![]() That is not true: the Supreme Court in City of Richmond v. ![]() Some assume that the intentional use of race should be carefully scrutinized only when the intent is to harm a group or an individual defined by race, color, or national origin. While discriminatory intent need not be the only motive, a violation occurs when the evidence shows that the entity adopted a policy at issue “‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Pers. Generally, intentional discrimination occurs when the recipient acted, at least in part, because of the actual or perceived race, color, or national origin of the alleged victims of discriminatory treatment. proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment.”). Because the Title VI statutory prohibition on discrimination is based on the Equal Protection Clause, t he constitutional analysis of intentional discrimination should be applied under Title VI. The elements of a Title VI intent claim derive from and are similar to the analysis of cases decided under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Rather, an agency has discretion to gather and evaluate all relevant evidence as part of its initial investigation, or may choose to make a preliminary prima facie finding then require recipients to articulate defenses.Ĭourts have developed a number of analytical frameworks for assessing intent claims. An agency need not use the same sequential process as courts, where a plaintiff first offers prima facie evidence and the defendant then offers rebuttal evidence. Investigating agencies can look to case law for guidance on proving intentional discrimination, but are not bound by case law concerning burden shifting between plaintiff and defendant (that is, as between a complainant and a recipient). The burden-shifting framework may nevertheless serve as a useful paradigm for organizing and analyzing the evidence. Under this model, agencies do not “shift the evidentiary burdens” between complainant and recipient when making findings. Those standards may not always apply to agency investigations, which often follow a non-adversarial model in which the agency collects all relevant evidence and then determines whether the evidence establishes discrimination. Much of the discussion in this section relies on judicial precedent developed in private plaintiffs’ intent claims for damages, and therefore focuses on standards applied in that context. This section provides an overview of the types of evidence necessary to prove intentional discrimination under Title VI. Private parties may also file administrative complaints with federal agencies alleging that a recipient of the agency’s federal financial assistance has engaged in intentional discrimination the federal agency providing the assistance may investigate these complaints. Private parties seeking judicial enforcement of Title VI’s nondiscrimination protections must prove intentional discrimination. § 42.104(b) (Department of Justice regulations). Agency regulations implementing Title VI also prohibit intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, covering any disposition, service, financial aid, or other benefits provided under the recipient’s program, the determination of the site or location of facilities, or other aspects of program operations. A Title VI discriminatory intent claim alleges that a recipient intentionally treated persons differently or otherwise knowingly caused them harm because of their race, color, or national origin. Toward that end, Title VI bars intentional discrimination. The purpose of Title VI is simple: to ensure that public funds are not spent in a way that encourages, subsidizes, or results in discrimination on these bases. ![]() Title VI prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin …under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. Intentional Discrimination by a Third Party Proof of Systemic or Widespread Discrimination (Pattern or Practice) Other Issues Affecting Title VI Cases Involving Intent S ECTION VI: P ROVING D ISCRIMINATION – I NTENTIONAL D ISCRIMINATION Please click here to see the complete revised Manual. This is just a section of the larger revised Title VI Legal Manual.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |