initiated by the United States in 1970.  On February 21, 2018, the United States and the Jackson County School Board filed a  joint motion for declaration of partial unitary status and sought court approval of a stipulation  governing faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, and promotion, and student discipline.  On February 23, 2018,  the court granted the parties’ motion , declaring that the school district had achieved partial unitary status with respect to student assignment between schools, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities.  The court also approved the parties’ stipulation regarding faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, and promotion, and student discipline and will retain jurisdiction over these areas.  For more information, please see this press release .

This school desegregation lawsuit was initiated by the United States on June 8, 1966. In a decree dated August 1, 1969, the Court ordered a desegregation plan for the district's schools, subsequently modified by a 1970 order and 1971 consent decree . Pursuant to a Fifth Circuit Decision , dated July 13, 1979, the public laboratory schools at Grambling State University and Louisiana Tech University were added to the case. A 1984 consent decree addressed the desegregation obligations of the lab schools. In 2011, following a unitary status review, the Department of Justice submitted a status report to the Court identifying areas of noncompliance by the defendants. The school board filed responses to the status report on September 15, 2011 and October 15, 2011 . Grambling State University and Louisiana Tech University each filed responses on October 17, 2011. Following negotiations, the Department of Justice and the school board submitted a superseding consent order , approved by the Court on May 24, 2012, which granted the Board partial unitary status in the areas of faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. The superseding consent order required the board to implement a school pairing plan to desegregate the four K-5 elementary schools in the board's Ruston attendance zone and to implement revised intra-district student transfer policies. For additional information on the superseding consent order, please see this press release .

On June 2, 2015, the Court approved a supplemental consent order , in which the Board agreed to address the Division's concerns regarding the Board's classroom assignment practices at the four elementary schools located in the Ruston attendance zone. Under the supplemental consent order, the Board will implement the following key changes at the four elementary schools: (1) assign students to homerooms so that the percentage of black and white students in each homeroom reflects the percentage of black and white students in each grade level at each school; (2) refrain from grouping students into homerooms based on students' perceived abilities and ensure that students of all academic levels are assigned to each homeroom; (3) ensure that no homeroom class has more than forty percent special education inclusion students; and (4) transform the Advanced Learning Academy ("ALA") program into a school-wide, racially diverse enrichment program designed to develop the gifts and talents of all students (if the Board chooses to continue operating the ALA program). For additional information on the supplemental consent order, please see this press release .

In 2002 and 2003, private plaintiffs brought suits against the he Lowndes County school district asserting non-compliance with its desegregation obligations, primarily in West Lowndes, an almost all-black area of the district, pursuant to a pursuant to a desegregation order that the district has been operating under since 1970. In 2004, these complaints were consolidated with the United States’ case, and in January 2006, the Court signed a consent order requiring the district to make significant changes to further desegregation. The district was to make improvements to the virtually all-black high school to make them comparable to the majority white high schools including district requirements to: purchase land adjacent to the West Lowndes High School and build a baseball field, upgrade facilities at the virtually all-black high school to make them comparable to the majority white high schools, create band and football practice fields at the virtually all-black high school, remedy short-comings at the virtually all-black elementary and middle schools including upgrading certain classrooms, renovating an auditorium/gymnasium, and removing unseemly sewage lagoons on these premises, implement educational programming at the West Lowndes Middle and High Schools to foster future AP and advanced classes at the high school, teaching advanced classes (AP) on par with the array of course offerings at the majority white schools even if only requested by one child, and to cease using race-conscious policies in the selection of extracurricular activities such as class superlatives and homecoming courts.

In 2007, the Section determined the district was not in compliance with the 2006 order. Nonetheless, on August 21, 2008, the District filed a motion for unitary status. The Section opposed the district’s motion and moved to enforce the 2006 order on the grounds the district: (1) failed to built a baseball facility as ordered (2) failed to install facilities improvements properly resulting in leaks at the entryway to the building; (3) failed to develop policies and procedures related to advanced instruction; and (4) failed to recognize continued complaints of racial harassment and discrimination by community in the district’s majority white schools. On October 15, 2008, the parties withdrew their motions, initiated negotiations, and on February 3, 2009, the court entered a consent order requiring the district to repair the baseball field and entryway at the virtually-all-black high school, develop and support an advanced instruction curriculum (AP) at the virtually-all-black middle school and high school, and adopt and implement a non-discrimination policy to systemically address continued community and parent concerns.

In 1978, the United States sued the Marion County School District (Florida) for maintaining a segregated school system. In 1983, the district court approved a Stipulated Agreement of the parties that, among other things, implemented a plan for further desegregation of the district, including the conversion of two de jure and almost 100% black schools into a district-wide magnet. Since that time, the court entered a decree in 1995 and a modified decree in 2004 to resolve the outstanding desegregation issues. The 2004 modified decree clarified the requirements in the 1995 decree and set forth detailed provisions regarding student assignment (including a policy on out-of-area transfers), the magnet schools, new school construction, staff assignment and recruitment, and the district's reporting obligations.

After finding noncompliance with the extant desegregation order in this case, the Division negotiated a settlement agreement with the district in 2001. In 2003, the school district moved for unitary status and dismissal of the case despite its noncompliance with the 2001 agreement. The Division filed an opposition to the motion on grounds of noncompliance. Following briefing on the issues, the parties negotiated a new agreement that required the district to take specified steps in the areas of student and faculty assignment. Under the agreement , the district agreed to establish a magnet program at a historically black school, to strictly enforce its student transfer policies, and to assign faculty and staff in a way that does not perpetuate the historic racial identifiability of the district's schools. In 2007, the district again moved for unitary status. The Division filed an opposition and a motion for further relief on the grounds that the district had failed to comply with the portions of the 2003 agreement pertaining to transfer policies and faculty assignment.

On July 21, 1966, the United States initiated this lawsuit against the Richland Parish School District.  On July 31, 1969, the Court entered a decree setting forth a plan to desegregate the school district.   In 2010, the United States with the cooperation of the School Board began a comprehensive review of the School Board’s compliance with its obligations under the operative court orders in this case.   Upon completion of its review, the United States concluded that the School Board satisfied the requirements for unitary status with respect to facilities, extracurricular activities, and transportation.  On March 17, 2013, the Court granted the District’s c onsent order declaring partial unitary status and dismissal in the areas of facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities.  The parties continue to negotiate the remaining areas of student assignment, faculty, and staff.

This longstanding desegregation case was filed by the United States in 1970.  On August 14, 1970, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, issued an order requiring the District to adopt and implement a school desegregation plan.  On August 17, 1971, the Court amended its previous desegregation order and required the District to implement a student assignment plan in accordance with the principles established in Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1970), and to follow provisions regarding faculty desegregation, transportation, school construction and site selection, student transfers, and extracurricular activities.  On May 7, 1980, the Court removed the case from its active civil docket but the District remained subject to the 1971 Order, including its reporting obligations.  On October 26, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Declaration of Partial Unitary Status and for Approval of Stipulation regarding Faculty and Staff Recruiting .  The order declares the District partially unitary with respect to student assignment, including student transfers, facilities, transportation, and extracurricular activities.  In addition, the order approves the Parties’ Stipulation Regarding Faculty and Staff Recruitment .  The Section is monitoring compliance with the 2016 Order and Stipulation.

In this longstanding school desegregation case, the district court entered an order on December 18, 2014, approving the proposed consent order jointly submitted by the United States and the Suffolk City School Board. The consent order modified the School Board's student assignment plan by establishing zone lines for a new elementary school and implementing a voluntary majority-to-minority ("M-to-M") transfer program that furthers desegregation in the district. On March 20, 2017, the district court approved a subsequent consent order that declares the district has achieved partial unitary status in the areas of facilities, extracurricular activities, transportation, and faculty and staff assignment. The consent order retains judicial supervision over the area of student assignment--including the implementation and expansion of the M-to-M program, anticipated changes to school attendance zones, and student disciplinary practices--through the 2019-20 school year. For more information, please see this press release .

The United States filed this school desegregation case in 1980.  The Court entered a Consent Order shortly thereafter on February 8, 1980.  On April 17, 1980, the Court approved the District’s Desegregation Plan, which went into effect for the 1981-1982 school year and was subsequently modified with the Court’s approval in 1992, 2002, 2010, and 2015.  In the fall of 2017, the District proposed a new student assignment plan for elementary and middle schools called “Focus 2018.”  On April 30, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion and stipulation to obtain court approval of Focus 2018 and address the School Board’s forthcoming steps to further desegregation in other areas of the case.  On June 7, 2018, the Court approved the new plan and the stipulation, which required the parties to identify agreed upon action steps regarding the other areas by August 31, 2018.  On that date, the parties filed a joint motion and stipulation regarding consent decree compliance.  On September 4, 2018, the Court approved this second stipulation , which requires the District to further desegregation by ensuring non-discrimination in student discipline, equitable student transportation, and continued review of high school programs and student enrollment practices.  The stipulation also established monitoring and reporting requirements to promote District compliance with the Consent Order.

On July 15, 2015, the United States sent its findings  to the State of Georgia stating that the State’s administration of the Georgia Network of Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS) program violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities from their peers in school.  The State fails to ensure that students with behavior-related disabilities receive services and supports that could enable them to remain in, or return to, the most integrated educational placements appropriate to their needs.

On August 23, 2016, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia in federal district court to remedy violations of the ADA pertaining to the State’s failure to provide thousands of public school students with behavior-related disabilities with appropriate mental health and therapeutic educational services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Georgia plans, funds, administers, and delivers its mental health and therapeutic educational services through the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support Program (“GNETS Program”), students with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated and provided unequal educational opportunities in GNETS Centers and Classrooms, where they are isolated from their non-disabled peers, when they could be served in general education classrooms. The lawsuit further alleges that other students with behavior-related disabilities are placed at serious risk of segregation in the GNETS Program.  For more information, please see this press release .

In this desegregation case, the Section determined the McComb Municipal Separate School District had violated the terms of the governing desegregation order and federal law by clustering white students into particular classrooms in a manner resulted in a significant number of segregated, all-black classrooms at the District’s two elementary schools. Additionally, the District was impermissibly using raced-based procedures to select students for certain school-sponsored accolades, including McComb High School’s homecoming queen and court. These procedures had the effect of establishing separate elections for black and white candidates.

In March 2004, the district moved for unitary status. The United States filed a response and a motion for further relief . After discovery, the United States filed an opposition to the District’s motion for unitary status, which stated the United States' objections to unitary status in the areas of student assignment and extracurricular activities, but stipulated to unitary status and dismissal in the areas of transportation, hiring of faculty and administrators, facilities, and resource management. On July 13, 2006, the Court held a hearing to address the areas of dispute. The Court issued a memorandum opinion and order on April 18, 2008, that denied the district’s motion for unitary status and ordered the district to devise an assignment policy that results in meaningful racial interaction for all of the students attending the two elementary schools in question. To execute the requirements of the Court’s order, the court entered a consent decree on September 18, 2008, negotiated by the parties that establishes protocols for student assignment at the two elementary schools and establishes voting procedures for McComb High School’s homecoming court.

The Simpson County School District is under a desegregation order and a 1983 Consent Decree specifically governing employment procedures. The District moved for unitary status in November 2001, and the United States thereafter participated in discovery to evaluate the district's progress toward complete desegregation. The United States learned in March 2003 that the District was not following the specific hiring procedures mandated by the 1983 Consent Decree. To address allegations of racial discrimination in employment, the Consent Decree requires the District actively to recruit black applicants for faculty and administrative positions and to do so by advertising all such vacancies outside the district in regional newspapers and with various universities in the state. The District, however, followed a policy of advertising vacancies first within the District and then outside the district only if no qualified applicants were found within. The United States learned that the District sought to fill three vacancies in principal positions this past winter following that practice rather than the procedures mandated by the Consent Decree. Because the District employed no black personnel with the administrative certification necessary for the positions, the District made the positions available only to white persons and considered no black applicants for the job. The practice therefore contravened the purpose of the 1983 Consent Decree, and the United States filed a motion with a supporting memorandum in April 2003 and a reply to enforce the employment procedures detailed therein. A hearing was held on the motion in July 2003, and the court subsequently granted the United States' motion. The court's order required the District to reopen the three principal positions for the 2004-05 school year and to advertise the vacancies according to the requirements of the Consent Decree. Subsequently, the district moved for unitary status and we opposed. The court ruled in our favor and the district has appealed.

In this longstanding desegregation case, the Wayne County School District is subject to several court orders prohibiting the use of race in classroom assignment decisions and inter-district student transfers that impede the desegregation of the district's schools. In an August 10, 1970 order, the court ordered the district to adopt a desegregation plan, which was modified by several subsequent orders. On May 16, 2006, the court approved a consent order, which declared the district partially unitary in the areas of faculty assignment, staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. The 2006 consent order required the district to address the impermissible use of race in classroom assignment decisions at Waynesboro Elementary School (WES). On August 8, 2008, the court approved a consent order increasing the district's reporting requirements. In 2011, the United States notified the District of its determination that WES officials continued to use race as a factor in classroom assignment decisions and that white students residing in a majority-black attendance zone were impermissibly transferring to schools in a majority-white zone. To address these issues, the parties agreed to a consent order , approved by the court on January 3, 2012, requiring the district to adopt a random assignment system for classroom assignment at WES and to take steps to stop impermissible student transfers.

In December of 2009, the Section received a complaint from the Asian American Legal Defense Fund (AALDEF) on behalf of community advocates and Asian students at South Philadelphia High School (SPHS) in Philadelphia, PA that alleged numerous instances of national origin discrimination. This discrimination took many forms, including indifferent reaction to persistent verbal and physical peer harassment of Asian students. This discrimination culminated in one well-publicized instance where Asian students were violently attacked by their peers in and around school grounds. These attacks led to roughly a dozen Asian students being sent to the hospital, twenty-two suspension hearings and the transfer of several students to disciplinary or other schools.

After a lengthy investigation the United States filed a complaint and settlement agreement against the School District of Philadelphia and the School Reform Commission on December 15, 2010. The United States alleged violations of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act stemming from defendants’ failure to ameliorate the hostile environment for Asian students at SPHS, and further charged that defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution due to their deliberate indifference to known instances of severe and pervasive harassment. The settlement agreement obliges defendants to develop an action plan to remedy the transgressions alleged in the United States’ complaint. The Section, in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, is currently monitoring the defendants’ performance under the action plan to ensure that there is no recurrence of the events that gave rise to the complaint.

In this school construction case, the Section investigated the school district's plans to build a new elementary school in a particular section of Tunica County, Mississippi. This district has a majority black population, and concerns were raised that the proposed school would serve primarily white students and would cause further housing segregation in the county.

Because the school district was under order to desegregate its schools, the district had to obtain the court's approval for its plan. The Section submitted a brief providing the relevant legal standards for evaluating both the need for a new school and the appropriateness of the proposed location. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into a consent order . As a result of the November 29, 1999 consent order, the District’s new elementary school was built two miles south of the originally proposed location, at a site that is closer to existing black communities.

In the course of reviewing the West Carroll Parish school district's compliance with its desegregation orders, the Section identified zone jumping within the district and student transfers from outside of the district. As a result, the United States negotiated Agreed Modifications to the Residency Verification and Transfer Provisions of the 1991 Consent Order , which were approved by the Court on August 11, 2003. The Section continues to monitor the district’s compliance with these strengthened transfer obligations and the elimination of its race-based homecoming election practices.

To address the persistence of three virtually all white schools and two other racially identifiable schools in this eight-school district, the Section proposed five student assignment plans to further school desegregation. The district rejected the proposed plans, and the Section filed a motion for further relief on November 29, 2005. The United States argued that the district never desegregated these three white schools and that the pre- Swann desegregation plan implemented by the district falls short of eliminating the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable. The district filed an opposition, which also served as a motion for unitary status, and the Section filed a reply .

On December 22, 2006, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment , arguing that the evidence obtained in discovery established that the district had failed to eliminate its one-race schools to the extent practicable. The district moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had achieved unitary status in the area of student assignment to schools. The United States filed an opposition to the district's motion on January 12, 2007, and a reply in support of its own motion on January 26, 2007. On February 14, 2007, the court issued a ruling granting the United States' summary judgment motion and denying that of the district. The court found that the district had failed to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable and ordered that the trial set for February 26, 2007, proceed to consider an appropriate student assignment plan. In lieu of going to trial, the district and the United States reached agreement on a new desegregation plan in a three-year consent order , which the court approved on March 21, 2007.

On April 10, 2012, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the University of California, San Diego ("UCSD"), in San Diego, Calif., to resolve an investigation into complaints of racial harassment against African-American students on campus.

The investigation and settlement focused on multiple incidents beginning in February 2010, including public displays of nooses and a Ku Klux Klan-style hood, and the hosting of an off-campus party where students were invited to dress as stereotypes of African-Americans, as well as UCSD's response to the incidents. Following DOJ's and OCR's investigation, UCSD voluntarily entered into a resolution agreement with the departments.

Under the terms of the resolution agreement, UCSD will take steps to prevent racial harassment on campus, respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and eliminate any hostile environment resulting from harassment. The university has agreed to revise its campus policies and procedures related to racial harassment to ensure they are consistent with federal civil rights laws; maintain an Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of harassment and discrimination; and provide mandatory trainings for staff and students on the university's anti-discrimination policies and procedures. The university also voluntarily initiated a number of additional programs to address campus climate issues, and the departments will monitor the implementation of those programs to evaluate their impact on resolving the departments' concerns. For more information, please see this press release .

On March 18, 2024, the Department  notified the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) that the University had violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The Department found that from 2015 to 2020, UMBC failed to respond adequately to known allegations of sex discrimination in the Athletics Department.  As a result, a former head coach engaged in sex-based harassment, including sexual assault, of male student-athletes, as well as discrimination on the basis of sex of female student-athletes, on an ongoing basis for years. 

On April 3, 2024, the Department and UMBC reached a settlement agreement to address UMBC’s noncompliance with Title IX.  The agreement followed the Department’s March 18, 2024 letter notifying UMBC that it did not comply with Title IX when, between 2015 and 2020, it failed to respond adequately to known allegations of sex discrimination in the Athletics Department.  Under the agreement’s terms, UMBC will, among other things, ensure sufficient staffing and funding to maintain an effective Title IX compliance program; employ full-time staff to support individuals who have experienced sexual assault; promote greater awareness of its revised Title IX policy and protocols; provide targeted training to student-athletes and Athletics Department staff; create a policy outlining behavioral expectations for coaching staff; and implement climate surveys to identify and respond to the needs of student-athletes. The agreement also requires UMBC to pay up to $4.14 million in financial relief to individuals who the Department found experienced sex discrimination by the former head coach.  The Department will monitor the UMBC’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2028-2029 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release and plain-language summary of the agreement.  

University of Montana-Missoula

On May 1, 2012, the Civil Rights Division formally launched a Title IX compliance review and Title IV investigation of the University of Montana-Missoula's (the University) handling of student reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment. That same day, the Division launched a companion investigation of the University's campus police under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Section 14141), and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Safe Streets Act). See May 1, 2012 Press Release .

Shortly thereafter, the Division combined its Title IX compliance review with one initiated by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Title IX and Title IV both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University's policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the Division and OCR identified a number of areas where the University needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and Title IV.

On May 9, 2013, the Division and OCR reached a resolution agreement with the University to resolve their findings under Title IX and Title IV, and the Division reached a separate agreement to resolve its findings under Section 14141 and the Safe Streets Act. Under the terms of the Title IX-Title IV agreement , the University agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation; and to fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment. These steps include: adopting revised policies and procedures for handling sex-based discrimination complaints, conducting training for all employees and students, disseminating information more clearly and broadly about how to report sexual harassment and assault, conducting annual climate surveys to assess students' knowledge of these issues and any barriers to their reporting, and evaluating the effect of the Agreement's remedies over time to ensure that they are effective. The Division and OCR will carefully monitor the University's implementation of the Agreement to ensure that the relief it provides reaches students quickly.

On December 5, 2014, the Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office, New Mexico, formally launched a Title IX compliance review and Title IV investigation of the University of New Mexico's (the University) handling of student reports of sexual assault. Title IX and Title IV both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University's policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, and responses to reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment, DOJ issued a Letter of Findings on April 16, 2016 which identified a number of areas where the University needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and Title IV.

On October 17, 2016, DOJ reached an agreement with the University to resolve their findings under Title IX and Title IV. Under the terms of the Title IX-Title IV agreement, the University agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault; and to fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment. These steps include: adopting revised policies and procedures for handling complaints of sexual harassment, conducting training for all students and responsible employees, disseminating information more clearly and broadly about how to report sexual harassment and assault, conducting annual climate surveys to assess students' knowledge of these issues and any barriers to their reporting, and evaluating the effect of the Agreement's remedies over time to ensure that they are effective. DOJ will carefully monitor the University's implementation of the Agreement to ensure that the relief it provides reaches students quickly. For more information, please see this press release .

In this matter involving the University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC), Tennessee, the Department investigated a complaint alleging, in part, that UTHSC violated of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq ., by failing to reasonably modify policies, practices, and procedures when it employed a threat assessment process and placed a student on a mandatory medical leave of absence from her academic program because of her mental health condition without first considering accommodations to facilitate her continued enrollment.  On July 22, 2016, the Department and UTHSC entered into a Settlement Agreement that prohibits the university from discriminating against any person on the basis of disability and from excluding any person with a disability from participation in or benefiting from its services, programs, or activities.  In addition, the Agreement requires UTHSC to change its leave and withdrawal policies, and provide annual ADA training to faculty and staff.  UTHSC also must ensure that the process it uses to evaluate a student’s request for accommodation or reasonable modification of policies is conducted independently from other campus administrative or discipline processes, and that any threat assessment involving a student with a disability is supported by an appropriate factual record and based on legitimate safety concerns, and not on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about persons with disabilities.  Finally, the Agreement allows the complainant to recover $45,000 in compensation, and requires UTHSC to amend the student's academic record; destroy specified documents, including the complainant’s medical records; and take other steps to remedy the alleged discrimination.

After learning of allegations that Utah State University (the “University”) failed to respond to numerous reports of serious student-on-student sexual assault, the Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah (collectively, the “United States”) initiated a Title IX compliance review of the University.  The United States reviewed the University’s response(s) to sexual assault and harassment complaint(s) over a more than four-year period.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University’s policies, grievance procedures, training, student education efforts, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the United States identified areas of noncompliance with Title IX.

On February 12, 2020, the United States reached a settlement agreement with the University to address the areas of noncompliance.  Under the terms of the agreement, the University agreed to take significant steps including, among others: revising its notice of nondiscrimination and relevant sexual harassment policies, procedures, and practices; responding promptly, equitably, and adequately to known sexual harassment that has created a hostile environment; and training students and employees on University policies and federal laws pertaining to sexual harassment, how and to whom they can report allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, the resources available and how to access them, and the University’s Title IX grievance procedures and potential outcomes.  The United States will carefully monitor the University’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place through the 2022-2023 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release .  On July 28, 2020, the United States executed a letter agreement with the University, extending the deadlines in the original settlement agreement.

