Appendices

Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?

During the 1990s, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued numerous enforcement reports evaluating the operations of most major federal civil rights enforcement agencies. The Commission's reports examined these agencies efforts to address a wide range of civil rights issues, including nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity in employment, education, housing, health care, and transportation in federally assisted programs; among state and local government agencies; and in the private sector. Each report is described below.

From the perspective of Asian Pacific Americans, the issues this study examined included hate crimes, police-community relations, educational opportunity from the primary through the university level, employment discrimination as exemplified by the glass ceiling, accessibility to health care, and religious accommodation. Recommendations called for the Department of Justice to promote understanding for Asian Pacific Americans, for police departments to hire interpreters to assist individuals in the communities with limited English skills, and for federal and state agencies to aggressively enforce antidiscrimination concerning noncredible job requirements that result in a dearth of promotions for Asian Pacific Americans.

Prospects and Impact of Losing State and Local Agencies from the Federal Fair Housing System (September 1992)

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) provided a much-needed stronger enforcement mechanism for combating housing discrimination (which is studied in a later Commission report) and preserved an existing state and local government partnership in enforcement efforts. Under this partnership, state and local agencies process complaints of discrimination filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when the state or local law has been established to provide rights and remedies substantially equivalent to those of the federal housing laws. Because the 1988 amendments also expanded coverage to people with disabilities and to families with children, state and local agencies had to become recertified as substantially equivalent under this broader coverage to continue handling complaints. This report focused on the progress of state and local agencies in gaining certification under the new law, and the consequences if many agencies failed to be certified. When the 1988 law was enacted, 122 agencies were participating in the federal fair housing system.

The report found that by 1992, only 14 agencies had substantially equivalent status and no agencies had been fully certified. Many agencies simply would not be able to meet the substantial equivalency requirements by the statutory deadline and would drop out of the federal system. As a result, HUD would not be able to enforce the FHAA effectively.

In its recommendations, the Commission asked HUD to (1) develop a management plan ensuring that adequate resources and staff were available to process fair housing complaints if a large number of state and local agencies were not certified by the deadline; (2) clearly define substantially equivalent, and provide uniform written guidelines on the certification process, to assist agencies in attaining substantial equivalency; and (3) negotiate memoranda of understanding concerning civil rights enforcement activities with state and local agencies not in the federal fair housing system.

Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic Opportunity Laws and Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects (January 1993)

This report monitored civil rights enforcement at the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Labor (DOL) relative to federally assisted funds for a national intermodal transportation system. It evaluated the effectiveness of DOT and its operating administration, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and DOL's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in conducting compliance reviews and investigations pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and DOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program.

The report cited critical failings by the Department of Transportation in enforcing civil rights programs under Title VI, the DBE program, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It concluded that DOT's Title VI enforcement lacked leadership and direction. Civil rights enforcement was neither a top priority nor an integral part of the Department's primary mission planning. In addition, DOT's Office of Civil Rights did not have procedures to ensure that the operating administrations were implementing effective DBE programs. The Commission recommended that (1) DOT immediately and vigorously enforce Title VI and other civil rights laws; (2) the Secretary of Transportation assist its modal administrations in establishing effective civil rights enforcement programs; (3) DOL/OFCCP seek greater community involvement in selecting companies for civil rights reviews; and (4) DOT and DOL coordinate compliance reviews.

In response to complaints from federal employees that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) regulations for filing claims of discrimination were too complex and bureaucratic, the Commission examined the Federal Employees Fairness Act and the Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity regulations.[1] Significant deficiencies were found within the established procedures.

The report cited four concerns about EEOC's methods of handling federal employees complaints: complexity in the system, serious delays in resolving complaints, inherent conflicts of interest between adjudicating complaints and having the respondent agencies largely control the investigation, and inadequate sanctions for violators. In addition, the Commission concluded that the 45-day period in which federal employees were required to report acts of discrimination was too short.

The Commission asked EEOC to increase the filing period for claims and establish better communication between the appropriate agencies and the EEOC. Other recommendations asked Congress to increase EEOC funding, increase sanctions for agencies in noncompliance with EEOC requirements, and authorize the EEOC to file a commissioner's charge if an agency was found to discriminate. The Commission asked the President to issue an executive order to hold heads of federal agencies accountable for enforcing the equal employment opportunity laws.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The Enforcement Report (September 1994)

The passage of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) required the Department of Housing and Urban Development to change its enforcement procedures from resolving complaints through conciliation and voluntary resolution to emphasizing administrative enforcement. It also granted HUD the power to file complaints at the Secretary's determination and gave the Department legal tools, such as subpoena power, that it had been lacking. In response, HUD staff had to develop cases that could now withstand judicial scrutiny; overhaul the complaint processing system; develop policy for the newly covered bases of disability and family status; and expand coordination with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the enforcement of the new law.