On January 13, 2003, the Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club and some of its student members filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that the Westfield Public Schools and officials discriminated against their religious beliefs by refusing to allow them to distribute pamphlets containing a religious message, even though defendants permitted the distribution of secular pamphlets by these same students the year before. The plaintiffs alleged that this violated their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and their rights to equal protection under the laws pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States' motion on February 26, 2003.

The United States filed a brief in support of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction. The United States argued that the school's restrictions on plaintiffs' speech violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments proscribing government regulations of speech that discriminate against a particular point of view – here a religious viewpoint.

On March 17, 2003, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from prohibiting the students and the L.I.F.E. Club from distributing literature to fellow students, during non-instructional time, based on the content of the literature.

On June 16, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree in which the district agreed to use a revised Free Speech Policy and not to impose any prior restraints upon the plaintiffs to distribute literature unless the distribution failed to comply with the policy.

In this matter involving the Westminster Public Schools, the Section and the District of Colorado USAO examined whether the District was identifying and serving its English Learner (“EL”) students in compliance with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).   EL students comprise approximately 46% of the District’s student population.  On February 27, 2018, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s noncompliance with the EEOA and ensure that EL students receive the support they need to succeed in the District’s educational programs.  Under the agreement, the District will: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; ensure that all ELs, including those with disabilities, receive adequate language services so that they can become proficient in English; provide ELs with access to appropriate grade-level content within the District’s Competency Based System; train teachers and administrators who implement the EL program adequately; monitor the academic performance of current, former, and long-term EL students; evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time; and ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for three full school years.

On August 31, 2015, the Division formally launched a Title IX investigation and compliance review of Wheaton College after receiving a complaint regarding the College’s handling of a student’s report of sexual assault.  The Division reviewed the College’s response to sexual assault and harassment complaints over an approximately three and a half-year period.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the College’s policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, student education efforts, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the Division identified areas where the College needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and its regulations. On September 21, 2106, the Division reached a settlement agreement with the College to address these areas and bring it into compliance.  Under the terms of the agreement, the College agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation; and fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment.  These steps include, among others: revising its policies, procedures, and investigative practices to ensure the prompt and equitable resolution of sexual assault and harassment allegations; adequately investigating and responding to allegations of retaliation by students who reported sexual harassment or assault; taking sufficient action to fully eliminate sex-based hostile environments; and adequately training individuals designated to coordinate its Title IX efforts. The Division will carefully monitor the College’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place for at least three school years.  For more information, please see this press release.

In this matter involving the Wicomico County Public School District in Maryland, the Section conducted an investigation into complaints that the District’s student discipline policies resulted in the discriminatory suspension of black and Latino students and students with disabilities, in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq., which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion in public schools and institutions of higher education, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, which prohibits discrimination based on disability in services, programs and activities provided by State and local government entities.

After the investigation, the United States and the District negotiated and entered a voluntary out-of-court settlement agreement on January 19, 2017. Under the settlement agreement, the district will take steps to create positive and inclusive learning environments in all Wicomico County schools, including by timely responding to requests for reasonable modifications to District disciplinary policies, practices and procedures; providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention and other emergency response measures are appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems.

In this matter involving the Worcester, Massachusetts public school system, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA"). After determining that the school district was not complying with the requirements of the EEOA, the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the school district on January 26, 2009. Under this agreement, the school district agreed to take the following steps, among others, to: establish protocols for registration and identification; train faculty and intake staff concerning proper data entry for tracking; ensure timely, adequate and appropriate ELL services; provide translation services for parents and guardians, train ELL teachers, provide appropriate materials for ELL classes, ensure special education students are not denied appropriate ELL services, and monitor current and exited ELLs.

On July 10, 2012, the United States entered into a supplemental agreement with the school district that addressed, among other things, the school district's duty to: adequately test students for English language proficiency; properly train personnel involved in the identification and registration of ELLs; monitor and track the academic achievement of former ELLs; and ensure that classroom instruction provided to ELLs is delivered by teachers who are qualified to teach ELLs. After determining that the school district was still not in compliance with the 2008 and 2012 Agreements, the United States entered into a comprehensive second supplemental agreement with the district on July 11, 2016.  The 2016 agreement replaces the 2008 Settlement Agreement and 2012 Supplemental Agreement and aims to address, among other issues: inadequate ESL and sheltered content instruction for ELLs, the need for more qualified ESL and sheltered content teachers, services and procedures for ELLs with disabilities, and insufficient translations and qualified interpreters for LEP parents.

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Labor & Employment Supreme Court Cases

Many of the labor and employment cases that have reached the Supreme Court involve claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace. These may arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits adverse employment actions based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of an employee. The Supreme Court also has reviewed cases under parallel anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Meanwhile, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 imposes rules for pension, health, and other benefit plans in the private sector. The Supreme Court has clarified ERISA terms and requirements, in addition to determining whether ERISA preempts various state laws. The ERISA preemption clause provides that the law supersedes any state laws to the extent that they relate to employee benefit plans. However, the ERISA savings clause allows states to regulate the business of insurance.

Other workplace issues addressed by the Supreme Court include employee privacy, wage and hour rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the free speech rights of government employees. The Court also has discussed the use of arbitration to resolve labor and employment disputes.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving labor and employment, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Elena Kagan

Although an employee must show some harm from a forced job transfer to prevail in a Title VII claim, they do not need to show that the injury satisfies a significance test.

Author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The impact on coworkers is relevant only to the extent that it goes on to affect the conduct of the business.

The federal-sector provision of the ADEA demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age.

Author: Neil Gorsuch

An employer that fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.

Author: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC.

The state's extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment.

Author: Stephen Breyer

When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and Section 1983 even if the employer's actions are based on a factual mistake about the employee's behavior.

Author: Anthony Kennedy

ERISA preempts a state law that governs or interferes with the uniformity of plan administration.

Author: Antonin Scalia

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, an applicant needs to show only that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. They do not need to show that the employer had knowledge of their need.

Author: Sonia Sotomayor

A public employee's sworn testimony outside the scope of their ordinary job duties is entitled to First Amendment protection.

Author: Clarence Thomas

Time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA.

Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation.

An employee is a supervisor for the purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if they are empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.

Author: John Roberts

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses bar lawsuits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws.

If a supervisor performs an act motivated by discriminatory animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, the employer is liable.

In an employment discrimination class action, the conceptual gap between an individual's discrimination claim and the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury must be bridged by significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination. More generally, a class in a proposed class action has common questions of law or fact if their claims depend on a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution, which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke.

A government employer's allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee do not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment unless the employee's petition relates to a matter of public concern.

A government employer had a right to read text messages sent and received on a pager that the employer owned and issued to an employee.

Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.

A plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate treatment claim must prove that age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.

A provision in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.

Author: David Souter

An employer defending a disparate impact claim under the ADEA bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) affirmative defense.

The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII covers only those employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or applicant. The plaintiff must show that the challenged action well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Author: John Paul Stevens

When employees must don protective clothing on the employer's premises before they engage in the productive labor for which they are primarily hired, the time that employees spend walking between the changing area and the production area is compensable under the FLSA. However, the time that employees spend waiting to put on the protective gear is not compensable.

While the ADEA authorizes recovery in disparate impact cases, ADEA Section 4(f)(1) significantly narrows its coverage by permitting any otherwise prohibited action when the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.

A plaintiff alleging sexual harassment can establish constructive discharge if they can show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that their resignation qualified as a fitting response. An employer may assert the Faragher affirmative defense unless the plaintiff quit in reasonable response to an adverse action officially changing their employment status or situation.

ERISA prevents individuals from suing HMOs in state court for pure eligibility decisions. Also, if an individual at some point in time could have brought their claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), and no other independent legal duty is implicated by a defendant's actions, the individual's cause of action is completely preempted.

The common-law element of control is the principal guidepost to be followed in deciding whether director-shareholder physicians in a medical clinic should be counted as employees for the purposes of the ADA. Factors to be considered in deciding whether a shareholder-director is an employee include whether the organization can hire or fire the individual or set rules for their work, whether the organization supervises their work, whether they report to someone higher in the organization, whether they can influence the organization, whether written agreements or contracts show that the parties intended the individual to be an employee, and whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization.

Direct evidence of discrimination is not required for a plaintiff to obtain a mixed motive jury instruction under Title VII.

An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action.

HMOs may be insurers and thus subject to state regulation of insurers. State laws directed toward the insurance industry are saved from preemption under ERISA's saving clause.

Author: Per Curiam

Judicial review of a labor arbitration decision pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is very limited. Courts are not authorized to review an arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement. Even when the arbitrator's award may properly be vacated, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case for further arbitration proceedings.

A retaliation claim will not withstand a summary judgment motion when nobody could reasonably believe that the incident of which the plaintiff complained violated Title VII.

The exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which excludes contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, is confined to transportation workers.

Author: Sandra Day O’Connor

A prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to reject the employer's non-discriminatory explanation for its decision, may be adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination under the ADEA.

Mixed treatment and eligibility decisions by health maintenance organization (HMO) physicians are not fiduciary decisions under ERISA.

An employer's conduct does not need to be independently egregious to satisfy the requirements for a punitive damages award in a Title VII case. However, in the punitive damages context, an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of managerial agents when these decisions are contrary to the employer's good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII.

An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate or successively higher authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may raise an affirmative defense if they can show that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

For a union to waive employees' rights to a federal judicial forum for statutory anti-discrimination claims, the agreement to arbitrate these claims must be clear and unmistakable.

Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII.

Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover damages from the employer without showing that the employer was negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor's actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense. (The defense consists of the elements in Faragher below.)

The power to amend or abolish an employee welfare benefit plan does not include the power to discriminate against the plan's participants and beneficiaries for the purpose of interfering with their attainment of rights under the plan.

The salary-basis test denies exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act when employees are covered by a policy that permits disciplinary or other deductions in pay as a practical matter. That standard is met if there is either an actual practice of making such deductions or an employment policy that creates a significant likelihood of such deductions.

The fact that one member of a protected class lost out to another member is irrelevant to an employment discrimination claim so long as they lost out because of their protected trait.

When employers or other plan sponsors adopt, modify, or terminate pension plans, they do not act as fiduciaries but are analogous to settlors of a trust.

A law operating as an indirect source of merely economic influence on administrative decisions should not suffice to trigger ERISA preemption.

An employee discharged in violation of the ADEA is not barred from all relief when, after their discharge, their employer discovers evidence of wrongdoing that, in any event, would have led to their termination on lawful and legitimate grounds had the employer known of it.

Title VII is violated when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a discriminatorily hostile or abusive working environment. This standard requires an objectively hostile or abusive environment, as well as the victim's subjective perception that the environment is abusive.

An employment decision based on years of service is not necessarily age-based, since this factor is analytically distinct from age.

The common-law test for determining who qualifies as an employee under ERISA considers the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Other factors to consider include the skill required, the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the location of the work, the duration of the relationship between the parties, the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work, and the method of payment, among others.

Author: Byron White

An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration.

ERISA's deemer clause demonstrates Congress' clear intent to exclude from the reach of the saving clause self-funded ERISA plans by relieving them from state laws purporting to regulate insurance. State laws directed toward such plans are preempted because they relate to an employee benefit plan but are not saved because they do not regulate insurance.

The proper comparison in a disparate impact employment discrimination case is generally between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant labor market.

Author: William Brennan

In the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer that acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.

For disclosure purposes, a “participant” in an ERISA plan means an employee in currently covered employment (or reasonably expected to be in currently covered employment), or a former employee who has a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment or who has a colorable claim to vested benefits. To establish that they may become eligible for benefits, a claimant must have a colorable claim that they will prevail in a suit for benefits, or that eligibility requirements will be fulfilled in the future.

A policy of paying discharged employees for their unused vacation time does not constitute an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA, and a criminal action to enforce that policy is not foreclosed.

The National Labor Relations Act does not permit a union, over the objections of dues-paying non-member employees, to expend funds collected from them on activities unrelated to collective bargaining activities.

Disparate impact analysis in an employment discrimination claim may be applied to subjective employment criteria.

To be preempted by ERISA, a state statute must have some connection with or reference to a plan.

Both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable when a public employer intrudes on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for non-investigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct.

ERISA preempts state common law tort and contract actions asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an insured employee benefit plan.

Author: William Rehnquist

A claim of hostile environment sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII.

Author: Harry Blackmun

A law relates to an employee benefit plan for ERISA purposes if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.

When a public employee speaks as an employee on matters only of personal interest, a federal court is generally not the appropriate forum to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior.

A non-job-related test that has a disparate impact and is used to limit or classify employees is used to discriminate within the meaning of Title VII, even if it was not designed or intended to have this effect and even if an employer tries to compensate for its discriminatory effect.

Author: Lewis Powell

When a plaintiff in a Title VII case has proved a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the defendant bears only the burden of explaining clearly the non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. It is sufficient if the defendant's evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff.

Author: Potter Stewart

A regulation could permit private employees of a private employer to avoid workplace conditions that they believe pose grave dangers to their own safety, when the employees have no power under the regulation to order their employer to correct the hazardous condition or to clear the dangerous workplace of others.

A public employee does not forfeit their First Amendment protection when they arrange to communicate privately with their employer, rather than expressing their views publicly.

Once a prima facie case has been established by statistical workforce disparities, the employer must have an opportunity to show that the claimed discriminatory pattern was a product of pre-Title VII hiring, rather than unlawful post-Title VII discrimination.

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff need only show that facially neutral standards select applicants for hire in a significantly discriminatory pattern. If the employer proves that the challenged requirements are job-related, the plaintiff may show that other selection devices without a similar discriminatory effect would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship.

In cases alleging a pattern or practice of employment discrimination, the government must show that discrimination was the standard operating procedure of the defendant. Statistics may be used in proving discrimination.

An employee's statutory right to trial de novo under Title VII is not foreclosed by prior submission of their claim to final arbitration under the non-discrimination clause of a collective bargaining agreement.

In a private, non-class action complaint under Title VII charging racial employment discrimination, the complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which they can satisfy by showing that they belong to a racial minority, they applied and were qualified for a job that the employer was trying to fill, they were rejected, and the employer continued to seek applicants with their qualifications.

Author: Warren Burger

An employment practice that operates to exclude members of a protected group is prohibited if it cannot be shown to be related to job performance, even if the employer lacked discriminatory intent.

Author: Thurgood Marshall

When a public employee's false statements concerned issues that were currently the subject of public attention and did not interfere with the performance of their duties or the general operation of their employer, they were entitled to the same protection as if the statements had been made by a member of the general public.

Author: Robert H. Jackson

The fact that an employer has individual contracts of employment with a majority of its employees does not preclude the employees from exercising their right under the National Labor Relations Act to choose a representative for collective bargaining, nor does it warrant refusal by the employer to bargain with this representative regarding terms covered by the individual contracts.

Rulings, interpretations, and opinions of agency administrators are not controlling on courts but provide a body of experience and informed judgment that courts can use for guidance. The weight of such a judgment depends on the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors that give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control. Also, no principle of law precludes a determination that waiting time is working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Author: Charles Evans Hughes

In recognizing the right to strike, the National Labor Relations Act contemplates a lawful strike. When a strike, even if it arose from unfair labor practices, is initiated and conducted in lawlessness by the seizure and retention of the employer's property, and the strikers are discharged because of their lawlessness, they do not remain employees under the NLRA.

A restraint or regulation of the liberty to contract is due process if it is reasonable in relation to its subject and adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Also, in dealing with the relation of employer and employed, the legislature has a wide field of discretion in order that there may be suitable protection of health and safety, and that peace and good order may be promoted through regulations designed to ensure wholesome conditions of work and freedom from oppression.

Author: George Sutherland

Legislation fixing hours or conditions of work may properly take into account the physical differences between men and women, but the doctrine that women of mature age require (or may be subjected to) restrictions on their liberty of contract that could not lawfully be imposed on men in similar circumstances must be rejected.

Author: John Marshall Harlan

It is not within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense against the United States for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce to discharge an employee simply because of their membership in a labor organization. A provision to that effect is an invasion of personal liberty and the right of property and is unenforceable under the Due Process Clause.

Author: David Josiah Brewer

The regulation of the working hours of women falls within the police power of the state, and a statute directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses.

A U.S. court has no jurisdiction under the Thirteenth Amendment or other federal laws of a charge of conspiracy made and carried out in a state to prevent citizens of African descent, because of their race and color, from making or carrying out contracts and agreements to labor.

Author: Rufus Wheeler Peckham

The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the state in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

• Due Process
• Free Speech
• Health Care
• LGBTQ+ Rights
• Civil Rights and Discrimination
• Employment Law
• Health Care Law
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

three discrimination cases

Primary tabs, young v. ups, eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch, and texas dept. of housing & community affairs v. inclusive communities project.

The Court also issued new guidance on an older law in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. [Read our Preview here .] The Court examined the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 , which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and requires companies to treat pregnant workers the same as others who do the same job. This case required the Court to determine the circumstances in which a plaintiff claiming discrimination based on pregnancy has made a strong enough initial showing to put the burden of proof on her employer to prove that discrimination did not occur. It ruled that once a worker alleges that she requested a workplace accommodation based on her pregnancy; but, that her employer denied that request while granting similar accommodations to other workers due to other disabilities such as injury, then it is the employer who must prove that it was motivated by a business purpose and did not intend to discriminate. Even then, the pregnant worker can still prevail by showing that the policy, despite its intent, places a burden on female employees that outweighs the benefit the company gains from enforcing it.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. , also an employment discrimination case, addressed when employers could enforce workplace policies against employees for whom following the policy would constitute a violation of their religious beliefs or practices. [Read our Preview here .] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie & Fitch (A & F) for its failure to hire a young Muslim woman who wore a black headscarf in violation of the chain’s internal “Look Policy.” Justice Antonin Scalia’s eight-member majority opinion stated that Title VII only requires that the employee show that she suffered a disparate impact based on the practice of her religious beliefs through the employer’s failure to hire her, at least where the company had some notion that the practice was motivated by a religious belief. In other words, an employee does not need to show that the employer actually knew of the religious belief or took action motivated by an animus toward that belief. The majority appears to have left open in a footnote the possibility that an employer may still be liable for discrimination of this type even when that employer is completely unaware that the practice in question is religious in nature. Justice Alito, while joining the majority, dissented from that footnote, writing that it “reserves decision on the question whether it is a condition of liability that the employer know or suspect that the practice he refuses to accommodate is a religious practice.” He explained that he “would hold that an employer cannot be held liable for taking an adverse action because of an employee’s religious practice unless the employer knows that the employee engages in the practice for a religious reason.”

In Texas Dept. of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc ., the Court tackled another kind of discrimination also addressed by a federal statute: housing discrimination. [Read our Preview here .] Justice Kennedy, writing for a majority that included Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, allowed for housing discrimination lawsuits under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) to proceed on a disparate impact claim even where the alleged misconduct is unintentional. To proceed on such a claim, the plaintiff needs only to allege that that the conduct in question affects an already disadvantaged group and does not need to allege discriminatory intent on anyone’s part. The Court compared the FHA to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and noted that both Title VII and the ADEA recognize disparate impact claims, adding that Title VII and the ADEA protect similar rights and have similar policies to the FHA. By allowing disparate impact claims under the FHA, the Supreme Court validated the rulings of every federal appellate court that had confronted the issue, since all of them had allowed such claims to proceed.

Teaching & Learning

Scholars analyze the evolution of anti-discrimination law.

In recent decades, legislative bodies throughout North America and Europe have enacted sweeping laws to protect racial and ethnic minorities, women, the disabled and other groups who are victimized by discrimination. Perhaps not surprisingly, these efforts have encountered resistance—oftentimes successful—leaving anti-discrimination scholars and activists to ponder new strategies for dealing with an age-old problem.

On May 6 and 7, a group of these interested scholars from the U.S., Canada and Europe participated in a Harvard Law School workshop that analyzed the recent evolution of anti-discrimination law on both continents.

The organizer of the event, HLS Professor Grainne de Burca, said that she and a European colleague, Ruth Rubio Marin, had begun a project looking at how European anti-discrimination law was changing under European Union rules. “I became aware that there were many interesting debates with resonances on both sides of the Atlantic,” she said. “We thought this workshop would provide an opportunity for us to learn from each other, given that similar problems are being addressed in very different contexts but with many common questions.”

A recurrent theme throughout the discussions was a sense of disillusionment among U.S.-based participants with the role that legal institutions have come to play in tackling inequity and discrimination.

Elizabeth Bartholet ’65, Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law at HLS, spoke of the broad advent of anti-discrimination law in the U.S., in the ’60s and ’70s, as “a very powerful time in terms of how courts and law could function to create the synthesis of judicial and proactive policy that an earlier speaker had discussed as important.” She said that a theory of “disparate impact” quickly took root—meaning that employers could be held liable if their practices had an adverse impact on various minority groups in the absence of the employer showing they were required by business necessity.

Large groups of poor and minority workers were able to get representation in court through class actions, she said. Today, however, “the courts have essentially destroyed impact theory,” she said, and have also destroyed the class action device.

European participants described the state of anti-discrimination law there somewhat more optimistically—even if perhaps only because it is considerably younger and has not yet generated the kind of social and political backlash seen in the U.S. Bruno de Witte, professor of EU law at Maastricht University in The Netherlands, pointed out that prior to the EU’s Racial Equality Directive of 2000, only a few European nations had any kind of equality institutions. The directive mandated their creation by EU member states and today more than 30 European countries have them, he said.

In terms of effectiveness, however, “we don’t yet know whether equality institutions have actually realized effective legal change,” he said. “Thus far we have mainly anecdotal evidence.”

De Witte and others singled out the French equality institution HALDE as effective; but the performance of other European equality institutions has been mixed, participants said.

“We’re seeing how vulnerable they are to political winds,” said Mark Bell, a professor at the University of Leicester School of Law in the U.K.

Christopher McCrudden, professor of law at the University of Oxford, said of the British Equality and Human Rights Commission: “They are doing some litigation, but they have no strategy. They’re reacting mostly to public pressure and what’s going to make them look good in the papers the next day.”

David B. Oppenheimer ’78, a clinical professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the same kind of meekness has struck American anti-discrimination institutions. He said, “There were long periods of time when the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] only submitted briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in which they supported the employer.”

“These U.S. agencies are heavily politicized agencies because this is a heavily politicized issue,” he said. “It’s hard for a regulatory agency to avoid political capture unless it’s doing something that everyone regards as very boring—and this isn’t boring.”

This kind of political reality, which exists to different degrees on both continents, prompted participants to examine alternative anti-discrimination strategies that rely less on legal institutions. These included private initiatives within corporations, and broader strategies launched by public and private institutions including universities.

Yale Law School Professor Reva Siegel said the legal challenge in the fight against discrimination will be to identify new methods and new tools, moving beyond courts. “There’s a deep way in which the U.S. story is about unlearning a certain mystification of the role of courts in the redress of discrimination,” she said. “It’s not about abandoning courts, but about launching a much deeper inquiry into the multiple forms of law used in the service of social change.”

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

IUPUI IUPUI IUPUI

• Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
• Ruth Lilly Law Library

Employment Discrimination Law

• Federal Laws
• State & Local Laws
• Secondary Sources
• Specialized Research Tools
• Practice & Litigation Guides

So many options...

There are so many different ways to approach case law research. Here are a few suggestions:

• In an annotated statutory code, use case the citations given for the employment discrimination statutes.
• Use citations given in a secondary source such as a relevant American Law Reports article or a legal encyclopedia. 
• Run a keyword search in  Westlaw or Lexis or Bloomberg Law . Bloomberg is especially good for employment and discrimination law because it owns the content produced by BNA (Bureau of National Affairs) .
• Run a search within the Employment topic in the big three .
• Use the Key Number system (topic: Civil Rights, many relevant key numbers) in Westlaw . 
• You can even use Google Scholar to search for case law, but you'll still want to use Shepard's or KeyCite or BCite to update.

Free access to case law

• << Previous: State & Local Laws
• Next: Secondary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2023 3:32 PM
• URL: https://iu.libguides.com/EmploymentDiscriminationLaw

Title VII and Caste Discrimination

• Guha Krishnamurthi
• Charanya Krishnaswami
• See full issue

Introduction

In the summer of 2020, a report of workplace discrimination roiled Silicon Valley and the tech world. 1 An employee at Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco), known only as John Doe, alleged he had suffered an insidious pattern of discrimination — paid less, cut out of opportunities, marginalized by coworkers — based on his caste. 2 Consequently, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) brought suit against Cisco, alleging that the employee’s managers and (thus) Cisco had engaged in unlawful employment discrimination. 3 Doe is a Dalit Indian. 4 Dalits were once referred to as “untouchables” under the South Asian caste system; they suffered and continue to suffer unthinkable caste-based oppression in India and elsewhere in the Subcontinent. 5 Doe claims that two managers, also from India but belonging to a dominant caste, 6 denigrated him based on his Dalit background, denied him promotions, and retaliated against him when he complained of the discriminatory treatment. 7 Thereafter, a group of thirty women engineers who identify as Dalit and who work for tech companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco shared an anonymous statement with the Washington Post explaining the caste bias they have faced in the workplace and calling for the tech industry to be better. 8

While Doe’s and the thirty women engineers’ allegations of caste discrimination raise novel questions about the application of civil rights statutes to workplace discrimination on the basis of caste, these allegations echo a tale as old as time: the millennia-old structure of caste discrimination and the systemic oppression of Dalits, which has been described as a system of “apartheid,” 9 the “[c]onstancy of the [b]ottom [r]ung,” 10 and reduction to the “lowest of the low,” 11 a fixed position that followed Doe and these thirty women engineers halfway around the world. DFEH’s case based on Doe’s allegations is still at the complaint stage, with a long road of discovery surely ahead. Other claims of caste discrimination, including by the thirty women engineers, have not yet been brought to court. Thus, for all these cases, a preliminary legal question beckons: Is a claim of caste discrimination cognizable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? 12 We argue that the answer is yes.

This Essay continues in two Parts. In Part I, we explain the basic contours and characteristics of the South Asian caste system and detail the reach and impact of caste in the United States. In Part II, we explain how caste discrimination is, as a legal matter, cognizable under Title VII as discrimination based on “race,” “religion,” or “national origin,” following the Supreme Court’s teaching in Bostock v. Clayton County , 13 in which the Court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of sex discrimination. 14 We briefly conclude, contending that, despite the coverage of caste discrimination under federal law, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or Congress should provide further clear guidance — and in doing so consider other kinds of discrimination throughout the world that should be explicitly prohibited in the United States. While addressing claims of caste discrimination through Title VII enforcement is just one of many steps that must be taken to eradicate caste-based discrimination, naming caste as a prohibited basis on which to discriminate has the added value of increasing public consciousness about a phenomenon that, at least in U.S. workplaces, remains invisible to many.

I. Caste Discrimination and Its Reach

A. brief description of the south asian caste system.

Caste is a structure of social stratification that is characterized by hereditary transmission of a set of practices, often including occupation, ritual practice, and social interaction. 15 There are various social systems around the world that have been described as “caste” systems. 16 Here, we will use “caste” to refer to the South Asian caste system that operates both in South Asia and in the diaspora. 17 As we will see, the South Asian caste system is a hierarchical system that involves discrimination and perpetuates oppression.

The South Asian caste system covers around 1.8 billion people, and it is instantiated in different ways through different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups and geographies. 18 As a result, it can be difficult to say anything categorical about the caste system. Thus, our description identifies its broad contours and characteristics.

The caste system is rooted in the indigenous traditions, practices, and religions of South Asia. 19 We can generally refer to those traditions, practices, and religions as “Hinduism.” The term Hinduism, as we use it, is an umbrella term for a diversity of traditions, practices, and religions that may share no common thread except for geographical provenance. So defined, the term Hinduism is capacious. We separately identify Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. As a matter of convention, Christianity and Islam are not generally considered or labeled indigenous religions of the Subcontinent, but the forms of those religions in the Subcontinent have distinctive features. 20

The caste system is an amalgamation of at least two different systems: varna and jati . 21 Varna is a four-part stratification made up of brahmana , kshatriya , vaishya , and shudra classes. 22 These classes have been characterized as the priestly class, the ruler-warrior class, the merchant class, and the laborer class, respectively. 23 There is implicitly another varna — those excluded from this four-part hierarchy. 24 They are sometimes described as belonging to the panchama varna (literally, the “fifth varna ”). 25 The panchama varna is treated as synonymous with the term “untouchable” 26 — now called “Dalit.” 27

Alongside the varna system is the jati system. Jati refers to more specific groupings, and in the actual practice of the caste system, jati is much more significant. 28 There are thousands of jati -s, and jati identity incorporates, among other things, traditional occupation, linguistic identity, geographical identity, and religious identity. 29 Similar to varna , there is a large underclass in the jati system made up of many jati -s. Those include jati -s based on certain traditional occupations viewed as “unclean,” like agricultural workers, scavengers, cobblers, and street sweepers. 30 They also include certain tribal identities, called “Adivasis.” 31 The relationship between varna and jati is complex. At various junctures, people have attempted to place jati -s within a varna , to create a unified system of sorts. This attempted fusion inevitably continues the “tradition of dispute over whether these two hierarchies coincide, and which is the more fundamental.” 32

The foundations of the caste system are nebulous at best. The system may have had some grounding in primitive racial, color, ethnic, or linguistic distinctions, but that is unclear. 33 Nevertheless, the resulting caste system can be characterized with at least the following core traits: (1) hereditary transmission and endogamy; (2) strong relationships with religious and social practice and interaction; (3) relationships with concepts of “purity” and “pollution”; and (4) hierarchical ordering, including through perceived superiority of dominant castes over oppressed castes, hierarchy of occupation, and discrimination and stigmatization of oppressed castes. 34

As observed, the caste system is rooted in Hinduism. 35 And it continues to live in modern Hindu practice. 36 Of course, many Hindus are committed to the eradication of caste and the belief that true Hindu belief eschews (and has always eschewed) the evils of caste. 37 But modern Hindu practice continues to recognize and entrench caste in religious and social practice and interaction, and people suffer oppression and discrimination on the basis of caste. 38 The tentacles of caste oppression extend beyond modern Hindu practice as well: in South Asia, caste distinction and oppression manifests in Christian, Muslim, Sikh, and Jain communities, among others. 39 As a detailed report on caste by the Dalit-led research and advocacy group Equality Labs has observed, “[t]his entire [caste discrimination] system is enforced by violence and maintained by one of the oldest, most persistent cultures of impunity throughout South Asia, most notably in India, where despite the contemporary illegality of the system, it has persisted and thrived for 2,500 years.” 40 There is no doubt that Hinduism provided the foundation for caste discrimination and oppression and that modern Hindu practice continues to perpetuate it. But the insidiousness of caste discrimination is such that it sprouts and thrives even when divorced from its doctrinal home of Hinduism, and even when there is claimed caste eradication.

Regarding caste hierarchy, the ordering is complex, incomplete, and controversial. There is no lineal ordering, and any putative ordering is not definitive. Brahmana are generally described as occupying the top of the proverbial pyramid, though kshatriya and vaishya communities often claim divine lineage, and do not necessarily recognize any so-called brahmana supremacy. 41 These three varna are usually understood to form the core of the so-called “upper,” or dominant, castes. 42 Those of the four named varna -s have historically been ranked as “superior” to those of the fifth ( panchama ) varna — the “untouchables” or Dalits. 43 Similarly clear is that those categorized as brahmana , kshatriya , and vaishya have historically subjugated the shudra varna . 44

Of course, these hierarchical comparisons are entirely bigoted and without merit. 45 As a result of them, Dalits, Shudras, and others have experienced and continue to experience horrific oppression at the hands of dominant castes — what Equality Labs has described as a “system of Caste apartheid,” with oppressed castes “having to live in segregated ghettoes, being banned from places of worship, and being denied access to schools and other public amenities including water and roads.” 46

Oppressed-caste status impacts everything in one’s life. 47 It can impact one’s access to religious and social institutions — for example, Dalits and Shudras may be barred from entering temples, mosques, gurdwaras, and churches. 48 It may mean that they cannot eat in certain restaurants or shop at certain stores. It may mean that they are not allowed to marry people of different caste lineage 49 — and will be killed if they try. 50 It may mean that they cannot eat in certain people’s houses. 51 It may mean that they are not even allowed to cremate or bury their dead. 52 Moreover, oppressed-caste individuals have often been subjected to hate-based violence, with no genuine access to jus-tice. 53 And, as a political matter, individuals of oppressed castes have often been denied meaningful representation. 54

Consequently, South Asian governments have attempted to address these problems, at least nominally, through prohibitions on discrimination 55 and through “reservation” — systems that seek to uplift these oppressed communities through uses of quotas in education and employment. 56 These actions have faced continued opposition from members of dominant castes. 57 And, as a result, Dalits, Adivasis, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) who obtain reservation are often discrimi-nated against as potential beneficiaries of reservation, even though res-ervation was meant to rectify and address millennia of caste-based oppression.

Finally, and relevantly, the South Asian caste system has traveled beyond the borders of the Subcontinent. The South Asian diaspora observes caste identity, and there is consequent caste discrimination. 58 As Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a leader of the Dalit liberation movement and author of the Indian Constitution, stated, caste discrimination and oppression “is a local problem, but one capable of much wider mischief, for ‘as long as caste in India does exist, Hindus will hardly intermarry or have any social intercourse with outsiders; and if Hindus migrate to other regions on earth, Indian caste would become a world problem.’” 59

B. The Impact of Caste in the United States

The immigration of South Asians to the United States has come in waves, each of which has changed the caste dynamics of the population. While today the population is viewed as a monolith, from the earliest days of South Asian migration, dominant-caste members of the diaspora sought to differentiate themselves from the oppressed others. 60 Given dominant-caste members’ fears that crossing an ocean would cause them to lose their caste status, the earliest migrants to the United States were those who had nothing to lose: predominantly oppressed-caste and non-Hindu people. 61

At the turn of the twentieth century, xenophobic backlash against East and South Asian immigrants led to new laws forbidding nonwhite immigrants from accessing citizenship, with heart-wrenching consequences for South Asian immigrants who had forged lives and families in the country. 62 In 1923, Bhagat Singh Thind, a dominant-caste immigrant born in Amritsar, Punjab, “sought to make common cause with his upper-caste counterparts in America,” 63 effectively arguing his ethnic background and caste laid a claim to whiteness in his adopted coun-try — claims, as Equality Labs notes, the caste-oppressed could never make. 64

Today, there are nearly 5.4 million South Asians in the United States. 65 From 2010 to 2017, the South Asian population grew by a “staggering” forty percent. 66 The first wave of modern migration from the Subcontinent took place in the wake of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, 67 which removed discriminatory national origin-based quotas, and which established the modern immigration system based on work and family ties. 68 Equality Labs notes the majority of South Asian immigrants who came to the United States after the 1965 reform were “professionals and students[,] . . . largely ‘upper’ Caste, upper class, the most educated, and c[oming] from the newly independent Indian cities.” 69 Oppressed-caste people, by contrast, having had at that point just limited access to educational and professional opportunities, came in smaller numbers. 70 The Immigration Act of 1990, 71 which liberalized employment-based migration, further opened up pathways for South Asian immigration to the United States. 72 This wave, according to Equality Labs, included a growing number of immigrants from historically oppressed castes who, through resistance movements and reforms in access to education and other opportunities, were increasingly able to harness sufficient mobility to migrate. 73 Even still, according to a 2003 study from the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, only 1.5% of Indian immigrants were members of Dalit or other oppressed castes, while more than 90% were from high or dominant castes. 74

Yet, contrary to the fears of the earliest South Asian immigrants to the United States, the fact of one’s caste is not shed by the crossing of an ocean. As South Asian immigrants have integrated into the United States in increasing numbers, caste discrimination among the diaspora’s members threatens to entrench itself as well. This caste discrimination is complicated and perhaps obscured by a second racial caste system in the United States: one which situates South Asians generally as an in-between “middle caste,” relatively privileged and sometimes conferred “model minority” status, yet still systematically excluded from the highest echelons of power and discriminated against on the basis of race and national origin. 75

Given how entrenched and ubiquitous caste oppression still is across South Asia, and how programmed and hereditary discriminatory attitudes can be, it is easy to imagine how a subtler, more insidious form of caste discrimination has replicated here. As the South Asian community in the United States has grown, so have, for example, identity groups organized around linguistic and caste identities, 76 informally entrenching caste divisions among South Asians in the United States. The only study of which we are aware concerning caste identity and discrimination in the United States, conducted by Equality Labs, found that, of 1,200 people surveyed, over half of Dalits in the United States reported experiencing caste-based derogatory remarks or jokes against them, and over a quarter reported experiencing physical assault based on their caste. 77

Of particular relevance to this paper, an astonishing two-thirds of Dalit respondents to the survey reported experiencing some form of discrimination in the workplace. 78 The workplace is one of the primary areas where caste discrimination manifests — perhaps because caste itself is historically predicated in part on one’s work, the notion that one’s birth consigns one to a certain occupation, and concomitantly a certain status and fate.

In the U.S. tech sector, which has a large South Asian workforce, 79 complaints of caste discrimination have been particularly rampant. Earlier this month, a group of thirty women engineers who identify as Dalit and who work for tech companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco issued a public statement to the Washington Post stating they had faced caste bias in the U.S. tech sector. 80 Other Dalit employees have described their fears of being “outed” in the workplace, as well as subtle attempts to discern their caste based on so-called “caste locator[s],” such as the neighborhoods where they grew up, whether they eat meat, or what religion they practice. 81 The risks of caste discrimination against oppressed-caste employees are exacerbated in professions with high numbers of South Asians, where programmed attitudes about caste superiority and inferiority can easily take hold. With this subtler, more insidious discrimination taking root, we must determine what recourse exists in the law to combat it.

II. Title VII’s Coverage of Caste

To answer the legal question, we first look at the statute. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 82 Thus, for caste discrimination to be cognizable under Title VII, it must be cognizable as discrimination based on at least one of these grounds. The challenge is to determine which if any of these grounds encompasses caste discrimination.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County , our determination whether caste discrimination is cognizable under any of these grounds is governed by the text of the statute. 83 Title VII makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 84

The first question in determining coverage under Title VII is whether caste is in fact simply reducible to one of these categories. If not, the next question is whether caste discrimination satisfies the but-for causation test with respect to one of these categories. 85 As the Bostock Court explains:

[But-for] causation is established whenever a particular outcome would not have happened “but for” the purported cause. In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause. This can be a sweeping standard. Often, events have multiple but-for causes. So, for example, if a car accident occurred both because the defend-ant ran a red light and because the plaintiff failed to signal his turn at the intersection, we might call each a but-for cause of the collision. When it comes to Title VII, the adoption of the traditional but-for causation standard means a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to the challenged employment decision. So long as the plaintiff’s sex was one but-for cause of that decision, that is enough to trigger the law. 86

Finally, we can ask whether caste is “conceptually” dependent on one of these categories. 87 For all these questions, we may consider the original expected applications of the statute, but we are not limited to those expected applications. 88 Rather, we are led by the fair and reasonable meaning of the plain text, even if that goes beyond the expected applications. 89

As a preliminary determination, we can remove “sex” from the picture. Whatever caste discrimination is, it is self-evidently not on the basis of sex. At a first level, caste discrimination is not simply reducible to sex. Further, caste discrimination can be levied upon actors regardless of their sex, and without any appeal to their sex. Consequently, it meets neither the but-for causation test nor the conceptual dependence test. Of course, a person may experience discrimination based on caste and sex — for example, a Dalit woman may experience harassment based on both features of their identity. That raises questions of mixed motivation, addressed below. 90 But discrimination on the basis of caste alone does not necessarily implicate questions of sex.

That leaves national origin, race, color, and religion for our further investigation. We consider each in turn.

A. National Origin

We first contend that there is a plausible argument that caste discrimination constitutes discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Importantly, discrimination based on being South Asian is cognizable as discrimination based on “national origin.” 91 This may at first glance seem like an odd conclusion, since South Asia is not itself a nation. On this point, the EEOC explains: “National origin discrimination involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).” 92 On this account, discrimination based on South Asian identity is clearly national-origin discrimination.

That said, straightforwardly, caste identity is not simply reducible to being South Asian. It is a further qualification of one’s South Asian identity.

In addition, the but-for test can be used to argue that caste discrimination is a form of national-origin discrimination, because it would not occur “but for” one’s national origin. Specifically, but for the employee having an ancestor who had a particular caste identity defined and dictated by South Asian culture and practice, the employee would not have been discriminated against. More simply, but for the employee having a particular South Asian heritage (that is, their involuntary membership in a South Asian caste hierarchy), the employee would not have been discriminated against. So that is national-origin discrimination.

And on the conceptual test: one cannot understand the employee’s caste identity without appeal to certain features of South Asian culture — thus, caste identity is conceptually dependent on South Asian identity and is therefore national-origin discrimination.

What exactly “race” is, and how “races” are properly defined, is an almost impenetrably difficult question. 93 There are compelling accounts of the caste system as, at its genesis, based on some variety of racial categorization, even if primitive. 94 And there are other accounts that claim that race is orthogonal to caste. 95 Resolving the question of whether caste is in fact reducible to or based on race would prove controversial, and so finding caste discrimination is racial discrimination because of caste’s relationship to race is an equally controversial proposition. Consequently, here, we do not pursue that type of argument.

There is however another sense in which caste may be simply reducible to race. If “race” means something like a group distinguished by ancestry, 96 then caste will select a particular “race,” because caste is a hereditary system that relates to ancestry. 97 The EEOC has suggested such an understanding of “race”: “Title VII does not contain a definition of ‘race.’ Race discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of ancestry or physical or cultural characteristics associated with a certain race, such as skin color, hair texture or styles, or certain facial features.” 98

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji 99 supports the contention that discrimination based on “race” would be interpreted to include discrimination on the basis of “ancestry.” There, a professor — who was a United States citizen born in Iraq — filed suit alleging that his denial of tenure was based on his Arabian heritage and thus constituted unlawful discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 100 The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that a claim under § 1981 could not be maintained for discrimination based on being of the “Arabian race.” 101 The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint properly alleged discrimination based on race. In so doing, the court of appeals explained that § 1981 was not limited to present racial classifications. Instead, the statute evinced an intention to recognize “at the least, membership in a group that is ethnically and physiognomically distinctive.” 102

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision and holding that discrimination based on “Arabian ancestry” is racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 103 The Court stated that the court of appeals “was thus quite right in holding that § 1981, ‘at a minimum,’ reaches discrimination against an individual ‘because he or she is genetically part of an ethnically and physiognomically distinctive sub-grouping of homo sapiens .’” 104 The Court cautioned, however, that this was sufficient but not necessary, and that in this case Arab heritage was sufficient because the statute evinced that Congress intended to protect people from discrimination “because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” 105 Indeed, the Court may have been eschewing a biological or genetic conception of race, in favor of an understanding predicated on social construction. To this point, the Court noted:

Many modern biologists and anthropologists, however, criticize racial classifications as arbitrary and of little use in understanding the variability of human beings. It is said that genetically homogeneous populations do not exist and traits are not discontinuous between populations; therefore, a population can only be described in terms of relative frequencies of various traits. Clear-cut categories do not exist. The particular traits which have generally been chosen to characterize races have been criticized as having little biological significance. It has been found that differences between individuals of the same race are often greater than the differences between the “average” individuals of different races. These observations and others have led some, but not all, scientists to conclude that racial classifications are for the most part sociopolitical, rather than biological, in nature. 106

Thus, it seems that the Court understood ancestry discrimination as a type of racial discrimination. 107 And under the Court’s understanding of “ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” even if formed primarily due to sociopolitical forces, caste would qualify as ancestry, and thus caste discrimination as ancestry discrimination and “race” discrimination. 108

Of course, the current Supreme Court may not accept this formulation of race as including “discrimination on the basis of ancestry” or an “ethnic[] and physiognomic[]” subgrouping. Indeed, it is plausible that the Court would interpret “race” to be rooted in racial classifications that were salient in the American experience at the time of the Act’s passage. 109 The new Court could disclaim its decision in Al-Khazraji . Or the Court might decide that, while “Arabian” ancestry was salient at the time of the Act’s drafting, South Asian caste was not.

Notwithstanding, in light of the Court’s precedent and the EEOC’s definition of “race” as encompassing ancestry discrimination, there remains a sound basis to find that discrimination based on South Asian caste is encompassed within Title VII’s category of “race.”

The analysis of whether caste discrimination is discrimination based on “color” is similar to the analysis under “race.” Just as with “race,” it likely rises or falls based on controversial questions about the nature of caste, along with difficult questions about the meaning of “color.”