The Commission's report evaluated (1) the levels of funding needed for proper enforcement of this statute; (2) HUD's guidelines for the Fair Housing Amendments Act and fair housing programs; (3) HUD's policies for remediating discrimination in public housing; (4) coordination between HUD, DOJ, and private fair housing organizations and civil rights advocacy groups in enforcing the law; and (5) DOJ's policies with respect to disparate impact theory, certification for state and local housing agencies as substantially equivalent, race-conscious methods of fostering housing integration, land-use cases, and settlements.

The report found that HUD had failed to aggressively enforce the new law, partly due to insufficient resources provided by Congress and the President and partly due to internal shortcomings. In particular, HUD lacked a systemic approach to processing complaints that would ensure timely, consistent management of complaints across regions.

Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs (June 1996)

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes nondiscrimination requirements on all recipients of federal funding. This report assessed the Department of Justice's oversight and coordination of Title VI implementation and examined the efforts of 10 of the then roughly 27 federal agencies responsible for enforcing the law.

The report's findings included (1) DOJ had neglected its responsibility to ensure nondiscrimination in all federally funded programs and activities; (2) federal agencies Title VI enforcement programs generally were understaffed and poorly coordinated, and deficiencies had persisted for 20 years; (3) federal agencies had made no effort to formally codify Congress conclusive definition of covered programs and activities in the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987; (4) federal agencies had failed to oversee and monitor state agencies to determine whether state enforcement activities ensured compliance among their subrecipients; and (5) DOJ and federal agencies generally failed to develop regulations, guidelines, and policies for civil rights implementation and enforcement procedures. However, the Commission found areas in which Title VI obligations were satisfactorily addressed by, among others the Department of Education.

The Commission recommended that (1) federal agencies, Congress, and the President reinvigorate Title VI enforcement programs; (2) DOJ show leadership in assisting federal agencies in civil rights enforcement; and (3) federal agencies adopt proactive Title VI enforcement methods, including developing oversight mechanisms for state recipients.

The Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume I, describes the history of the federal presence in education and provides a brief overview of the Department of Education's (DOEd) organizational structure. The report evaluated the Office of Civil Rights history, performance, regulations, policies, and activities and set the stage for four other education reports examining specific issues.

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces statutes that prohibit discrimination, including on the bases of gender and disability, in federally funded education programs, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. OCR's implementation and enforcement activities for these statutes include developing and disseminating civil rights policy, investigating complaints alleging discrimination by recipients of the Department of Education's financial assistance, and initiating enforcement actions against recipients who refuse to voluntarily comply with civil rights requirements.

The Commission's report gave DOEd a good overall rating. OCR's civil rights enforcement program is well developed and can serve as a model to other civil rights agencies. At the same time, the report made recommendations to enhance enforcement in the areas of planning; regulations; guidance, particularly to regional staff; data reported on national origin; coordinating and integrating civil rights enforcement into DOEd program offices; requiring funding recipients to conduct self-evaluations of their civil rights compliance; and involving program beneficiaries and advocacy groups in enforcement. The report also recommended increases in the budget, staffing, and training for OCR to fulfill its duties and responsibilities.

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement of Section 504, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume II (September 1997)

In this report the Commission examined the efforts of the Department of Education and its Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which mandates that equal educational opportunities be provided to students with disabilities. Issues related to the development of individualized education programs and the placement of students with disabilities were the focus.

In analyzing OCR's efforts to implement, ensure compliance with, and enforce Section 504 in public elementary and secondary education, the Commission found that the agency's performance was exemplary overall. However, the agency could improve enforcement, for example, by (1) updating its Section 504 regulations to use contemporary disability language; (2) issuing policy guidance on discrimination with regard to issues such as the denial of free appropriate public education, the use of technological devices in the special education classroom, and extracurricular activities for students with disabilities; and (3) collecting and disseminating more data on students with disabilities.