Like “race,” “color” is not defined by Title VII. The EEOC explains that “[c]olor discrimination occurs when a person is discriminated against based on his/her skin pigmentation (lightness or darkness of the skin), complexion, shade, or tone. Color discrimination can occur between persons of different races or ethnicities, or even between persons of the same race or ethnicity.” 110

Based on the EEOC’s interpretation and a fair interpretation of the text, it does seem that for caste discrimination to be discrimination on the basis of “color” it must be related to discrimination based on skin “pigmentation . . . , complexion, shade, or tone” 111 (which, for ease, we call “visual skin color”). Finding that caste identity is related to visual skin color is difficult. 112 There is some empirical support for the claim, 113 but at the moment the strength of that relationship is uncertain. 114 As a historical matter, varna has one definition which literally translates to “color.” 115 If this referred to visual skin color, then there may be a strong basis — grounded in history and continued by a hereditary, endogamous system — to find caste discrimination as a type of color discrimination. But the consensus scholarly view seems to be that varna did not refer to skin color. 116

As a result, and based on our current understanding, we contend that for purposes of interpreting Title VII, caste discrimination is not best understood as discrimination on the basis of “color.”

D. Religion

What about religion? We contend that there is a plausible argument that caste discrimination can be viewed as discrimination based on religion.

Importantly, discrimination on the basis of religion can be on the basis of religious heritage. 117 That is, if an employee is discriminated against because their ancestors had particular religious beliefs or had a particular religious association, that is religious discrimination, even if the employee does not have those beliefs or accept that association.

Now, suppose a manager discriminates against an employee for their caste identity. The employee has the caste identity of being a Shudra or a Dalit. We know that is a feature of their religious heritage, and so we need not further ask whether the employee has any particular religious beliefs or accepts the association. The question is firmly whether this feature of their heritage is religious heritage. We think it is.

First, caste identity is inextricably linked to religious practice. Caste identity places one in a particular (complex) hierarchy in how they are viewed within a religious community, and in religious terms such as purity, pollution, and piety. In particular, someone being a Shudra or a Dalit means that they are, due to bigotry, seen as occupying a lesser position or role in their religious community — whatever their religion is. Historically, access to places of worship has, and continues to be, closely linked to one’s caste identity. 118 And it is a core facet of caste that it places one in that hierarchy. Consequently, discrimination based on caste is discrimination based on one’s role in their religious community — and that is religious discrimination. 119

An example may clarify: Suppose an employee of unknown religion confesses to their manager that their clan is seen as the lowest in their religious community — but the employee gives no further details about their religion. The manager is disgusted by this and fires them. In so doing, the manager is discriminating against the employee because of a facet of their religious identity. Even though the manager is largely ignorant of the employee’s religious identity, that is still plainly religious discrimination.

In a similar vein, we might also argue that caste identity always qualifies one’s religious identity. It is, in a sense, being part of a particular sect of a religion. Understood thusly, it is pellucid that caste discrimination should constitute religious discrimination.

Now one might object that caste identity is compatible with different religious identities. For example, one can be a Shudra or a Dalit and be of many different religious backgrounds — among other things, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist. What if the manager does not care at all about the employee’s religion? Would this take caste discrimination outside the scope of religious discrimination?

We think not. First, as argued above, we think that caste discrimination is discrimination based on position in religious society — and thus is religious discrimination. But caste also impacts other parts of one’s life, so the objecting manager may protest that religion has nothing to do with their motivations. Even still, we think the argument is unavailing for another reason: because caste relates to religious heritage. That is, to discriminate against someone based on caste is usually to discriminate against them on the basis that they had an ancestor who occupied a certain position in Hindu society. This is for the simple fact that the caste system is inherited from Hindu society — and one’s caste identity arises from ancestors who occupied a certain position in that Hindu society. We contend that this is religious discrimination. That is because we understand discrimination based on religious heritage as discrimination on the basis of religion, irrespective of the employee’s actual beliefs. 120 But this may also be properly considered discrimination on the basis of ancestry, and therefore as discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. Important here is to recognize that there may be overlap between these categories. 121

In light of that, we can put this idea simply in terms of the but-for test: But for the employee having an ancestor who had a particular caste identity as defined and dictated by Hindu religious practice, the employee would not have been discriminated against. Ergo, but for the employee having a particular Hindu heritage, the employee would not have been discriminated against. Hence, had the employee’s ancestors not been Hindu, the employee would not have their caste identity (that was the subject of discrimination). That is then clearly religious (heri-tage) discrimination.

The conceptual test reaches the same conclusion: one cannot understand the employee’s caste identity without appeal to certain Hindu ideas — thus, caste identity is conceptually dependent on religious practice and is therefore religious discrimination. 122

E. Mixed Motivation

One’s caste identity may be determined by myriad features, other than purely ancestral traits. Their caste identity could, for example, be defined by adopted religion, where one lives, and what languages one speaks, among other things. 123 Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, himself a Dalit, converted to Buddhism from Hinduism because he believed caste discrimination was endemic to Hinduism. 124 In addition to his own conversion, Ambedkar led a mass conversion movement, called the Ambedkarite Buddhism movement (or the Dalit Buddhist movement). 125 Those who were or are part of that movement may identify as Dalit Buddhists, due to their ancestral Dalit identity and their non-ancestral trait of their religious beliefs.

Discrimination against someone based on this combined identity — here, being a Dalit Buddhist — will in the vast majority of cases satisfy the but-for causation test with respect to the ancestral portion of their caste identity. For example, we could imagine someone who discriminated against a Dalit Buddhist, but not a Dalit Hindu nor a non-Dalit Buddhist. The discriminator’s motivation for discrimination is not simply that the employee is a Dalit, but that they are a Dalit who flouted Hindu identity by converting to Buddhism. However, in such an example, but for the person’s Dalit identity, they would not have been discriminated against. 126

One common strategy to defeat recognizing discrimination on mixed-motivation is to disentangle the purportedly separate motivations and then question each in isolation. For example, suppose an employee claims she is being discriminated against for being a Black woman, but the employer also discriminated against non-Black women as well as Black men. Applying a “divide-and-conquer” strategy, the employer may be able to undermine but-for causation on either of the bases of being Black or being a woman, by using non-Black employees (including discriminated-against women) as comparators for assessing the racial component of her claim, while using male employees (including discriminated-against Black men) as comparators for the gendered component. A similar argument might arise against the Dalit Buddhist, where the employer discriminates against non-Buddhist Dalits as well as non-Dalit Buddhists.

Here, Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work is critical and illuminating. Among her observations, she recognized that discrimination across multiple axes of identity may result in particularly pernicious treatment for the targets of such discrimination. 127 Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality may allow targets of multiaxial discrimination to use comparators who suffer discrimination, but not as severe, to ground their claims. 128 In our examples, if Dalit Buddhists are treated more severely than Dalit non-Buddhists and non-Dalit Buddhists, they can still ground their claim as they suffer worse treatment than these comparators. 129

Caste discrimination is in our midst in the United States. Given the nature of caste, which seeks to indelibly mark and stigmatize, this discrimination reaches all facets of life, and thus, it is no surprise that it enters our workplaces. This issue requires our collective awareness and our vigilance. We have argued that Title VII gives us the tools to ensure that we can prevent, rectify, and ensure restitution for caste discrimination. In particular, we have shown how under the text of Title VII, in light of the Supreme Court’s teaching in Bostock v. Clayton County , caste discrimination is cognizable as race discrimination, religious discrimination, and national origin discrimination.

While these arguments are strong, given that judicial interpretation of Title VII’s protections are in flux, the surest way to ensure that workers who experience caste discrimination are able to access recourse is to explicitly enshrine “caste” as a prohibited basis of discrimination, in both executive-branch policy and in the text of Title VII itself. The EEOC could issue an opinion letter or guidance clarifying that Title VII’s provisions prohibiting race, national origin, and/or religious discrimination forbid discrimination on the basis of caste. An even stronger protection, of course, would be for Congress to pass legislation that explicitly states that caste discrimination is unlawful under Title VII. Even in this time of extreme partisanship, this is uncontroversial and should garner bipartisan support. 130 Furthermore, though we do not contend that EEOC guidance or amending Title VII thusly would serve as a magic-bullet solution to a complicated, deep-rooted problem, it would have an important signaling effect, putting workplaces on notice that caste-based discrimination is real and must be vigilantly addressed. Finally, although we address South Asian caste discrimination in particular, there are other types of “caste” and ancestry discrimination that occur around the globe. 131 We think that this case study of caste discrimination, and how it may be addressed by Title VII, applies generally. In that spirit, both the executive branch and Congress should act to clarify that all varieties of global “caste” discrimination are unlawful and intolerable in a just society.

* Assistant Professor, South Texas College of Law. ** J.D., 2013, Yale Law School. The views expressed in this Essay represent solely the personal views of the authors. The South Asian caste system was and is a paradigm of injustice. It has perpetuated incomprehensible suffering. We wish to acknowledge that we are, as a matter of ancestry, members of the dominant Brahmin caste — a designation that has conferred upon us systemic privilege we have done nothing to deserve. We would like to thank Susannah Barton Tobin, Mitchell Berman, Anisha Gupta, Alexander Platt, Charles Rocky Rhodes, Peter Salib, Anuradha Sivaram, and Eric Vogelstein for insightful comments and questions. We would also like to acknowledge the pathbreaking work of Equality Labs on these issues, which served as an inspiration for this Essay.

^ See Yashica Dutt, Opinion, The Specter of Caste in Silicon Valley , N. Y. TIMES (July 14, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/caste-cisco-indian-americans-discrimination.html [ https://perma.cc/DMS8-LCTF ]; David Gilbert, Silicon Valley Has a Caste Discrimination Problem , VICE NEWS (Aug. 5, 2020, 8:16AM), https://www.vice.com/en/article/3azjp5/silicon-valley-has-a-caste-discrimination-problem [ https://perma.cc/W3V8-H6WN ]; Thenmozhi Soundararajan, Opinion, A New Lawsuit Shines a Light on Caste Discrimination in the U.S. and Around the World , WASH. POST (July 13, 2020, 4:57 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/13/new-lawsuit-shines-light-caste-discrimination-us-around-world [ https://perma.cc/5CV8-LC64 ].

^ Paige Smith, Caste Bias Lawsuit Against Cisco Tests Rare Workplace Claim , BLOOMBERG L. (July 17, 2020, 2:45 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/caste-bias-lawsuit-against-cisco-tests-rare-workplace-claim [ https://perma.cc/2E6E-A7TN ]; Press Release, California Dep’t of Fair Emp. & Hous., DFEH Sues Cisco Systems, Inc. and Former Managers for Caste-Based Discrimination (June 30, 2020), https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/06/Cisco_2020.06.30.pdf [ https://perma.cc/VWC2-79J7 ].

^ Press Release, California Dep’t of Fair Emp. & Hous., supra note 2. DFEH initially brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of Title VII. Id . Thereafter, on October 16, 2020, DFEH voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice, stating its intention to refile in California state court. California Drops Caste Discrimination Case Against Cisco, Says Will Re-file , The Wire (Oct. 21, 2020), https:// thewire.in/caste/california-drops-caste-discrimination-case-against-cisco-says-will-re-file [ https://perma.cc/P6Z7-E8NM ]. This action may have been because of some question as to whether caste discrimination is cognizable under Title VII or other federal law. If so, we contend this Essay establishes that it is.

^ Gilbert, supra note 1.

^ E.g ., Hum. Rts. Watch, Caste Discrimination (2001), https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/general/caste0801.pdf [ https://perma.cc/YA8L-Z8PR ] (discussing discrimination against Dalits in South Asia); Hillary Mayell, India’s “Untouchables” Face Violence, Discrimination , Nat’l Geographic (June 2, 2003), https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/article/indias-untouchables-face-violence-discrimination [ https://perma.cc/L5XE-263U ] (“Human rights abuses against [‘untouchables’], known as Dalits, are legion.”).

^ We will use the term “dominant caste” to refer to the so-called “upper castes,” which better reflects the hierarchy of power that has created systemic oppression of Dalits, Adivasis, and other disfavored castes. We will use the term “oppressed caste” to refer to Dalits, Adivasis, and other disfavored castes. See infra notes 41–44 and accompanying text.

^ See Dutt, supra note 1.

^ Nitasha Tiku, India’s Engineers Have Thrived in Silicon Valley. So Has Its Caste System ., Wash. Post (Oct. 27, 2020, 6:45 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/27/indian-caste-bias-silicon-valley [ https://perma.cc/VP2F-U7QX ].

^ Maari Zwick-Maitreyi, Thenmozhi Soundararajan, Natasha Dar, Ralph F. Bheel & Prathap Balakrishnan, Equal. Labs, Caste in the United States: A Survey of Caste Among South Asian Americans 10 (2018), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58347d04bebafbb1e66df84c/t/603ae9f4cfad7f515281e9bf/1614473732034/Caste_report_2018.pdf [ https://perma.cc/7PW3-DUL5 ] [hereinafter Caste in the United States ].

^ Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents 128 (2020).

^ Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Opinion, Securing the Rights of India’s “Untouchables ,” The Hill (Feb. 27, 2018, 3:30 PM), https://thehill.com/opinion/international/375851-securing-the-rights-of-indias-untouchables [ https://perma.cc/2L2S-9Z67 ].

^ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq .

^ 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

^ Id . at 1737.

^ E.g ., A New Dictionary of the Social Sciences 194 (G. Duncan Mitchell ed., 2d ed. 1979) (defining “social stratification” and explaining the concept of “caste”).

^ See generally, e.g ., Elijah Obinna, Contesting Identity: The Osu Caste System Among Igbo of Nigeria , 10 Afr. Identities 111 (2012) (describing the Osu caste system among the Igbo people in Nigeria); Tal Tamari, The Development of Caste Systems in West Africa , 32 J. Afr. Hist . 221 (1991) (explaining endogamous groups that exist in West Africa); Hiroshi Wagatsuma & George A. De Vos , The Ecology of Special Buraku , in Japan’s Invisible Race: Caste in Culture and Personality 113–28 ( George A. De Vos & Hiroshi Wagatsuma eds., 1966) (describing Japan as having a caste system and discussing the position and oppression of the Buraku people); Paul Eckert, North Korea Political Caste System Behind Abuses: Study , Reuters (June 5, 2012, 9:11 PM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north-caste/north-korea-political-caste-system-behind-abuses-study-idUSBRE85505T20120606 [ https://perma.cc/NZ9Z-4J3L ] (describing the “Songbun” caste system in North Korea).

^ A New Dictionary of the Social Sciences , supra note 15, at 194 (stating that the “classical Hindu system of India approximated most closely to pure caste”).

^ The caste system continues to exist in some form in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, among other countries, which collectively have a population of nearly 1.8 billion people. See Population, Total — India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal , World Bank Grp ., https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2019&locations=IN-PK-BD-NP&start=2019&view=bar [ https://perma.cc/8YYT-XN24 ] (searches for country populations); Iftekhar Uddin Chowdhury, Caste-Based Discrimination in South Asia: A Study of Bangladesh 2, 51–55 (Indian Inst. Dalit Stud., Working Paper Vol. III No. 7, 2009), http://idsn.org/wp-content/uploads/user_folder/pdf/New_files/Bangladesh/Caste-based_Discrimination_in_Bangladesh__IIDS_working_paper_.pdf [ https://perma.cc/CQ5N-VFHJ ]; Peter Kapuscinski, More “Can and Must Be Done” to Eradicate Caste-Based Discrimination in Nepal , UN News (May 29, 2020), https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/05/1065102 [ https://perma.cc/JZ62-FVUB ]; Rabia Mehmood, Pakistan’s Caste System: The Untouchable’s Struggle , Express Trib . (Mar. 31, 2012), https://tribune.com.pk/story/357765/pakistans-caste-system-the-untouchables-struggle [ https://perma.cc/4H9Z-46SJ ]; Pakistan Dalit Solidarity Network & Int’l Dalit Solidarity Network , Caste-Based Discrimination in Pakistan 2–3 (2017), https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/1402076/1930_1498117230_int-cescr-css-pak-27505-e.pdf [ https://perma.cc/77TM-P8WB ]; Mari Marcel Thekaekara, Opinion, India’s Caste System Is Alive and Kicking — And Maiming and Killing , The Guardian (Aug. 15, 2016, 11:55 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/15/india-caste-system-70-anniversary-independence-day-untouchables [ https://perma.cc/ER4H-L4KY ].

^ In one important passage, the Rig Veda describes a four-part social hierarchy — of the brahmana , rajanya (later associated with the kshatriya class), vaishya , and shudra . The Hymns of the Rigveda 10.90.12 (Ralph T.H. Griffith trans., Motilal Banarsidass 1973). The Bhagavad Gita also details the general distinction of caste. The B hagavad-GÎt 4.13 , at 110 (A. Mahâdeva Śâstri trans., 2d ed. 1901) (describing the four-fold division of mankind). The Dharmasastras and Dharmasutras , compilations of texts about various Hindu cultural practices, offer an extremely detailed account of the operation of the caste system. The proper understanding of all of these sources is up for debate. See, e.g ., Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha , at xlii–xliii (Patrick Olivelle ed., trans., Oxford U. Press 1999) (contending that the Dharmasutras are “normative texts” but contain “[d]ivergent [v]oices,” id . at xlii); J.E. Llewellyn, The Modern Bhagavad Gītā : Caste in Twentieth-Century Commentaries , 23 Int’l J. Hindu Stud . 309, 309–23 (2019) (analyzing differing interpretations of caste by leading Hindu thinkers); M.V. Nadkarni, Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism? Demolishing a Myth , 38 Econ. & Pol. Wkly . 4783, 4783 (2003) (arguing that Hinduism did not support the caste system); Chhatrapati Singh, Dharmasastras and Contemporary Jurisprudence , 32 J. Indian L. Inst . 179, 179–82 (1990) (explaining the various ways of interpreting the Dharmasastras ); Debate Casts Light on Gita & Caste System , Times of India (Apr. 8, 2017, 7:10 PM), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/58072655.cms [ https://perma.cc/Q5XG-MSA9 ] (describing a “heated debate” over interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita ). Regardless, what is clear is that caste was endemic to Hindu practice over time.

^ See generally, e.g ., U.A.B. Razia Akter Banu, Islam in Bangladesh 1–64 (1992) (explaining the distinctive nature of Islam in Bangladesh and Bengali communities); Adil Hussain Khan, From Sufism to Ahmadiyya 42–90 (2015) (detailing the rise of the distinctive Ahmadiyya sect of Islam that arose in Punjab); Rowena Robinson, Christians of India 11–38, 103–39 (2003) (explaining the distinctive Christianity that has developed in India, arising from the mixing of Christian theology and practice and regional traditions); Paul Zacharia, The Surprisingly Early History of Christianity in India , Smithsonian Mag . (Feb. 19, 2016), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/how-christianity-came-to-india-kerala-180958117 [ https://perma.cc/KRY4-UN3C ] (describing the traditions of the modern Syrian Christians of Kerala).

^ See generally Chandrashekhar Bhat, Ethnicity and Mobility 1–9 (1984); Declan Quigley, The Interpretation of Caste 4 (1993).

^ Sumeet Jain, Note, Tightening India’s “Golden Straitjacket”: How Pulling the Straps of India’s Job Reservation Scheme Reflects Prudent Economic Policy , 8 Wash. U. Glob. Stud. L. Rev . 567, 568 n.7 (2009) (outlining the four-part varna system).

^ Sean A. Pager, Antisubordination of Whom? What India’s Answer Tells Us About the Meaning of Equality in Affirmative Action , 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev . 289, 325 (2007) (discussing the so-called “untouchables,” outside the four-part varna system).

^ Bhat, supra note 21, at 2–3 (discussing the panchama varna and its traditional Vedic understanding); Varsha Ayyar & Lalit Khandare, Mapping Color and Caste Discrimination in Indian Society , in The Melanin Millennium 71, 75, 83 (Ronald E. Hall ed., 2012) (defining the fifth caste as describing “ex-untouchables,” id . at 83, or those outside of the varna system).

^ See Bhat , supra note 21, at 6–7; Ayyar & Khandare, supra note 25, at 75.

^ See Dalits , Minority Rts. Grp. Int’l , https://minorityrights.org/minorities/dalits [ https://perma.cc/TVV9-UN9R ].

^ Bhat, supra note 21, at 3 (discussing the jati system).

^ Padmanabh Samarendra, Census in Colonial India and the Birth of Caste , 46 Econ. & Pol. Wkly . 51, 52 (2011) (explaining the variety of factors that inform jati identity, based in part on region).

^ Who Are Dalits? , Navsarjan Tr ., https://navsarjantrust.org/who-are-dalits [ https://perma.cc/599J-QEHY ] (detailing the subdivisions based on profession within the Dalit community).

^ “Adivasi” and “scheduled tribe” are the terms for certain tribes in the Subcontinent. The term “Adivasi” itself means “original inhabitants.” Adivasis , Minority Rts. Grp. Int’l , https://minorityrights.org/minorities/adivasis-2 [ https://perma.cc/Q34Q-2L95 ]. They face severe discrimination in India and South Asia. Id .

^ Robert Meister, Discrimination Law Through the Looking Glass , 1985 Wis. L. Rev . 937, 975 (book review).

^ See supra note 19 and accompanying text.

^ See, e.g ., Indian Temple “Purified” After Low-Caste Chief Minister Visits , Reuters (Sept. 30, 2014, 9:10 AM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foundation-india-caste/indian-temple-purified-after-low-caste-chief-minister-visits-idUSKCN0HP1DE20140930 [ https://perma.cc/8NHE-MB9T ].

^ Caste in the United States , supra note 9, at 10.

^ Dipankar Gupta, Interrogating Caste 54–147 (2000) (observing that individual castes do not necessarily recognize claims of inferiority and thus questioning claims of strict hierarchy between the castes, especially between the “Brahman, Baniya [or vaishya ], [and] Raja [or kshatriya ],” id . at 116).

^ See Jain, supra note 22, at 569 n.7.

^ See sources cited supra note 5.

^ Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd, Where Are the Shudras? , Caravan (Sept. 30, 2018), https://caravanmagazine.in/caste/why-the-shudras-are-lost-in-today-india [ https://perma.cc/S6DY-U4BR ] (discussing discrimination against Shudra communities in India); Tapasya, Not Just “Dalits”: Other-Caste Indians Suffer Discrimination Too , Diplomat ( Aug. 27, 2019), https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/not-just-dalits-other-caste-indians-suffer-discrimination-too [ https://perma.cc/M67R-WE9G ].

^ See, e.g ., T.M. Scanlon, Why Does Inequality Matter? 26 (2018) (“Caste systems and societies marked by racial or sexual discrimination are obvious examples of objectionable inequality.”).

^ See generally Kaivan Munshi, Caste and the Indian Economy , 57 J. Econ. Literature 781 (2019) (explaining that “[c]aste plays a role at every stage of an Indian’s economic life,” from school, to university, to the labor market, and into old age, id . at 781).

^ See, e.g ., Nirmala Carvalho, Indian Church Admits Dalits Face Discrimination , Crux (Mar. 24, 2017), https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/03/indian-church-admits-dalits-face-discrimination [ https://perma.cc/M8QD-6E28 ]; Dheer, supra note 39 (observing that there were three separate Sikh shrines based on caste identity); Anuj Kumar, Dalit Women Not Allowed to Enter Temple , The Hindu (Nov. 1, 2019, 2:27 AM), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/dalit-women-not-allowed-to-enter-temple/article29847456.ece [ https://perma.cc/BGJ5-HDA2 ]; Tension over Temple Entry by Dalits , The Hindu (Sept. 2, 2020, 6:08 PM), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/tension-over-temple-entry-by-dalits/article32505553.ece [ https://perma.cc/29N4-DX85 ]; Shivam Vij, In Allahpur, a Moment of Truth , Pulitzer Ctr . (Sept. 12, 2011), https://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/allahpur-moment-truth [ https://perma.cc/G3A4-LRKE ] (detailing different mosques based on caste identity). Surveying the news, the vast majority of reported incidents of caste discrimination in places of worship involve Hindu temples. Many of these are not even reported or openly identified, because they are unspoken but known norms that oppressed castes do not dare transgress. There is reason to believe that such caste discrimination is prevalent across South Asian religions, but that does not absolve Hindu practice. Instead, it seeks acknowledgment of the extent of the evil.

^ See, e.g ., Shamani Joshi, A Community in Gujarat Has Banned Inter-caste Marriage and Mobile Phones for Unmarried Girls , Vice (July 18, 2019, 3:02 AM), https://www.vice.com/en/article/evye5e/a-community-in-gujarat-india-has-banned-inter-caste-marriage-and-mobile-phones-for-unmarried-girls [ https://perma.cc/KCT9-CZK8 ].

^ See, e.g ., Couple, Who Had “Intercaste Marriage,” Killed , Hindustan Times (June 28, 2019, 12:07 AM), https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/couple-who-had-intercaste-marriage-killed/story-3cmlhKaraKeGMwoQ6ytxeL.html [ https://perma.cc/245B-D576 ]; Dalit Man Killed by In-Laws Over Inter-caste Marriage: Gujarat Cops , NDTV (July 9, 2019), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/dalit-man-killed-by-in-laws-over-inter-caste-marriage-gujarat-cops-2066848 [ https://perma.cc/8YMQ-JD6R ].

^ See, e.g ., Hum. Rts. Watch , supra note 5, at 8 (stating that Dalits are often not allowed to enter the houses of so-called upper-caste people).

^ See, e.g ., Dalits, OBCs Forced to Bury Their Deceased by the Roadside , Sabrangindia (Mar. 21, 2020), https://sabrangindia.in/article/dalits-obcs-forced-bury-their-deceased-roadside [ https://perma.cc/V3GT-759U ]; Karal Marx, Denied Access to Crematorium, Dalits “Airdrop” Dead in Tamil Nadu , Times of India (Aug. 22, 2019, 2:51 PM), http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/70779016.cms [ https://perma.cc/7FKN-JBHF ]; Sanjay Pandey, Crematorium Turns “Casteist” as “Upper Caste” People Forbid Funeral of Dalit Woman in Uttar Pradesh , Deccan Herald (July 28, 2020, 4:58 PM), https://www.deccanherald.com/national/crematorium-turns-casteist-as-upper-caste-people-forbid-funeral-of-dalit-woman-in-uttar-pradesh-866699.html [ https://perma.cc/WC24-EGJ8 ]; Anand Mohan Sahay, Backward Muslims Protest Denial of Burial , Rediff India Abroad (Mar. 6, 2003, 2:58 AM), https://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/06bihar.htm [ https://perma.cc/85QM-F4YA ].

^ See, e.g ., Soutik Biswas, Hathras Case: Dalit Women Are Among the Most Oppressed in the World , BBC (Oct. 6, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54418513 [ https://perma.cc/WW9P-45XH ]; Vineet Khare, The Indian Dalit Man Killed for Eating in Front of Upper-Caste Men , BBC (May 20, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48265387 [ https://perma.cc/LR9D-T2QU ]; Nilanjana S. Roy, Viewpoint: India Must Stop Denying Caste and Gender Violence , BBC (June 11, 2014), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-27774908 [ https://perma.cc/8VK3-VJN6 ]; Gautham Subramanyam, In India, Dalits Still Feel Bottom of the Caste Ladder , NBC News (Sept. 13, 2020, 4:30 AM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/india-dalits-still-feel-bottom-caste-ladder-n1239846 [ https://perma.cc/2Z67-BPA5 ].

^ See, e.g ., Ilaiah Shepherd, supra note 44 (discussing lack of representation for Shudra communities in India); Bhola Paswan, Dalits and Women the Most Under-Represented in Parliament , The Record (Mar. 3, 2018), https://www.recordnepal.com/data/dalits-and-women-the-most-under-represented-in-parliament [ https://perma.cc/5C27-Q3D9 ].

^ In India, caste discrimination was explicitly addressed in the Constitution, authored by Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. See Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar , Encyc. Britannica , https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bhimrao-Ramji-Ambedkar [ https://perma.cc/GX6S-AHJZ ]. Article 17 states that “‘Untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of ‘Untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.” India Const. art. 17. These protections were further instantiated in legislation, including primarily in the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955, which prohibited and punished discrimination on the basis of untouchability in various arenas including religious institutions and commercial entities. Untouchable , Encyc. Britannica , https://www.britannica.com/topic/untouchable [ https://perma.cc/QLV2-VEW2 ]. In practice, enforcement of these protections has been difficult, especially in rural India. Id .; Kaivan Munshi, Why Does Caste Persist? , Indian Express (Nov. 2, 2013, 3:16 AM), https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-does-caste-persist [ https://perma.cc/KZW8-ENHE ] (“Given the segregation along caste lines that continues to characterise the Indian village, most social interactions also occur within the caste.”).

^ One set of “reservation” reforms in India was implemented nationally by the Mandal Commission, tasked with determining how to uplift “backward classes” — primarily through reservations and quotas. Sunday Story: Mandal Commission Report, 25 Years Later , Indian Express (Sept. 1, 2015, 12:54 AM), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sunday-story-mandal-commission-report-25-years-later [ https://perma.cc/VM4S-MABP ]; see also E.J. Prior, Constitutional Fairness or Fraud on the Constitution? Compensatory Discrimination in India , 28 Case W. Rsrv. J. Int’l L . 63, 81 (1996) (providing further history on the Mandal Commission); Jagdishor Panday, More Reservation Quotas Sought for Ethnic Groups , Himalayan Times (Feb. 19, 2019, 8:56 AM), https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/more-reservation-quotas-sought-for-ethnic-groups [ https://perma.cc/WBW7-PSK2 ] (discussing reservation on the basis of ethnicity and caste in Nepal).

^ See, e.g ., Shashi Tharoor, Why India Needs a New Debate on Caste Quotas , BBC (Aug. 29, 2015), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34082770 [ https://perma.cc/H3U6-E3VN ] (“Inevitably, a backlash has set in, with members of the forward castes decrying the unfairness of affirmative action in perpetuity . . . .”).

^ See generally Caste in the United States , supra note 9; Gov. Equals. Off., Caste Discrimination and Harassment in Great Britain, Report , 2010/8 (2010), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85524/caste-discrimination-summary.pdf [ https://perma.cc/8BPY-YMP5 ] (discussing prevalence of caste discrimination in Great Britain).

^ Babasaheb Ambedkar, 1 Writings and Speeches 5–6 (1979) (quoting Sheridhar V. Ketkar , I The History of Caste in India 4 (1909)).

^ See, e.g ., Caste in the United States , supra note 9, at 12.

^ Id . at 10–11.

^ See id . at 11.

^ Wilkerson , supra note 10, at 126. In United States v. Thind , 261 U.S. 204 (1923), the Court considered whether a “high caste Hindu” was “white” for purposes of naturalization under the Immigration Act of 1917, id . at 206, ultimately answering the question in the negative, id . at 215. In support of his position, Thind’s counsel stressed Thind’s common ancestral and linguistic ties to Europe, given his “Aryan” roots. John S.W. Park, Elusive Citizenship: Immigration, Asian Americans, and the Paradox of Civil Rights 124 (2004). Thind’s counsel further wrote: “The high-caste Hindu regards the aboriginal Indian Mongoloid in the same manner as the American regards the Negro, speaking from a matrimonial standpoint.” Id .

^ Caste in the United States , supra note 9, at 12.

^ Demographic Information , S. Asian Ams. Leading Together , https://saalt.org/south-asians-in-the-us/demographic-information [ https://perma.cc/4F8R-GKT3 ].

^ South Asians by the Numbers: Population in the U.S. Has Grown by 40% Since 2010 , S. Asian Ams. Leading Together (May 15, 2019), https://saalt.org/south-asians-by-the-numbers-population-in-the-u-s-has-grown-by-40-since-2010 [ https://perma.cc/XD5K-YRSD ].

^ Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.).

^ See Caste in the United States , supra note 9, at 13–14.

^ Id . at 13.

^ See id . at 13–14.

^ Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C. and at 29 U.S.C. § 2920).

^ See generally Muzaffar Chishti & Stephen Yale-Loehr, Migration Pol’y Inst., The Immigration Act of 1990: Unfinished Business a Quarter-Century Later (2016), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/1990-Act_2016_FINAL.pdf [ https://perma.cc/3WQS-SKYR ].

^ Caste in the United States , supra note 9, at 14.

^ Tinku Ray, The US Isn’t Safe from the Trauma of Caste Bias , The World (Mar. 8, 2019, 9:00 AM), https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-03-08/us-isn-t-safe-trauma-caste-bias [ https://perma.cc/7LUN-U49T ].

^ See, e.g ., Buck Gee & Denise Peck, Asian Americans Are the Least Likely Group in the U.S. to Be Promoted to Management , Harv. Bus. Rev . (May 31, 2018), https://hbr.org/2018/05/asian-americans-are-the-least-likely-group-in-the-u-s-to-be-promoted-to-management [ https://perma.cc/5RNM-T6YY ]; Matt Schiavenza, Silicon Valley’s Forgotten Minority , New Republic (Jan. 11, 2018), https://newrepublic.com/article/146587/silicon-valleys-forgotten-minority [ https://perma.cc/WTG6-EKBB ].

^ See, e.g ., Ray, supra note 74.

^ Caste in the United States , supra note 9, at 26–27, 39.

^ Id . at 20.

^ See, e.g ., Paresh Dave, Indian Immigrants Are Tech’s New Titans , L.A. Times (Aug. 11, 2015, 8:57 PM), https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-indians-in-tech-20150812-story.html [ https://perma.cc/NYB3-W9QC ]; Riaz Haq, Pakistani-Americans in Silicon Valley , S. Asia Inv. Rev . (May 4, 2014), https://www.southasiainvestor.com/2014/05/pakistani-americans-in-silicon-valley.html [ https://perma.cc/Y7XK-J6HS ] (“Silicon Valley is home to 12,000 to 15,000 Pakistani Americans.”); India’s Engineers and Its Caste System Thrive in Silicon Valley: Report , Am. Bazaar (Oct. 28, 2020, 7:08 PM), https://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2020/10/28/indias-engineers-and-its-caste-system-thrive-in-silicon-valley-report-442920 [ https://perma.cc/MPR8-CYPP ] (“The tech industry has grown increasingly dependent on Indian workers.”).

^ Tiku, supra note 8.

^ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

^ See Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1738–39 (2020).

^ Bostock , 140 S. Ct. at 1739.

^ Id . (citations omitted); see Michael Moore, Causation in the Law , Stan. Encyc. of Phil . (Oct. 3, 2019), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-law [ https://perma.cc/7UDF-5Q5S ] (discussing the but-for test or the sine qua non test).

^ See Bostock , 140 S. Ct. at 1749.

^ See infra section II.E, pp. 479–81.

^ See Koehler v. Infosys Techs. Ltd., 107 F. Supp. 3d 940, 949 (E.D. Wis. 2015) (recognizing South Asian heritage as a national origin); Sharma v. District of Colunbia, 65 F. Supp. 3d 108, 120 (D.D.C. 2014) (same).

^ U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, National Origin Discrimination , https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination [ https://perma.cc/XK6N-MJU9 ]; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1606.1 (2020) (addressing the definition of national origin under Title VII and stating that “[t]he Commission defines national origin discrimination broadly as including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because of an individual’s, or his or her ancestor’s, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group”).

^ Michael James & Adam Burgos, Race , Stan. Encyc. of Phil . (May 25, 2020), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race [ https://perma.cc/4ZZ2-YGWH ].

^ See generally Oliver C. Cox, Race and Caste: A Distinction , 50 Am. J. Soc . 360 (1945) (arguing that caste and race are distinct).

^ Ancestry , Merriam-Webster , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ancestry [ https://perma.cc/7V5R-7B26 ] (defining “ancestry” as “line of descent”).

^ See supra note 34 and accompanying text.

^ U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n , EEOC-NVTA-2006-1, Questions and Answers About Race and Color Discrimination in Employment (2006) https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-about-race-and-color-discrimination-employment [ https://perma.cc/R6XW-BTZ6 ].

^ 481 U.S. 604 (1987).

^ Id . at 606.

^ Id . (quoting Al-Khazraji v. St. Francis Coll., 784 F.2d 505, 517 (3d Cir. 1986)).

^ Id . at 607.

^ Id . at 613 (quoting Al-Khazraji , 784 F.2d at 517).

^ Id .; see also Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615, 617 (1987) (holding that a claim for discrimination based on Jewish heritage is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, for similar reasons).

^ Al-Khazraji , 481 U.S. at 610 n.4. See also Khiara M. Bridges, The Dangerous Law of Biological Race , 82 Fordham L. Rev . 21, 52–57 (2013) (same); Chinyere Ezie, Deconstructing the Body: Transgender and Intersex Identities and Sex Discrimination — The Need for Strict Scrutiny , 20 Colum. J. Gender & L . 141, 178–80 (2011) (embracing the Al-Khazraji Court’s conception of race).

^ Though the Court acknowledged the limits of biological and genetic conceptions of race, if caste can be shown to pick out “ethnic[]” and “physiognomically distinctive” traits, there may be a strong argument that caste discrimination qualifies as racial discrimination on that alternative basis.

^ One might ask whether the EEOC’s interpretation holds any weight. Even with Chevron deference, we don’t think that answers the question definitively. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984) (holding that courts give deference to an agency’s interpretations of an abmiguous statute, if the agency’s interpretation is a permissible construction of the statute). Here, the Court may not even find the term “race” to be ambiguous for Chevron deference to be applicable.

^ U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n , supra note 98.

^ See generally S. Chandrasekhar, Caste, Class, and Color in India , 62 Sci. Monthly 151 (1946) (arguing against the proposition that there is a strong relationship between caste and color).

^ See, e.g ., Ayyar & Khandare, supra note 25, at 71; Skin Colour Tied to Caste System, Says Study , Times of India (Nov. 21, 2016), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/55532665.cms [ https://perma.cc/25X3-M8HX ].

^ At the same time, discrimination on the basis of skin color is prevalent in South Asia and among South Asian populations. See generally Taunya Lovell Banks, C olorism Among South Asians: Title VII and Skin Tone Discrimination , 14 Wash. U. Glob. Stud. L. Rev . 665 (2015) (describing colorism in India and the South Asian diaspora and examining its role in employment discrimination claims filed by South Asians). Thus, certain kinds of discriminatory behavior may entangle both caste and skin color.

^ Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary 924 (1899).

^ Varna , Encyc. Britannica (Mar. 7, 2021), https://www.britannica.com/topic/varna-Hinduism [ https://perma.cc/WP5J-TAZG ] (stating that the idea that varna referenced skin color has been discredited); Neha Mishra, India and Colorism: The Finer Nuances , 14 Wash. U. Glob. Stud. L. Rev . 725, 726 n.6 (2015).

^ Gulitz v. DiBartolo, No. 08-CV-2388, 2010 WL 11712777, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) (“What is relevant is that Plaintiff identifies himself as ‘of Jewish heritage’ — an assertion fully supported by the fact that his father is Jewish. That Plaintiff does not practice the Jewish religion does not prevent him from being of Jewish heritage — that is, a descendant of those who did so practice — or from being discriminated against on account of the religion of his forbears.”); Sasannejad v. Univ. of Rochester, 329 F. Supp. 2d 385, 391 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (recognizing potential religious discrimination claim of a nonpracticing Iranian Muslim, in part because of the interrelationship between national-origin discrimination and religious discrimination).

^ For example, Wilkerson describes how access to religious institutions is a core feature of caste discrimination across caste systems: “Untouchables were not allowed inside Hindu temples . . . . [They] were prohibited from learning Sanskrit and sacred texts.” Wilkerson , supra note 10, at 128.

^ Additionally, it is not easy for individuals to simply withdraw or ignore their religious community — that can come with serious costs and perils. Moreover, as we have seen, moving to another religious community may not remove the mark of caste.

^ See supra note 117 and accompanying text.

^ See Sasannejad , 329 F. Supp. 2d at 391.

^ This Essay emphasizes the cross-religious nature of caste, in order to recognize that caste discrimination can take many forms and is not necessarily confined to those who are (presently) Hindu. At the same time, in particular cases, it may be more salient to recognize the nature of caste discrimination based on the religious identity of those party to the suit. That is, for example, if the employer and employee are both Hindu, then one can appeal to the form of caste discrimination between and among Hindus to strengthen the case of religious discrimination under Title VII.

^ See supra note 33 and accompanying text.

^ Krithika Varagur, Converting to Buddhism as a Form of Political Protest , The Atlantic (Apr. 11, 2018), https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/dalit-buddhism-conversion-india-modi/557570 [ https://perma.cc/5G85-R94D ].

^ In any situation where but-for causation isn’t satisfied, we will likely be able to satisfy the conceptual causation test — because the concept of Dalit Buddhist identity depends on the concept of Dalit ancestry.

^ Kimberlé Crenshaw, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics , 1989 U. Chi. Legal F . 139, 140.

^ In some cases, as Crenshaw observed, this may be difficult because of the size of the class, especially if the claim is pursued on a disparate impact theory with use of empirical and statistical evidence. Id . at 143–46 (discussing Moore v. Hughes Helicopter, Inc., 708 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). We share Crenshaw’s concerns on this front. We must continue to challenge how we recognize discrimination, beyond the formal models of causation in the law.

^ If they are not treated more severely, they may be able to pursue their claim separately under a disjunctive identity — that is, being Dalit or Buddhist. See Krishnamurthi & Salib, supra note 87 (discussing such examples and showing they are cognizable under Title VII).

^ In the United Kingdom, such legislation was floated but ultimately rejected, due to divides in the South Asian community as to the prevalence of caste discrimination. Prasun Sonwalkar, UK Government Decides Not to Enact Law on Caste Discrimination Among Indians, Community Divided , Hindustan Times (July 24, 2018, 12:22 PM), https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/uk-government-decides-not-to-enact-law-on-caste-discrimination-among-indians/story-HLDMdbZQhrNtoo4NKhxZOO.html [ https://perma.cc/4C9Q-AP98 ]. But of course, if caste discrimination actually doesn’t exist, then making caste discrimination unlawful should do little harm. Indeed, concerns of frivolous lawsuits are not new in Title VII; Title VII allows fee shifting for prevailing defendants “upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

^ See supra note 107 for the discussion of understanding race discrimination as a type of caste discrimination.

• Civil Rights
• Discrimination
• Employment Law

June 20, 2021

Advertisement

Statistical evidence, discrimination, and causation

• Original Research
• Published: 18 November 2022
• Volume 200 , article number  490 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Justin Shin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1434-4002 1  

325 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Discrimination law is a possible application of the methods of causal modelling. With it, it brings the possibility of direct statistical evidence on counterfactual questions, something that traditional techniques like multiple regression lack. The kinds of evidence that causal modelling can provide, in large part due to its attention to counterfactuals, is very close to the key question that we ask of jurors in discrimination cases. With this new kind of evidence comes new opportunities. We can better proportion punitive damages to the severity of the discrimination that manifests in a hiring process. We can avoid making certain kinds of assumptions regarding the relationship between protected classes and hiring qualifications that other statistical methods demand from statisticians. We can also distribute restitution to individual claimants in a way that is proportionate to how their application was treated in the hiring process. Here we explore where and how causal modelling can be useful in discrimination law and policy. What elements of law provide friction with this mode of gathering statistical evidence, what new possibilities does it reveal, and how does this integrate with prior judgments regarding statistical evidence?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Rethinking the Use of Statistical Evidence to Prove Causation in Criminal Cases: A Tale of (Im)Probability and Free Will

Causal inference for social discrimination reasoning

Working with misspecified regression models.

I will leave out discussion of how these values are specifically calculated. See Causal Inference in Statistics by Pearl et al. for an accessible introduction.

Gehring v. Case Corp. , 43 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 1994).

Adapted from an example in Tribe’s Trials by Mathematics .

Teamsters v. United States , 431 U.S. 324, 97 S. Ct. 1843, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1977).

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories , 607 P.2d 924, 26 Cal. 3d 588, 163 Cal. Rptr. 132 (1980).

Modal realists will object here, but may still agree with the broader point depending on their views on probabilities across sets of possible worlds.

Amazon recently came under scrutiny for such software that discriminated against women by giving lower scores to resumes with women’s organizations on them. See Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women by Jeffrey Dastin .

Obergefell v. Hodges , 135 S. Ct. 2071, 576 U.S. 644, 191 L. Ed. 2d 953 (2015).

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colo. Civil Rights , 138 S. Ct. 1719, 584 U.S., 201 L. Ed. 2d 35 (2018).

See Rao’s Three concepts of dignity in constitutional law for many more examples.

Bou-Habib, P. (2011). Racial profiling and background injustice. The Journal of Ethics, 15 (1), 33–46.

Article   Google Scholar  

Braun, L. J. (1980). Statistics and the law: Hypothesis testing and its application to Title VII cases. Hastings Law Journal, 32 , 59.

Google Scholar  

Enoch, D., Spectre, L., & Fisher, T. (2012). Statistical evidence, sensitivity, and the legal value of knowledge. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 40 (3), 197–224.

Kaye, D. (1982). The limits of the preponderance of the evidence standard: Justifiably naked statistical evidence and multiple causation. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 7 (2), 487–516.

Kaye, D., & Aickin, M. (2014). Statistical methods in discrimination litigation . CRC Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Keele, L., & Stevenson, R. T. (2021). Causal interaction and effect modification: Same model, different concepts. Political Science Research and Methods, 9 (3), 641–649.

Malone, W. S. (1956). Ruminations on cause-in-fact. Stanford Law Review, 9 (1), 60–99.

National Research Council. (2011). Reference manual on scientific evidence (3rd ed.). The National Academies Press.

Pardo, M. S. (2018). Safety vs. sensitivity: Possible worlds and the law of evidence. Legal Theory, 24 (1), 50–75.

Pearl, J. (2013). Direct and indirect effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.2300

Pearl, J., Madelyn, G., & Jewell, N. P. (2016). Causal inference in statistics: A primer . Wiley.

Shavell, S. (2009). Economic analysis of accident law . Harvard University Press.

Stout, N. C., & Valberg, P. A. (2004). Bayes’ law, sequential uncertainties, and evidence of causation in toxic tort cases. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 38 , 781.

Thomson, J. J. (1986). Liability and individualized evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 49 , 199.

Thompson, W. C. (1989). Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52 , 9.

Thompson, W. C., & Schumann, E. L. (2017). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy (pp. 371–391). Routledge.

Tribe, L. H. (1970). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84 , 1329.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1988). CM-604 Theories of Discrimination . U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Wright, R. W. (1985). Causation in tort law. California Law Review, 73 , 1735.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to Jim Woodward for the invaluable discussion, draft notes, and feedback he has given me. I am also thankful for Sandra Mitchell and Jonathan Fuller for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. The detailed, insightful, and substantive reviews from the anonymous referees were immensely helpful. Their feedback heavily influenced the arguments and trajectory of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA

Justin Shin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Shin .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author has no conflicts of interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Shin, J. Statistical evidence, discrimination, and causation. Synthese 200 , 490 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03958-7

Download citation

Received : 09 October 2021

Accepted : 01 November 2022

Published : 18 November 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03958-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Discrimination
• Statistical evidence
• Causal modelling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

What is the ADA?

• ADA Anniversary
• Learn About the National Network
• Contact Your Region/ADA Center
• ADA National Network Portfolio
• ADA Success Stories
• Projects of the National Network
• Research of the National Network
• Ask ADA Questions
• View ADA Publications & Videos
• Find ADA Training
• Request ADA Training
• Search ADA Web Portal
• Federal Agencies and Resources
• Federal ADA Regulations and Standards
• Architects/Contractors
• People with Disabilities
• State and Local Government
• Emergency Preparedness
• Employment (ADA Title I)
• Facility Access
• General ADA Information
• Hospitality
• Public Accommodations (ADA Title III)
• Service Animals
• State and Local Government (ADA Title II)
• Technology (Accessible)
• Telecommunication (ADA Title IV)
• Transportation
• Region 1 - New England ADA Center
• Region 2 - Northeast ADA Center
• Region 3 - Mid-Atlantic ADA Center
• Region 4 - Southeast ADA Center
• Region 5 - Great Lakes ADA Center
• Region 6 - Southwest ADA Center at ILRU
• Region 7 - Great Plains ADA Center
• Region 8 - Rocky Mountain ADA Center
• Region 9 - Pacific ADA Center
• Region 10 - Northwest ADA Center
• ADA Knowledge Translation Center
• Title III of the ADA and Readily Achievable Barrier Removal May 21, 2024
• Law Enforcement and the ADA May 23, 2024
• Self-Evaluation Part I June 13, 2024
• Self-Evaluation Part II June 14, 2024
• Engaging Kids About Disability Through Animated Cartoons July 16, 2024

You are here

Research brief: experience of discrimination and the ada.

( Printer-friendly PDF version  | 264 KB) (Large Print PDF version  | 273 KB)  

Experience of Discrimination and the ADA

An ada knowledge translation center research brief, sarah parker harris.

Courtney Mullin

Department of Disability and Human Development

University of Illinois at Chicago

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that creates a legal framework for people with disabilities to address discrimination. Passed in 1990, the ADA represents bipartisan support for disability inclusion in all aspects of public life. Through the ADA, disability is a recognized source of discrimination, similar to “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” within the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA allows individuals with disabilities to challenge discrimination in the realms of employment, public services, and places of public use. The overarching goal of the ADA is to promote equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for all people with disabilities.

ADA and Experiences of Discrimination

Developing a law that prohibits discrimination and creates regulations around access was, and continues to be, an important step in addressing barriers to inclusion. Disability-based discrimination is often related to both prejudices as well as broader social barriers that deny people with disabilities equal opportunities. Some researchers describe the goal of the ADA “…to integrate persons with disabilities into the social mainstream,” (p. 13). 1  The ADA has regulations to address structural barriers (i.e. physical and programmatic issues) and discriminatory practices, in order to impact attitudes towards disability.

Much of the research on discrimination is about causes and frequency of negative attitudes held by people without disabilities. This research brief looks at the experiences of discrimination from the perspective of people with disabilities as a way to better understand the influence of the ADA.

What the Research Says

Discrimination comes in many different forms. Research throughout the last three decades highlights how people with disabilities experience discrimination and negative attitudes. This research brief organizes these ideas as well as how people with disabilities respond to discriminatory experiences. The following section is divided into three areas where there is information from people with disabilities reporting and describing their experiences with discrimination. While people with disabilities experience discrimination in various domains of their public and private lives, these are some topics for which researchers have begun to document the perceptions and experiences of people with disabilities.

Differences in Experiences

The experiences of discrimination amongst people with different disabilities are diverse. Demographic factors have been shown to affect both prevalence and type of discrimination. For example, people whose need for accommodations change at different times, such as people with mental health conditions, are more likely to report workplace discrimination than people with other types of impairments. 2  Another study found that people with physical disabilities experience different attitudes and misperceptions in the workplace when compared to other groups, such as people with learning disabilities. 1  Furthermore, race, gender, and socioeconomic class have also been shown to impact and compound experiences of disability-based discrimination. 3  African Americans, women, and people with low incomes are all more likely to report disability-based discrimination in health care. 3

Social factors such as family, social class, race, and religion also influence how people understand their rights and types of resources available to address inequalities . 1  Timing of a disability onset or diagnosis is also a critical factor, as people have varying kinds of resources at different times in their lives. One study furthers this idea by exploring the relationship between age and disability discrimination through data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency in charge of enforcing the ADA in employment. 4  There is evidence that older workers are more likely to perceive and file complaints regarding employment discrimination. These variances highlight the diversity within the disability community and how people with disabilities experience discrimination in different ways. Recognizing differences in experience is noteworthy as is acknowledging the widespread prevalence of disability-based discrimination.

Employment is one of the most documented and researched areas regarding the ADA and disability-based discrimination. Though prohibited in the ADA, discrimination in the workplace has been a longstanding issue for people with disabilities. Nearly one in ten working adults with disabilities reported experiencing some kind of workplace discrimination within the five years after the passage of the ADA, and almost a third of these respondents permanently exited the workforce. 5

Workplace discrimination is often subtle, however people with disabilities have expressed that negative attitudes towards disability influence their success in employment. 6  One study, which involved sending mock job applications, found that those who disclosed disability (either spinal cord injury or Autism) received 26% fewer expressions of employer interest than applicants that did not include a disability disclosure. 7  Stigmatizing attitudes have been perceived by people with disabilities to negatively impact progress in their careers through not getting hired, being denied promotions, having extended probationary periods, or being treated differently than coworkers without disabilities. 6,7,8,9,10  In a study conducted by the Center for Talent Innovation as described in an article published by the  Harvard Business Review , a third of survey respondents with disabilities indicate that they had experienced negative bias in the workplace such as feeling underestimated, insulted, excluded, or had coworkers appear uncomfortable because of their disability. 9  Almost half of these respondents (47%) also report that they would never achieve a leadership role in their company, regardless of their performance or qualifications. 9

Disclosing a disability, or sharing a disability status, is clearly influenced by experiences of discrimination. In one study, less than half of respondents with disabilities (39%) report that they had disclosed to a manager and even fewer had told other colleagues (24%); only 4% of respondents told clients about their disabilities. 11  Reasons for employees with disabilities to hide their disability status include fear of teasing, harassment, potential changes in coworker relationships, being perceived as less capable, and reduced progress in their careers. Not disclosing a disability status has been described as “allowing people with disabilities to be employed ‘without fear of prejudice or discrimination’” (p. 487). 12

Another study found that people with disabilities who do not disclose on a job application, but later disclose their disability status at work, are also met with discriminatory behaviors such as coworker unease, inappropriate questions, and assumptions about their capability. 8  Choosing to disclose a disability status is a delicate situation due to the prevalence of disability discrimination, however there are noted benefits of disclosure for some. For example, one study estimates that employees with disabilities who disclose are more content (65% versus 27%) and less isolated (8% versus 37%) at work than employees who do not disclose. 11

Experiences of employment discrimination are not limited to attitudes, as people with disabilities may face other types of structural barriers. Examples include lack of physical accessibility in the workplace, such as absence of accessible restrooms, inaccessible equipment to perform job tasks, and lack of access to reasonable accommodations. 1  This physical inaccessibility can also impact feelings of isolation. Another study identifies barriers to inclusion in the workplace by interviewing employees with disabilities in large, public-sector organizations. 13  The study reveals that people with disabilities experience both physical and social segregation at work. One of the participants of this study describe how their office places employees with disabilities in “a little corner spot where nobody can see them” (p. 145). 13  The segregated desk location not only physically isolates the participant but also prevents social interactions with colleagues. Access discrimination such as this translates into business concerns as feelings of disability-based discrimination have been shown to significantly reduce job satisfaction. 14

Home and the Community

In addition to work, people with disabilities also experience discrimination in access to housing and the community. Institutionalization is a longstanding issue in the disability community, and often refers to the physical segregation of people with disabilities living and/or spending time in areas that are designated solely for people with disabilities. In a landmark decision as part of Olmstead vs L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unjustified segregation violates the ADA. However, there are still many people with disabilities who live and spend time in institutional settings. Researchers explored this topic and found that people with intellectual disabilities who live in institutions report experiences of exclusion and discrimination. 15  These reports include notes of overly restrictive environments, lack of privacy, and difficulty getting involved in the community because of the physical and social segregation as a result living in an institutional setting.

Institutionalization is not the only issue related to community living and experiences of discrimination for people with disabilities. Though not regulated by the ADA, housing is a major issue and source of discrimination for people with disabilities. A study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that people who are deaf or hard of hearing face significant barriers during the home seeking process, including communicating with housing providers and learning about available units. 16  Additionally, people who use wheelchairs face barriers at several points in the home finding process, including locating accessible units, setting up appointments with providers to be shown units, and getting responses to reasonable modification requests. 16  These issues are made worse by the fact that 14-29% of federally funded housing facilities are estimated to violate federal regulations regarding access. 17

Social and Public Spaces

People with disabilities may experience discrimination when trying to access public spaces. For example, social stigma is another issue faced by people with disabilities. Researchers describe disability stigma, or negative attitudes or misconceptions towards disability, as a relationship between knowledge (ignorance), attitudes (prejudice), and behavior (discrimination). 18  These aspects are well documented in disability-based discrimination. In fact, people with mental health conditions report concerns about being viewed unfavorably based on their disability status, and over half of the respondents said that they have heard offensive statements about mental illness. 19  These factors shape public awareness about the capability of people with disabilities. 20  Many of the mentioned access barriers are rooted in negative attitudes that surround disability.

Another noteworthy example of disability discrimination is access to voting. A research team reviewed information from the U.S. 2012 elections and found that almost a third (30.1%) of voters with disabilities experienced some kind of difficulty in the voting process, which differs greatly from those without disabilities (8.4%). 21  The most common barrier was being able to see the ballot and understanding how to use the voting machines. Voting is a foundational right, and access barriers prohibit the participation of people with disabilities. This exemplifies a sentiment in other literature, that feelings of discrimination faced by people with disabilities can influence identifying as a citizen. 22

Responding to Discrimination

People with disabilities deal with discrimination and stigma in a variety of ways. Some people with disabilities choose to ignore negative attitudes, in order to not perpetually feel upset or the need to consistently react to negative interactions. 1  People with disabilities may not identify negative interactions as discriminatory if they do not have language or words to describe their experiences. 1  In fact, people with disabilities are hesitant to use the ADA or seek litigation due to social factors and describe a “threshold,” or feelings of a “minimum” level, of discrimination that must be reached prior to taking action through the ADA.

While choosing to take legal action is a complex decision, it is a powerful way for people with disabilities to respond to discrimination. Trends in legal filings change over time and are influenced by contextual factors. A review of EEOC case data shows a decrease in allegations from 2001- 2008, prior to the passage of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which greatly broadened the definition of disability and redefined the intent of the ADA. 23  Since the ADAAA was enacted, there has been a steady increase in allegations regarding disability discrimination. However, many cases are not closed in favor of claimants (i.e. people with disabilities). In fact, a review of EEOC claims from 1992-2011 found only 23.4% of cases are closed with merit, meaning that they affirmed disability discrimination, while 76.6% of cases are closed without merit, meaning in favor of the employer. 23  Additionally, claimants who are perceived as disabled rather than claimants with documented disabilities, are more likely to file charges related to disability discrimination and have cases ruled in their favor. 24  Most discrimination cases are related to job retention or quality of work; the most common allegations of workplace discrimination are discharge and failure to receive reasonable accommodations. 23  Though discrimination in hiring is less common, it is also notable as legal cases regarding hiring are closed in favor of people with disabilities at higher rates than other allegations. 25

The goal of this brief is to present a 'state of the state' of how people with disabilities perceive discrimination in relation to the ADA, the types of issues experienced, and outcomes of these events. People with disabilities face significant discrimination in many areas, including employment and in public and private aspects of life- some of which are covered in this research brief. To date, the majority of research is related to employment and there is limited information related to other areas of private and public life. While disability-based discrimination is a major facet of life for people with disabilities, these experiences are not universal and are influenced by many factors. Responding to discrimination also varies, and people with disabilities must make complex decisions when choosing to invoke legal action such as through the ADA. There is growing public interest in experiences of disability discrimination, and there is a need for more research on experiences of discrimination particularly from the perspective of people with disabilities.

Examples from the ADA National Network

Below are a few examples of how the ADA national network are addressing the issues raised in this brief. For further information on how the ADA Centers can help with issues related to the ADA, please contact the  ADA National Network here .

• Giving advocacy tools:  A person with vision and hearing disabilities contacted ADA center staff regarding his rights to travel by taxi or public transportation with his service dog. He was very pleased with the explanation he received. After some discussion, the staff person provided the caller with a laminated copy of the explanation, so he could show it to cab drivers where he lives. Having information on hand is helpful to share when traveling with his service dog and helping to advocate for his rights.
• Ensuring parking access:  A person reached out to the ADA center to ask a question about accessible street parking regulations, as two spots were added outside of her office that she did not think looked accessible. The technical assistant shared the guidance regarding street accessible parking design and the caller forwarded the information to the city administration. Within 24 hours, the city began to properly mark the spots and the owner of the building moved a bench to align with accessible parking regulations.
• Newsworthy information:  Another ADA Center was contacted by a local news station after a wheelchair user reached out to discuss blocking the access aisles in accessible parking spaces. Technical assistants provided information to the news reporter about the purpose of access aisles. A few days later, the reporter followed up with the ADA Center and shared they had received positive comments about the story and how it changed peoples’ attitudes and future actions to help keep access aisles unblocked.
• Engel, D. M., & Munger, F. W. (2003). Rights of inclusion: Law and identity in the life stories of Americans with disabilities. University of Chicago Press.
• Chan, F., McMahon, B. T., Cheing, G., Rosenthal, D. A., & Bezyak, J. (2005). Drivers of workplace discrimination against people with disabilities: The utility of attribution theory. Work, 25(1), 77-88.
• LaVeist, T. A., Rolley, N. C., & Diala, C. (2003). Prevalence and patterns of discrimination among US health care consumers. International Journal of Health Services, 33(2), 331-344.
• Bjelland, M. J., Bruyere, S. M., Von Schrader, S., Houtenville, A. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, A., & Webber, D. A. (2010). Age and disability employment discrimination: Occupational rehabilitation implications. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 20(4), 456-471.
• Kennedy, J., & Olney, M. (2001). Job discrimination in the post-ADA era: Estimates from the 1994 and 1995 National Health Interview Surveys. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45(1), 24-30.
• Beatty, J. E. (2012). Career barriers experienced by people with chronic illness: A US study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(2), 91-110.
• Ameri, M., Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, F. S., McKay, P., & Kruse, D. (2018). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review, 71(2), 329-364.
• McKinney, E. L., & Swartz, L. (2019). Employment integration barriers: experiences of people with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-23.
• Sherbin, L. & Taylor Kennedy, J. (2017, December) The Case for Improving Work for People with Disabilities Goes Way Beyond Compliance. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from  https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-case-for-improving-work-for-people-with-disabilities-goes-way-beyond-compliance .
• Vickers, M. H. (2009). Bullying, disability and work: A case study of workplace bullying. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 4(3), 255-272.
• Jain-Link, P. & Taylor Kennedy, J. (2019, June). Why people hide their disabilities at work. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/06/why-people-hide-their-disabilities-at-work .
• Goldberg, S. G., Killeen, M. B., & O'Day, B. (2005). The disclosure conundrum: How people with psychiatric disabilities navigate employment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(3), 463.
• Robert, P. (2003). Disability oppression in the contemporary U.S. capitalist workplace. Science & Society, 67(2), 136-159.
• Perry, E. L., Hendricks, W., & Broadbent, E. (2000). An exploration of access and treatment discrimination and job satisfaction among college graduates with and without physical disabilities. Human Relations, 53(7), 923-955.
• Jahoda, A., & Markova, I. (2004). Coping with social stigma: People with intellectual disabilities moving from institutions and family home. Journal of intellectual disability research, 48(8), 719-729
• Aranda, C. L. (2015). Targeting Disability Discrimination: Findings and reflections from the national study on housing discrimination against people who are deaf and people who use wheelchairs. Cityscape, 17(3), 103-122.
• Froehlich-Grobe, K., Regan, G., Reese-Smith, J. Y., Heinrich, K. M., & Lee, R. E. (2008). Physical access in urban public housing facilities. Disability and Health Journal, 1(1), 25-29.
• Thornicroft, G., Brohan, E., Kassam, A., & Lewis-Holmes, E. (2008). Reducing stigma and discrimination: Candidate interventions. International journal of mental health systems, 2(1), 3.
• Dickerson, F. B., Sommerville, J., Origoni, A. E., Ringel, N. B., & Parente, F. (2002). Experiences of stigma among outpatients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia bulletin, 28(1), 143-155.
• Hampson, M., Hicks, R., & Watt, B. (2016). Understanding the employment barriers and support needs of people living with psychosis. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 870-886.
• Schur, L., Adya, M., & Kruse, D. (2013). Disability, voter turnout, and voting difficulties in the 2012 elections. Report to US EAC and RAAV.
• Barton, L. (1993). The struggle for citizenship: the case of disabled people. Disability, Handicap & Society, 8(3), 235-248.
• McMahon, M. C., & McMahon, B. T. (2016). The National EEOC ADA research project: History, available data, and basic findings. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(3), 333-342
• Draper, W. R., Reid, C. A., & McMahon, B. T. (2011). Workplace discrimination and the perception of disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55(1), 29-37.
• McMahon, B. T., Hurley, J. E., West, S. L., Chan, F., Roessler, R., & Rumrill, P. D. (2008). A comparison of EEOC closures involving hiring versus other prevalent discrimination issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(2), 106-111.

For More Information, Please Contact:

Sarah Parker Harris ( [email protected] ) and Rob Gould ( [email protected] )

1640 W. Roosevelt Road (MC 626)

Chicago, IL 60608

Phone: (312) 413-1647

Fax: (312) 413-1630

TTY: (312) 413-0453

http://www.ahs.uic.edu/dhd/

SUGGESTED CITATION:  Parker Harris, S., Gould, R., and Mullin, C. (2019).  ADA research brief: Experiences of discrimination and the ADA  (pp. 1-6). Chicago, IL: ADA National Network Knowledge Translation Center.

Language: 

1-800-949-4232

Grant Disclaimer

Accessibility

The website was last updated May, 2024

• Default Style
• Green Style
• Orange Style

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

Discrimination Law (3rd edn)

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This book is a challenging, thought-provoking yet highly accessible introduction to discrimination law. It takes a thematic approach, illuminating the major issues in discrimination law, while imparting an in-depth understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of legal responses to complex social problems of inequality. This is enhanced by the comparative approach. By considering equality law in the UK, US, India, Canada, and South Africa, as well as the European Union and under the European Convention on Human Rights, the book exposes common problems across different jurisdictions and canvasses a variety of differing legal solutions. As in the highly successful previous editions, the book locates discrimination law within its historical and social context. One of its major strengths is the development of an analytic framework of substantive equality, drawing on a range of sources, and the author’s wide experience of equality law in many jurisdictions. Chapters 2 and 3 chart the historical, economic, and social challenges and legal responses in relation to the main sources of discrimination: gender, race, disability, religion and belief, age, and LGBTQI rights. Chapter 4 addresses the ways in which different jurisdictions formulate grounds of discrimination or protected characteristics; while Chapter 5 deals with the meaning of key concepts such as direct discrimination (disparate treatment); indirect discrimination (disparate impact); and when limitations on equality are legitimate. Chapter 6 tests these concepts in some of the most challenging contexts: pregnancy and parenting, equal pay, reasonable accommodation, and sexual harassment, while Chapter 7 examines the particularly controversial issue of affirmative action or deliberate preference policies. Chapter 8 asks how the right to equality can be made more effective, critically assessing the paradigm individual complaints model, and possible alternatives, from class actions and strategic litigation to mainstreaming and positive duties to promote equality.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Promoting Diversity and Combatting Discrimination in Research Organizations: A Practitioner’s Guide

Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations

ISBN : 978-1-80117-959-1 , eISBN : 978-1-80117-956-0

Publication date: 1 December 2022

The essay is addressed to practitioners in research management and from academic leadership. It describes which measures can contribute to creating an inclusive climate for research teams and preventing and effectively dealing with discrimination. The practical recommendations consider the policy and organizational levels, as well as the individual perspective of research managers. Following a series of basic recommendations, six lessons learned are formulated, derived from the contributions to the edited collection on “Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations.”

• Inclusive work climate
• Lessons learned
• Policy recommendations
• Recommendations for actions
• Sexual harassment

Striebing, C. , Müller, J. , Schraudner, M. , Gewinner, I.V. , Morales, P.G. , Hochfeld, K. , Hoffman, S. , Kmec, J.A. , Nguyen, H.M. , Schneider, J. , Sheridan, J. , Steuer-Dankert, L. , O’Connor, L.T. and Vandevelde-Rougale, A. (2022), "Promoting Diversity and Combatting Discrimination in Research Organizations: A Practitioner’s Guide", Striebing, C. , Müller, J. and Schraudner, M. (Ed.) Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 421-441. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-956-020221012

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023 Clemens Striebing, Jörg Müller, Martina Schraudner, Irina Valerie Gewinner, Patricia Guerrero Morales, Katharina Hochfeld, Shekinah Hoffman, Julie A. Kmec, Huu Minh Nguyen, Jannick Schneider, Jennifer Sheridan, Linda Steuer-Dankert, Lindsey Trimble O’Connor and Agnès Vandevelde-Rougale

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this work (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Transfer to Practice

It is a particular concern of ours to provide practitioners in academic organizations with the insights that they can draw from the contributions presented in this edited collection for their work and their specific organizational contextual conditions. With this essay, we therefore want to offer a comprehensive orientation on the question of what measures can be taken in practice to create discrimination-free working conditions for a diverse workforce, whereby we especially address academic leadership and research managers. Our prototypical program is described in the following steps:

Based on research on effective gender equality policies in research organizations, we derive four conditions that policy-makers should consider to provide sufficient framework conditions for reducing social and systemic discrimination in academia (see “Recommendations for Policy-Makers” section).

We outline a compact program of measures at the organizational level, which is essentially based on the studies of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) about the sexual harassment of women in science and experience of this article’s authors, which we have gained in our own projects (see “Recommendations for the Design of a Discrimination Resuction Program” section).

We discuss the role that research management can – or should – play in creating a diversity-inclusive team climate as well as preventing and managing cases of discrimination (see “Recommendations for Academic Leaders and Research Managers” section).

Finally, we discuss how the contributions in this edited collection add to the current state of research on the effective prevention and fair treatment of discrimination in the scientific workplace (see “Our Lessons Learned” section).

Recommendations for Policy-Makers

For more than two decades now, the European Commission has been funding research projects that address the question of how to increase the participation of women researchers in research teams and decision-making positions in the European Research Area. Without claiming to be exhaustive, examples include the Helsinki Group on Women in Science reports first published in 2002 ( EC, 2008 ), the PRAGES project ( Cacace, 2009 ), and the STAGES project ( Kalpazidou Schmidt and Cacace, 2017 ).

A subsequent assessment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s ( OECD, 2018 ) Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook appears to be rather skeptical concerning the impact of gender equality interventions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The authors recognize the strong prevalence of gender equality measures among OECD countries, mainly aiming to increase the number of students in the STEM fields and the provision of support to individual women scientists. However, they criticize the fragmentation of current policy actions “[…] characterised by multiple institutions acting independently, and limited co-ordination between education, science and innovation actors” ( OECD, 2018 : 178). They attest an insufficient sustainability of the various initiatives and the need for more systemic evaluations and indicators as well as mutual learning formats. Especially regarding the importance of long-term monitoring and evaluation of gender equality challenges and measures, the OECD report confirms the policy recommendations of the mentioned EC reports. Moreover, the nub of equality measures addresses the quantitative equalization of women and men, yet the quality of work and working climate are a rare issue.

The following framework conditions for success in promoting gender equality in research – and, by analogy, promoting underrepresented or disadvantaged groups of people – can be derived from the reports mentioned above.

Gender monitoring: Highly institutionalized gender monitoring that comprises a high number of research institutions and indicators keeps gender equality on the broader political and organizational agenda and enables problem-framing and impact evaluation of gender equality measures.

Leadership: A clear commitment of political and organizational leaders gives legitimacy to those actors like working groups, equality officers or intrapreneurs who work every day to improve gender equality in their organizations.

Networks: Networks enable mutual learning for research organizations and enable coordinating extensive actions at multiple levels between versatile actors from local to global.

A fourth condition for success – which is not explicitly mentioned in the reports above but should not be underestimated – is the binding nature of anti-discrimination measures. Research shows that a lack of consequences often restricts the effectiveness of gender equality measures ( Matthies and Zimmermann, 2010 ; van den Brink and Benschop, 2012 ). Firm accountability provides measures such as quotas, voluntary agreements and gender equality plans with the necessary binding force and therefore will be considered in the following discussion, along with the other policy approaches.

Recommendations for Designing a Discrimination Reduction Program

Structured according to a simplified policy cycle that distinguishes the phases of policy formulation, implementation and evaluation and has an iterative sequence, Fig. 22 lists a number of measures to reduce, prevent and manage experiences of discrimination in the research workplace (see also Marquis et al., 2008 : 4–6).

Building Blocks of a Coherent and Comprehensive Program to Ensure a Discrimination-Free and Diversity-Friendly Workplace.

Evaluating the Status Quo and the Achievement of Objectives

The basis for developing an effective anti-discrimination program is a sound knowledge base on the distribution of employees according to different socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, care responsibilities, ethnicity, etc.). For the purpose of evidence-based development of a discrimination reduction program, ideally data is collected that relates the respective socio-demographic characteristics to organizational status characteristics (e.g., hierarchical position, function, income) or employee perceptions and experiences (e.g., survey of work climate, experiences of social misconduct, compatibility of professional and private obligations). 1

The finer the units of analysis, the more meaningful the evaluation of the status quo and the achievement of objectives. For example, to identify potential outcomes of systemic discrimination, data should be differentiable by scientific or non-scientific activity or hierarchical level. The work climate may considerably vary between individual teams and across disciplines, depending on conflict constellations that are very situation-specific. 2

For an evaluation to be successful and – above all – practically relevant, it is important to plan for budget and working time. Evaluations not only involve sending out an online survey and presenting the results in PowerPoint; rather, they require a person or group of persons with sufficient expertise to develop an evaluation concept (key questions are: What do we want to know and why?), implement it using suitable survey instruments (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, document analyses, etc.) in compliance with data protection regulations, and generate meaningful data that meet social science quality standards (e.g., validity and reliability, transferability, representativeness). In the meantime, there are a number of tools that enable an easily applicable organizational survey tailored to research organizations, e.g., on gender equality. 3 However, without social science expertise, even these tools cannot be used optimally, nor can the data generated be interpreted well.

Statistical methods such as questionnaire surveys often reach their limits when researching minority groups such as employees with health impairments or LGBTQI+ employees. Since social minorities are obviously often small groups in terms of numbers and therefore difficult to reach, collecting data on them often violates data protection regulations. Person-related inferences are easily made possible when – for example – two out of 80 respondents assign themselves to a third gender category. In these cases, qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups, must be used to gather information about any experiences of discrimination. Another strength of qualitative methods is that they enable understanding correlations in data (e.g., why one social group evaluates the work climate worse than another), whereas the strength of quantitative methods lies in detecting and confirming such correlations.

Another necessity for an evaluation that holds practical relevance is a process for its utilization. Within this framework, questions arise concerning how often an evaluation should be carried out, what happens to the results of the evaluation, what happens in the case of conspicuous or critical values at the organizational or team level, who determines the threshold values for the critical values, and who manages this process. The clearer and more binding that the process is for utilizing the evaluation results, the stronger the practical impact of the evaluation.

The data collected and the evaluations carried out on it should be handled transparently to counteract the creation of organizational myths within the workforce about positive and negative discrimination among them, potentially compromising the effectiveness of anti-discrimination policies. 4 The results of the status quo and progress evaluation can be reported in the annual or equality report of a research organization. Continuous progress monitoring requires that the data collected meet social science standards from the outset (see the discussion of evaluation teams above), since data are no longer comparable between two or more time periods if the questionnaire design is changed in significant ways.

The knowledge base generated by the evaluation can be used to develop targeted policies. Noteworthy, the evaluation of the policy program to be established should already be considered during its development ( Palmén et al., 2019 ). Key questions are which indicators can be used to determine whether a program has been successful or whether adjustments are necessary. Furthermore, how are the data needed to answer this question generated, and who collects and evaluates them? Adequate human resources must be planned for ongoing evaluation.

Policy Formulation: Defining Clear Behavioral Expectations and Consequences

When designing a social intervention such as an anti-discrimination program, it is important to formulate a set of goals that are as specific as possible for the state to aim for. Specific goals enable the effective planning and use of the human and financial resources available to implement the program, means-ends relationships can be assessed for appropriateness, and goal achievement can be evaluated. Insofar as an organizational cultural change is aimed for, it should be clearly presented accordingly which behavior is expected from the employees in concrete terms, which complaint channels are open in the event of violations and which consequences may occur ( Daley et al., 2018 ).

A code of conduct can be formulated as a key document that provides a framework of orientation for employees and the anti-discrimination program. The code of conduct should be short and compact. It should not be formulated only by the leadership team but in a participatory process involving employees. This promotes the acceptance and implementation of such a code of conduct. In practice, such codes of conduct regularly address the key issues of workplace integrity and the prevention of workplace incivility. Such broad framing signals that protection against discrimination requires the active cooperation of all employees and that not only extreme cases of discrimination that can be proven in court are to be prevented, but rather that the general aim is to create a positive inclusive working environment in which even minor forms of discrimination cannot flourish in the first place.

Broad framing as workplace integrity or incivility also emphasizes the integrated nature of an anti-discrimination policy. In practice, in most academic institutions, equality officers, disability officers, anti-racism officers, work councils and other bodies are separate institutions that often have to establish mutual intersections. For example, if a sexist work environment prevails at a university or other academic institution, organizational change should not only be the responsibility of the equal opportunity officers, but must be driven by the management level and lived by all employees. Moreover, it is very likely that other types of discrimination are also taking place. A smart anti-discrimination policy takes into account and bridges the functional differentiation of institutional discrimination prevention and management.

In the sense of an integrated approach with clear behavioral expectations, it is also important to explicitly include personnel management competencies in job profiles and subsequently also evaluate academic leaders based on these competencies. At present, the suitability of researchers for leadership positions is often assessed solely based on their academic performance and very few leaders are trained to recognize or effectively address inequitable behaviors. Management and personnel leadership skills are expected in very few job requirements, although “team science” ( Wang and Barabási, 2021 ) is on the rise.

When designing policies, it is also important to encourage bottom-up approaches, i.e., initiatives coming from employee representatives, team members, and not decided by an institution’s management. Such initiatives are more likely to promote equity in a grounded and reflexive approach that might challenge dominant views on personnel management in academia and research organizations. Bottom-up approaches could inter alia help thinking research policies and practices outside a neoliberal managerial grid (see Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales in this collection) and thus contribute to fostering a more caring environment, with more time and resources allocated to thinking and creating, and less to complying with evaluation indicators based on international rankings that tend to reinforce power imbalance and competition both between individuals and between organizations instead of acknowledging the contribution of research to society ( Hodgins and McNamara, 2021 ).

Policy Implementation: Embedding Objectives Through Context-Specific Measures

An anti-discrimination program should generally be implemented through context-specific interventions ( Palmén et al., 2019 ). This means that the program should be tailored as appropriately as possible for the specific situation and challenges in an organization. Individual interventions should be adapted to the requirements and needs of different target groups, such as research managers, early career researchers, administrative staff, and others. Measures should also take into account organizational characteristics: for example, in a research organization with low staff turnover, targets for the representation of certain social groups will only be realized in the long term.

In terms of content, a wide range of measures is available, which should be coordinated with evaluating the status quo and formulating goals. Typical measures include welcome actions for new staff, training for employees to enable them to implement the goals of the anti-discrimination program in their daily work; for example, to recognize and overcome implicit prejudices against certain social groups, work productively in diverse teams, or behave appropriately as a bystander to discriminatory behavior in the workplace. Training such as anti-discrimination or anti-gender bias training as part of institutional onboarding after hiring and repeated refresher courses can also help to ensure that managers have the appropriate skills for inclusive leadership and conflict management.

As already mentioned above, the commitment of the academic leaders in a research organization is a central condition for the success of an anti-discrimination program. This commitment should be visible in the organization; for example, through speeches or circulars (provided that these discourses are linked to means and practical actions). 5

Fig. 22 lists a range of other possible measures through which the goals of an anti-discrimination policy can be implemented: regular career-related and documented development discussions between leaders and their employees promote joint career development and partly counteract biased preference or disadvantage in interactions between leaders and their employees (vertical discrimination), especially early career researchers and their supervisors, as well as among employees (horizontal discrimination). Low-threshold, confidential, and well-advertised reporting channels – which can not only be consulted in cases of tangible discrimination – may enable leaders to intervene at an early stage. In cases where the personal supervisor is excluded as a reporting channel due to a conflict, research organizations should offer “neutral” reporting channels that are not embedded in local hierarchies and dependencies. Depending on the context, measures aimed at improving the reconciliation of scientific work and private life are potentially suitable for reducing gender-related discrimination, e.g., crediting parental leave and care responsibilities when assessing the scientific performance of an early- or mid-career researcher, waiving meetings at off-peak times, or offering childcare.

Recommendations for Academic Leaders and Research Managers

Research managers are considered to be those individuals who provide support services to researchers and academics and themselves have an academic education and – in some cases – experience in research and teaching ( WR, 2018 : 85). 6 They work in staffs or decentralized units, monitor compliance with quality standards, supervise committees, and are involved with personnel processes in a variety of ways.

While the integration and productive use of diversity in research teams in everyday work is the task of traditional academic leaders – e.g., chair holders, research group leaders or the dean – research managers are regularly entrusted with diversity monitoring and developing and implementing strategic action programs (as exemplified above) from an organizational perspective. A comparable division of labor also exists for preventing and handling discrimination, which are regularly to be resolved initially by “line management,” i.e., the immediate leader in accordance with the academic hierarchical order, but which can be handed over under certain criteria or alternatively to specially established committees, staff units or service providers. Examples include academic ombudspersons, equal opportunity officers, compliance officers, representatives of the severely disabled, staff councils, psycho-social counseling centers, lawyers or other external reporting offices. Nonetheless, as studies in this volume show, these organs do not always interfere flawlessly, which require further optimization of their work and anti-discrimination actions.

Integrating Diverse Teams

Regarding gender-diverse teams, Nielsen et al. (2018) discuss how to create a diversity-inclusive team climate in research and innovation development. First, the quality of collaboration and problem-solving ability of diverse teams (and homogeneous teams as well) is considerably influenced by their diversity belief and openness to diversity. Diversity belief refers to the conviction of individual team members that their difference is a strength in the work process ( van Dick et al., 2008 ). Openness to diversity refers to the awareness of – for example – visible, informational or value differences in a team and the willingness of a team member to engage with dissimilar individuals and learn from them ( Hobman et al., 2004 ). Accordingly, it is recommended that academic leaders interact with their teams to determine whether they view themselves as homogeneous or heterogeneous in terms of the professional and socio-demographic characteristics of their members and whether they view each as positive or negative. A low openness to diversity or a low diversity belief would have to be explored in an exchange with the team or a bilateral exchange with the team members.

Second, teams that work productively are those whose interactions (i.e., conversations and collaboration) between team members are determined by the expertise and experience of individual team members rather than social relationships ( Joshi and Knight 2015 ). For leaders, this implies clearly identifying and communicating to the team the competencies and responsibilities of each member of their team. Larger work tasks in research projects should be differentiated according to the competencies that they require to be mastered and how the team members can optimally complement each other in their competencies.

Third, the same applies to the integration of diverse teams that applies to team processes in general, namely teams need team players. Team members should have a certain level of identification with their team, a shared sense of purpose and they must trust the team’s ability to accomplish tasks, the team’s processes should be transparently coordinated, and team members should treat each other with mutual respect and openness ( Nielsen et al., 2018 ). The team structure should thereby regulate itself based on the competencies and expertise of the team members, as noted above. Too much team cohesion in turn can lead to isolation and silo thinking in an organization and may even be more conducive to exclusion and discrimination processes ( Feldblum and Lipnic, 2021 ).

Preventing and Managing Discrimination

The expectations placed on leaders and research managers to prevent and deal with discrimination in the workplace are sometimes high and sometimes seem contradictory. An idealistic and a realistic perspective can be distinguished.

In the idealistic perspective, organizations strive for rationally acting leadership and management personnel. These personnel are sensitized through training and show zero tolerance toward discriminatory behavior and structures in the workplace. They regularly and perceptibly commit to zero tolerance in the organization, set an example through their own behavior, and deal with discrimination claims promptly and fairly (prototypical Daley et al., 2018 ).

On the other hand, a realistic perspective takes better account of the complexity of social conflicts in the workplace. It is often not possible to say clearly who are the perpetrators and who are the victims in a conflict case. Typical of this are claims of systemic discrimination based on institutions – i.e., implicit and explicit rules and practices – in an organization or in cases of scandalization. In his studies on academic mobbing, Westhues (2021) recommends a sober and critical approach to complaints of workplace misconduct within the line authority. The respective academic leaders in charge would have a broader perspective to deal with claims sensitively and fairly, whereas individuals and committees specifically appointed to investigate would sometimes tend toward zealotry. Westhues emphasizes that social conflict in the workplace is often borne out of social relationships. The individuals involved in each case seek empathy and allies, which can lead to the aforementioned scandalization, i.e., criticism by a group against an individual (also conceivable in relation to accusations of inaction regarding dismantling discriminatory institutions), without there being any concrete misconduct against the group.

In turn, the realistic perspective reaches its limits where problem-solving by academic leaders does not take place; for example, because they are involved in the conflict themselves, they are not willing to adjust supposedly discriminatory structures and rules, or an adjustment of the structures simply exceeds their work capacities.

In summary, it can be deduced from the comparison of the two approaches that universities and research institutions need sensitized leadership and management personnel who are aware of their role model function and trained to deal with employee complaints objectively, discreetly and rationally. At the same time, due to their embeddedness in the work processes of their own organization, academic leadership personnel are also only capable of objectively and conclusively resolving cases of social misconduct and discrimination complaints to a certain extent. This requires contact points that deal with preventing and managing discrimination on a structural basis (and not exclusively based on a specific case).

Our Lessons Learned

Lesson 1: identifying and knowing the majority group in a research organization is key to understanding discrimination processes.

Our first lesson learned is anything but a novel insight; rather, it is the core of social identity theory. The theoretical assumption that there are so-called in- and out-groups in (research) organizations, whose boundaries are constitutive of experiences of discrimination partly formed through experiences of discrimination, is supported in particular by the contributions of Sheridan et al., Striebing, Pantelmann and Wälty, Nguyen et al. and Gewinner. The contributions discuss and/or provide evidence of the negative consequences of deviating from a norm type that can typically be described as male, healthy, and belonging to the ethnic majority in a country. In their paper, Pantelmann and Wälty comprehensively explain the historically formative role of this in-group, leading to what the authors describe as an androcentric academia. A typical example of the androcentric character of work processes in academia is the traditionally very high proportion of men in scientific leadership positions and the low proportion of men in administrative assistant functions [ e.g., Kolboske (2021) shows this for the German Max Planck Society].

The respective in-groups – which vary in their composition depending on the local context – have defined the implicit and explicit rules and practices in research organizations over time and continue to play a major role in determining their interpretation. Examples of such indirectly exclusionary rules include processes that appear to create rationality and transparency, such as evaluation rules or review committees. These kind of rational processes are problematic when they only aim to create decision legitimacy through processes seen as legitimate rather than a truly legitimate, just, “good” outcome, free of cognitive bias (van den Brink and Benschop, 2012, on the concept of legal legitimacy: Mayntz, 2010 ). The Covid-19 pandemic and the associated problem of double jeopardy – especially for the parents of young children – is an example of how processes that appear objective can lead to systemic discrimination when research organizations evaluate process outcomes as “neutral.” The constraints associated with the pandemic have led to an average decline in publication output among female researchers, which will disadvantage their long-term career development if research organizations maintain their unilateral focus on process justice rather than outcome justice ( Squazzoni et al., 2021 ; Nature Editorial, 2021 ).

Examples of informal practices shaped and reproduced by an in-group that can have an indirectly exclusionary effect may seem trivial in some cases, but they can be highly meaningful in individual research organizations. One can think of regulars’ tables, meetings in the evening hours, 24/7 lab hours, hiking groups, and other forms of interaction that promote exchanges based on expectations of presence and personal sympathies rather than professional skills and expertise ( Nielsen et al., 2018 ).

In their study of Vietnamese social scientists, Nguyen et al. illustrate that individuals who assume a higher level of effort in informal household and care work are disproportionately less able to meet academic performance expectations than individuals who assume fewer household duties. In Vietnamese society, it is also usually women who are influenced in their career advancement by more informal work.

In his study on work climate in the Max Planck Society, Striebing also shows for Germany that women with responsibility for minor children rate their work climate lower than men with children or women without children. In Striebing’s studies on work climate and bullying, women generally rate their work climate lower than men and experience bullying more often. 7 Moreover, according to Sheridan et al., it is the employees who deviate from the norm due to their sexual orientation, skin color or health impairments who seem to most frequently experience hostile and intimidating behavior in the academic workplace (see lesson 5).

Using the example of women researchers from the former Soviet Union working in Germany, Gewinner provides a comprehensive picture of the extent to which institutions shaped by the respective national majority society and the in-groups in academic organizations pose special challenges to individuals who deviate from the in-groups; for example, due to their gender, living circumstances, or nationality.

Since academia – shaped by its respective local in-groups – cannot necessarily provide equal opportunities for a diverse workforce, good academic leaders and research managers strive in a self-reflective manner to dismantle those structures and processes that can lead to implicit and indirect disadvantage for certain groups of employees. This means that strengthening disadvantaged groups through mentoring and networking programs as well as training can only be one part, but it is equally important to be attentive to structures and processes that can lead to disadvantage, and to dismantle them.

Lesson 2: Managers Are Not Neutral Regulators and Conflict Resolvers

Creating an inclusive work culture, designing and implementing anti-discrimination prevention programs, reducing discrimination, and intervening in cases of conflict in the workforce are especially the tasks of academic leaders and research managers. A number of the studies in the edited collection imply that this group of people is not itself a neutral entity and is itself part or non-part of organizational in- and out-groups, as well as one of the most important levers for successful diversity management.

The study by Kmec et al. supports the relevance of belief systems in the interpretation of illegal harassment behaviors. The authors found that individuals who hold more gender egalitarian beliefs (that women and men are equal) are more likely to recognize factually illegal acts of sexual harassment than individuals with traditional gender beliefs. Their study also points to the special importance of merit beliefs: people who believe that they live in a just society tend to regard sexual harassment as neither illegal nor inappropriate in cases that are (in everyday perception) ambiguous.

Striebing’s work climate and bullying studies show that a gender gap in the perception of the work climate and the experience of bullying narrows from the PhD level to group or institute leadership. The author interprets this observation as a filtering mechanism of the science system. His results suggest that the “successful” women and men who hold scientific leadership positions perceive and evaluate their work environment differently than early career researchers and – as a conjecture – may have limited empathy for problems of their employees due to this different perception.

Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales’ case studies demonstrate the high complexity of bullying constellations. They argue that management ideology and practices force individuals who perceive themselves to be affected by bullying or discrimination into a formalized discourse. They highlight that what a person complains about and how they do so is not only essential for perceiving conflict dynamics but also for how managers and research management perceive and evaluate the person, and that it can influence the likelihood of success of a complaint:

[…] even in organizations where policies to guarantee dignity and respect have been adopted, showing one’s hurt to managers or human resources department is not sufficient so that steps would be taken to ensure a saner working atmosphere; it can even be detrimental to the person showing his/her vulnerability. (Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales in this collection)

The two authors also highlight that it can be problematic to apply seemingly rational approaches (e.g., measures to reduce discrimination and strengthen reconcilability) to issues that primarily have an emotional impact on those involved. For example, a person’s perceived work-life balance is not only influenced by organizational factors such as the range of flexible working time models and workload, and not only by cognitive-psychological factors such as a person’s ability to cope with stress or the pace at which a person works, but also by situational aspects such as individual career prospects or the management style, or societal aspects such as traditional views on parenting or care. If the individual work–life balance is nevertheless not right in an organization with comprehensive reconciliation offerings, it is therefore not necessarily the individual who is “defective,” but rather the broader social context must also be taken into account.

The contributions of Kmec et al. and Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales imply the strong importance of patience and reflexivity – or “attentive listening” – in academic leadership. Thus, on the one hand, leaders and research managers are required to reconcile the different interests and personalities of individual team members and – in cases of conflict – weigh the perspectives of all stakeholders, including both co-workers and organizational goals. In doing so, it is important that academic leaders and research managers not only obtain a comprehensive picture – i.e., take all perspectives into account – but they also need a detailed picture, and they should perceive employees in their entirety as the people they are, with their multiple overlaps of status, character or social background. In doing so, evaluating leaders and research managers must also be aware of the relativity of their own perspective: Why might I find one person in a conflict more sympathetic than another or be better able to understand their perspective?

The article by Kmec et al. also shows the importance of drawing clear boundaries for misconduct in the workplace and sensitizing management personnel to this. Only in this way can clear decisions be made – even in “gray areas” – concerning what is judged to be appropriate or inappropriate, and managers must be supported in setting an example of the conduct desired in the workplace. In this context, with reference to their case study at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Sheridan et al. state that most academic leaders and supervisors had no knowledge of how to deal with misconduct in general. They recommend that universities should essentially develop a process and disciplinary measures for this.

Lesson 3: The System Can Tend to Individualize and Normalize Discrimination

Just because a problem is not visible, this does not mean it is not there: in their case study of a German university, Pantelmann and Wälty form a diagnosis that could certainly be extended to other types of organizations:

The university approach to the problem [of sexual violence] paints a picture of sexual harassment as an individual (women’s) problem for which individual solutions must be found. Acts of harassment and violence are normalized, minimized, and dismissed by patriarchal gender norms and power relations […] as well as by complex and uneven systems of loyalty and hierarchy […]. (Pantelmann and Wälty in this collection)

By the university approach, the authors mean the interplay of patriarchal institutions (see lesson 1), the self-image of a non-discriminatory, neutral and enlightened academy, combined with market-oriented organizational and management structures (e.g., performance evaluation, dependency and competition situations reinforced by fixed-term employment relationships, competition for external funding).

The authors note – similar to Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales (see lesson 2) – that there seems to be a contradiction between the rational world of science and experiences of discrimination, harassment, and bullying that primarily take place on an emotional level. The latter are seen as remote from science and more societal in nature. On the part of research managers, this led to a failure to accept their (co-)responsibility for the campus as part of society and a good working atmosphere to the necessary extent, as well as combatting social misconduct and systemic discrimination, even if it remained below a threshold punishable by criminal or labor law.

From these considerations, it can be concluded that in most research organizations an institutional commitment to responsibility for a good research culture and combating discriminatory behavior and structures (as well as other forms of social misconduct) is an essential milestone. Often reviled as “paper tigers,” in this sense codes of conduct are important markers of the way forward and institutional self-assurances that can then have an indirect impact on an organization’s discrimination policies. However, due to the tendency to normalize, relativize, and downplay discrimination as described by Wälty and Pantelmann, one or the other skeptical leader must be convinced that the formulation of a formal institutional commitment against discrimination is desirable (but not sufficient per se ). In this regard, Sheridan et al. emphasize the added value of employee surveys, not least to counter skeptics of the need for anti-discrimination measures with data.

Lesson 4: How Identity Characteristics Shape Conflicts and Conflict Perceptions Is Difficult to Predict and Strongly Depends on Situational Circumstances (in Individual Cases)

In particular, the contribution of Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales conveys how the multiple socio-demographic characteristics of individuals involved in conflict can shape conflicts and conflict dynamics. Identity categories such as gender, class, nation or race can be intertwined with different power positions. These identity-related power positions may be the starting point of conflicts, and they can be mobilized by participants in conflicts to place themselves in a stronger position (e.g., as part of the search for allies or to normatively underpin their own position), and they also shape the way in which third parties (such as leaders and research managers) perceive and interpret a conflict.

Accordingly, Sheridan et al. highlight that in practice they have found that individuals who receive and process complaints against social misconduct must be well trained in implicit/explicit bias and discrimination. Accordingly, there is a possibility that the view of persons making a report against social misconduct is biased. Thus, the reported person’s behaviors would sometimes be interpreted depending on their gender, sexual orientation, race, or other socio-demographic factors.

Striebing’s paper builds on this consideration and explores whether a person’s gender is related to whether that person perceives one or a series of negative experiences as bullying or sexual discrimination. In practice, it is possible for individuals who complain to a leader or other entity about misconduct or discrimination to be (implicitly) confronted with accusations of being too sensitive ( Hinze, 2004 ). A reference to the identity of the reporting individuals then functions as an easy legitimation for leaders and research managers to justify doing nothing or decide and act along their sympathies and (maybe biased) intuition.

Striebing concludes that the relationship between experience(s) of negative acts in the workplace and their assessment as bullying or sexual discrimination is indeed influenced by the gender of the person concerned. However, the pattern of this correlation – i.e. which specific negative acts are more often seen as “transgressive” by women or men – is so complex and weak in its entirety that a practical effect is questionable.

As a result of these considerations, leaders and research managers should be sensitized to perceive and deal with the identitarian dimension of workplace conflicts and reflect their own positioning appropriately. At the same time, leaders and research managers should be sensitized to be attentive and critical whenever a person’s credibility is placed in the context of his/her socio-demographic characteristics.

Lesson 5: Measures Aimed at Very General Groups of People Waste Financial and Personnel Resources

Often academic support programs target very open groups of people, such as “the women,” “the students with an immigrant background,” or “the working-class children.” However, this does not sufficiently take into account the fact that people have a variety of identities and balance them with each other.

The studies by Gewinner, Nguyen et al., Striebing and Sheridan et al. show that – for example – women are not fundamentally less able than men to compete academically and in the working environment, experience a qualitatively poorer working environment or misconduct more frequently. Moreover, women might perceive programs addressing women as discriminatory by themselves, since they subtly and unconsciously label them as less productive, thus manifesting the gender or national differences. Even women in a conservative male breadwinner partnership who take on the main responsibility of raising children in their partnership are not necessarily at a disadvantage if – for example – they are supported by their (in-)parents, as Nguyen et al. show. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to gender aspects in organizing the most suitable form of support programs such as training courses for female researchers. Striebing also shows for the German Max Planck Society that self-perceptions of bullying experiences are more frequent – for example – among male social scientists than among women in the STEM disciplines. In Sheridan et al., among the group of women, women of color and those with disabilities most frequently report experiences of hostile and intimidating behavior in the workplace, and in the group of men, gay men and those with disabilities.

Research management should apply an intersectional perspective 8 when analyzing the need for organizational support measures and conceptualizing these measures. Vulnerable target groups and their needs should be defined and analyzed as precisely as possible. For example, if a measure is to be developed to increase the proportion of women, it should be asked in as much detail as possible which women can benefit from the measure and under which circumstances, as well as which ones cannot. If a measure is to be developed to prevent, e.g., sexism or racism, it should be asked which groups of people are to be protected from which groups of people in particular.

Lesson 6: It Is a Long Way from Raising Awareness through Trainings to Factual Effects on the Incidence of Discrimination Experiences

Sheridan et al. show in their study that short-term effects of anti-discrimination measures such as training or information campaigns cannot be expected. Based on the authors’ data, it can be surmised that such measures can immediately and quite persistently increase sensitivity to discriminatory and inappropriate behavior in the workplace and knowledge about how to deal with it, but that there are pitfalls for a long-term effect on reported cases of social misconduct in the workplace (see also Chang et al., 2019 ). The authors conclude: “We have found supplemental education and resources are necessary to empower individuals to interrupt HIB [hostile and intimidating behavior] in their work environments” (Sheridan et al. in this collection).

It also seems conceivable that local efforts to promote diversity in academia may also be undermined by developments at the regional or national level. For example, Sheridan et al. emphasize a more adversarial political and social climate under Donald Trump’s presidency in the United States. They speculate that this overall climate change might provide a possible explanation for why counterintuitively LGBT individuals were the only ones among the groups of individuals studied to even report an increase in experiences of misconduct in the academic workplace during the study period.

Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten also highlight the challenges of a multi-level perspective in diversity management. In doing so, they adopt a holistic perspective by analyzing the framework conditions of the German science system and reflecting on the different influencing factors. They link this perspective to a systems theory approach, which highlights the complexity of key positions and emphasizes the need to develop measures that address the specific framework conditions of the respective organization. Using the example of a complex research organization with several management levels – i.e., the institute and network level or the chair and university management level as well as institute-specific cultures – Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten identify the general challenge in the fact that the diversity climate experienced by the research teams is ultimately a function of the diversity management of the different levels. The authors therefore point to the importance of a common diversity strategy that is co-formulated and supported by all levels of an organizational network and fits the needs of the respective organizational levels. Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten emphasize the potential of academic leaders as multipliers for establishing an open diversity belief and climate. In their case study of a large German research association, Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten found that the leadership style attributed to management and the leadership style that they aspired to themselves were closely linked. The authors see these effects of homosocial reproduction as an explanation for this ideational similarity between managers (managers hire and promote people if they feel connected to them due to perceived similarities) and the role model effect of top managers whose style is adopted in practice by team members. Linked to the examined perception of diversity, Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten also see a direct effect of leadership behavior in the diversity management context on the next generation of scientists. In order to counteract these effects in the long term, they recommend a stronger link between diversity management and the change management approach, which at the same time underpins the long-term nature of corresponding measures.

We Can only go Ahead

Within the framework of the texts published in this collection, not only the extent of discrimination in research organizations was measured and described, but often implicit or direct criticism of established structures was also voiced. The main object of criticism was the effects of “neoliberalization” of universities ( Block, Gray, and Holborow, 2012 ; Hodgins and McNamara 2021 ) and “bureaucratization” and “corporatization” of research administration ( Sørensen and Traweek, 2021 ), and in particular the role of academic leaders, research managers as well as representatives and officers for the concerns of the employees. The critique collected here highlights that restructuring the research system does not necessarily lead to a rationalization of personnel processes and career paths. Moreover, academic leaders and research managers are also by no means neutrally administering, measuring, evaluating, and deciding entities, but rather these are embedded in and emerged from the very research system to whose rationalization they are supposed to contribute.

Finally, it should be emphasized once again that we do not believe that the “old research system” – in which research organizations hardly conducted any performance evaluations, academic leaders had more discretion, and third-party funding was not awarded in open competition – could have integrated or managed diversity better. We welcome the increasing reduction of power imbalances in the scientific workforce and see major potential in the professionalization of diversity management and the handling of experiences of discrimination in research institutions, especially in the newly-created professional field of research managers ( WR, 2018 ).

The fact that we increasingly talk about and problematize diversity and discrimination in research organizations can also be seen as a positive sign. The idea of the “integration paradox” ( Mafaalani, 2018 ) highlights that equal treatment of social groups is only demanded when a group and society (or an organization) have become aware that the respective group is to be treated equally. In this sense, it remains to be hoped for the future that conflicts and disputes – as an indicator of an increased awareness for discrimination processes – around the diverse socio-demographic character of the scientific workforce will continue to increase in the future.

Funding Note

The present contribution is not related to externally funded research.

Potential guidelines concerning the assessment of diversity initiatives: J. Marquis, N. Lim, L. Scott, C. Harrell, and J. Kavanagh (2008) , [online] Rand.org. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2007/RAND_OP206.pdf accessed 10 February 2022. Guidance on measuring socio-demographic characteristics: J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik and U. Warner, Measuring Ethnicity in Cross-National Comparative Survey Research; GESIS-Schriftenreihe Band 4 (Bonn: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 2010); J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik and U. Warner, Measuring Occupation and Labour Status in Crossnational Comparative Surveys ; GESIS-Schriftenreihe Band 7 (Bonn: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 2011). Guidance on measuring diversity and inclusion: K. April and E. Blass, Measuring Diversity Practice and Developing Inclusion (2010). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kurt-April/publication/228668437_Measuring_Diversity_Practice_and_Developing_Inclusion/links/0a85e534e003f59ba3000000/Measuring-Diversity-Practice-and-Developing-Inclusion.pdf , accessed 10 February 2022.; S. Thompson, “Defining and measuring ‘inclusion’ within an organization”, K4D Helpdesk Report (Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, 2017).

At the same time, the units of analysis should not be chosen too finely. Data protection requirements are crucial here. The data collected and reported regularly must not allow drawing any personal conclusions, i.e., the identification of a respondent based on the data shared by him or her (which can quickly become the case, especially for research organizations with a three-digit or lower number of employees). Furthermore, when surveying the work climate, opinions and experiences of employees, valid results can only be expected if “shaming” is excluded. The results should not be used to compare individual teams or groups to identify high- or low-performers.

See for example the GEAM Tool: “The Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) tool is an integrated environment for carrying out survey-based gender equality audits in academic organizations or organizational units”, https://act-on-gender.eu/nes/gender-equality-audit-and-monitoring-geam-tool accessed 15 March 2022. For another example, see the Immunity to Change Tool, which helps people identify and subsequently alter “competing commitments” that conflict with change (e.g. a change in the gender composition of research spaces), https://www.gse.harvard.edu/hgse100/story/changing-better , accessed 16 March 2022.

Organizational interventions such as diversity measures or data collection in the context of such measures are naturally questioned by organizational members. Organizational members interpret such measures based on how they perceive their organization. These assessments can tend to be positive or negative, which is why proactive communication management in relation to diversity policies is important. For a detailed discussion of the causes and effects of diversity resistance, see Thomas (2020) .

Of course, visibility per se is insufficient and adverse effects can be observed where there is a discrepancy between managerial discourse (including against discrimination and/or workplace bullying) and organizational practice (see inter alia: Clasches, 2019; Bereni, 2020 ; Vandevelde-Rougale, 2016 ).

With the emergence of professional research management, the status of faculty changes from autonomous members of their respective scientific profession to employees of the respective university or research institution, as Gerber (2014) states for the United States. In the European research area, the emergence of the professional group of research managers has been accelerated by the Bologna reform (to harmonize the system of higher education teaching across Europe) and the increased importance of third-party funding for research financing, as a result of which universities have been increasingly entrusted with management tasks ( WR, 2018 : 85).

The influence of nationality presents a more complex picture, for which an obvious explanation is that nationality groups are attributed different statuses and possibly also different stereotypes.

For us, this means considering the complexity of identities and that, e.g., two positive linear effects do not necessarily add up to each other. It also means taking into account “power domains” and “power vectors” ( Bilge, 2013 ).

Bereni, 2020 Bereni , L. , “La diversité, ruse ou dévoiement de l’égalité?” , L’Observatoire , 56 ( 2020 ): 30 – 32 .

Bilge, 2013 Bilge , S. , “Intersectionality undone. Saving intersectionality from feminist intersectionality studies” , Du Bois Review , 10 no. 2 ( 2013 ): 405 – 424 .

Block, Gray, and Holborow, 2012 Block , D. , J. Gray , and M. Holborow , Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics ( New York : Routledge , 2012) .

Cacace, 2009 Cacace , M. , “Guidelines for Gender Equality Programmes in Science: Prages - Practising Gender Equality in Science” ( Rome : Ministry for Economy and Finance , 2009 ).

Chang, Milkman, Gromet, Rebele, Massey, Duckworth, and Grant, 2019 Chang , E.H. , K.L. Milkman , D.M. Gromet , R.W. Rebele , C. Massey , A.L. Duckworth , and A.M. Grant , “The mixed effects of online diversity training” , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 116 no. 16 ( 2019 ): 7778 – 7783 .

Clasches, 2019 Clasches , “Retourner l’arme du droit. Contre le harcèlement sexuel dans l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche” , Travail, genre et sociétés , 42 ( 2019 ): 191 – 194 .

Daley, Travis, and Shaffer, 2018 Daley , L.P. , D.J. Travis , and E.S. Shaffer , “Sexual harassment in the workplace: how companies can prepare, prevent, respond, and transform their culture” ( Catalyst , 2018 ).

European Commission, 2008 European Commission , “Benchmarking policy measures for gender equality in science” (Updated 2008 ). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/benchmarking-policy-measures_en.pdf accessed 23 October 2017.

Feldblum, and Lipnic, 2021 Feldblum , C.R. and V.A. Lipnic , “Select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace | U.S. equal employment opportunity commission” ( 2021 ). Available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/select-task-force-study-harassment-workplace accessed 14 December 2021.

Gerber, 2014 Gerber , L.G. , The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance: Professionalization and the Modern American University ( Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press , 2014) .

Hinze, 2004 Hinze , S.W. , “‘Am I being over-sensitive?’ Women’s experience of sexual harassment during medical training” , Health , 8 no. 1 ( 2004 ): 101 – 127 .

Hobman, Bordia, and Gallois, 2004 Hobman , E.V. , P. Bordia , and C. Gallois , “Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement” , Group & Organization Management , 29 no. 5 ( 2004 ): 560 – 587 .

Hodgins, and McNamara, 2021 Hodgins , M. and P.M. McNamara , “The Neoliberal University in Ireland: institutional bullying by another name?” , Societies , 11 no. 2 ( 2021 ): 52 .

Joshi, and Knight, 2015 Joshi , A. and A.P. Knight , “Who defers to whom and why? dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness” , Academy of Management Journal , 58 no. 1 ( 2015 ): 59 – 84 .

Kalpazidou Schmidt, and Cacace, 2017 Kalpazidou Schmidt , E. and M. Cacace , “Addressing gender inequality in science: the multifaceted challenge of assessing impact” , Research Evaluation , 26 ( 2017 ): 1 – 13 .

Kolboske, 2021 Kolboske , B. , “Hierarchies. Lotta support, little science? scientists and secretaries in the Max Planck Society” , in Fundamental Questions: Gender Dimensions in Max Planck Research Projects , 1st ed., Eds U. Weber ( Baden-Baden : Nomos , 2021 ): 105 – 134 .

Mafaalani, 2018 Mafaalani , A. el, Das Integrationsparadox: Warum gelungene Integration zu mehr Konflikten führt [The integration paradox: Why successful integration leads to more conflict.] , 2nd ed. ( Cologne : Kiepenheuer & Witsch , 2018 ).

Marquis, Lim, Scott, Harrell, and Kavanagh, 2008 Marquis , J.P. , N. Lim , L.M. Scott , C.H. Harrell , and J. Kavanagh , Managing diversity in corporate America – an exploratory analysis ( RAND Corporation , 2008 ). Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2007/RAND_OP206.pdf

Matthies, and Zimmermann, 2010 Matthies , H. and K. Zimmermann , “Gender equality in the research system [Gleichstellung in Der Wissenschaft]” , in Handbook Science Policy [Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik] , Eds D. Simon , A. Knie , and S. Hornbostel ( Wiesbaden : VS Verlag , 2010 ): 193 – 209 .

Mayntz, 2010 Mayntz , R. , “Legitimacy and compliance in transnational governance” , MPIfG Working Paper, No. 10/5 ( Cologne : Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies , 2010 ).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine , Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ( Washington, DC : The National Academies Press , 2018) .

Nature Editorial, 2021 Nature Editorial , “COVID is amplifying the inadequacy of research-evaluation processes” , Nature , 591 no. 7 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00527-9

Nielsen, Bloch, and Schiebinger, 2018 Nielsen , M.W. , C.W. Bloch , and L. Schiebinger , “Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation” , Nature Human Behaviour , 2 ( 2018 ): 726 – 734 .

OECD, 2018 OECD , “Gender in a changing context for STI” , in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018 Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption , Ed. OECD, OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook ( Paris : OECD Publishing , 2018 ): 163 – 284 .

Palmén, Schmidt, Striebing, Reidl, Bührer, and Groó, 2019 Palmén , R. , E.K. Schmidt , C. Striebing , S. Reidl , S. Bührer , and D. Groó , “Measuring gender in R&I – theories, methods, and experience” , Interdisciplinary Science Reviews , 44 no. 2 ( 2019 ): 154 – 165 .

Sørensen, and Traweek, 2021 Sørensen , K.H. and S. Traweek , Questing Excellence in Academia ( London : Routledge , 2021) .

Squazzoni, Bravo, Grimaldo, García-Costa, Farjam, and Mehmani, 2021 Squazzoni , F. , G. Bravo , F. Grimaldo , D. García-Costa , M. Farjam , and B. Mehmani , “Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals” , PLOS ONE 16 , no. 10 ( 2021 ).

Thomas, 2020 Thomas , K.M. , Diversity Resistance in Organizations ( New York : Routledge , 2020) .

van den Brink, and Benschop, 2012 van den Brink , M. and Y. Benschop , “Slaying the seven-headed dragon: the quest for gender change in academia” , Gender, Work and Organization , 19 no. 1 ( 2012 ): 71 – 92 .

van Dick, van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, and Brodbeck, 2008 van Dick , R. , D. van Knippenberg , S. Hägele , Y.R.F. Guillaume , and F.C. Brodbeck , “Group diversity and group identification: the moderating role of diversity beliefs” , Human Relations , 61 no. 10 ( 2008 ): 1463 – 1492 .

Vandevelde-Rougale, 2016 Vandevelde-Rougale , A. , “Discours managérial, lissage de la parole et vacillement du rapport au langage: l’empêchement de l’expression subjective des émotions” , Langage et Société , 158 ( 2016 ): 35 – 50 .

Wang, and Barabási, 2021 Wang , D. and A.-L. Barabási , Eds, The Science of Science ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2021) .

Westhues, 2021 Westhues , K. , “Three stories and five questions arising from research on academic mobbing1” , Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung , 1–2 ( 2021 ): 118 – 127 .

WR (German Research Council), 2018 WR (German Research Council) , Empfehlungen zur Hochschulgovernance (Recommendations on university governance). Print 7328-18 ( 2018 ). Available at: https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/7328-18.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=15 accessed on 13 August 2020.

Book Chapters

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• About Mild TBI and Concussion
• After a Mild TBI or Concussion
• Health Disparities in TBI
• Comparing Head Impacts
• Clinical Guidance
• Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Management Guideline
• Resources for Health Care Providers

Traumatic Brain Injury & Concussion

About Moderate and Severe TBI

Preventing TBI

Symptoms of Mild TBI and Concussion

Where to Get Help

Facts About TBI

For Medical Professionals

Clinical Guidance for Pediatric mTBI

Health Care Provider Resources

CDC Programs

HEADS UP Online Training Courses

National Concussion Surveillance System

Core State Injury Prevention Program (Core SIPP)

A traumatic brain injury, or TBI, is an injury that affects how the brain works. TBI is a major cause of death and disability in the United States.

For Everyone

Health care providers.