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Limited English Proficiency: Federal Enforcement of Title VI and Lau v. Nichols, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume III (November 1997)

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1974 decision in Lau v. Nichols provide for nondiscrimination and equal educational opportunity for national origin minority students with limited English proficiency. The third report in the education series examined the efforts of the Department of Education and its Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to implement, ensure compliance with, and enforce Title VI and Lau v. Nichols in public elementary and secondary education.

The Commission found that OCR generally operated a highly developed Title VI/Lau civil rights enforcement program but that some improvements were needed. OCR must develop more mechanisms to (1) determine the number of limited-English-proficient minority students; (2) prevent limited-English-proficient students from being placed in special education programs based only on their English skills; and (3) ensure that language barriers do not prevent them from participating in gifted and talented programs, advanced courses, or other opportunities for education and advancement.

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Minority Students: Federal Enforcement of Title VI in Ability Grouping Practices, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume IV (September 1999)

This report evaluated the efforts of the Department of Education and its Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in public elementary and secondary education programs with respect to ability grouping and tracking as well as participation in advanced courses and gifted and talented programs. The Commission identified five major principles that affect equal access to a quality education. Education programs should (1) be structured to serve a diverse student population with periodic reevaluations and regroupings of students to reflect differential ability in various subjects and changes in achievement and performance; (2) use neutral and nondiscriminatory screening and diagnostic procedures when placing students in programs; (3) facilitate and encourage the involvement of parents and communities in their children's education; (4) allocate good teachers, counselors, facilities, and other resources equitably among classes of students with high and low ability; and (5) use innovative approaches to eliminate barriers to educational opportunities and to maximize each student s potential.

The Commission found that DOEd's OCR had made ensuring nondiscrimination in ability grouping and tracking a priority issue in its strategic plan. However, OCR's enforcement program had deficiencies, particularly in the issuance of policy guidance. It failed to issue formal or final policy guidance on Title VI enforcement with respect to ability grouping and tracking. The Commission recommended that OCR (1) investigate and vigorously monitor how schools implement ability grouping; (2) strengthen and improve its technical assistance, outreach, and education programs to provide guidance on ways to implement the Commission's five principles; (3) require state and local education agencies to develop accountability systems to monitor and ensure that all school personnel understand and apply these principles; (4) work with school administrators and public universities to develop partnerships in their communities supporting efforts to provide equal educational opportunities to all students; and (5) incorporate the five principles in and update and formalize Title VI policy guidance, procedures, and technical assistance documents.

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Girls in Advanced Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education: Federal Enforcement of Title IX, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume V (July 2000)

The Commission examined the Department of Education s enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits exclusion from, denial of the benefits of, or discrimination under federally assisted education programs based on an individual's sex. It looked at Title IX from a policy perspective to determine what measures ensure that women and girls have educational opportunities in math, science, and technology programs, providing equal access to fields that have been traditionally dominated by men.

The Commission's evaluation found that Title IX has increased women's access to mathematics, science, and technology education over the last 30 years. However, disparities persist, and DOEd's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has had a mixed record in Title IX compliance and enforcement activities. OCR has tried to ensure that schools do not discriminate against girls in math and science classes, but could strengthen its program by coordinating activities with other program offices within and outside the Department, and with educators, parents, and community groups; by conducting comprehensive research on the representation of girls in all levels of math and science courses and other issues; and by improving its Title IX enforcement activities, including collecting data to target schools for compliance reviews and technical assistance, increasing compliance reviews and investigations, and issuing more policy guidance. Finally, the report called for a greater commitment from the Department and OCR to address gender equality in education.

Helping Employers Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of How the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Is Enforcing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (September 1998)

In this report on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Commission focused on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's efforts to enforce Title I, which prohibits discrimination based on disability in employment. The report evaluates EEOC's regulations and policies clarifying the language of the statute; the processing of charges of discrimination based on disability; Title I-related litigation activities; and outreach, education, and technical assistance efforts.

The Commission found that EEOC had developed a credible enforcement program to implement the act but that its efforts could be more effective in some areas. The Commission recommended that EEOC (1) involve affected communities in developing policy and in its decision-making processes; (2) provide technical assistance, education and outreach to ensure that employers understand their obligations under the law and that individuals with disabilities understand and are able to exercise their rights under the act; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of its ADA charge processing and enforcement activities; and (4) form partnerships with other federal agencies, community organizations and advocacy groups, and employers, to promote understanding of and support for the ADA.

Helping State and Local Governments Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of How the United States Department of Justice is Enforcing Title II, Subpart A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act (September 1998)

This study focused on the efforts of the Department of Justice to enforce Title II, Subpart A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities such as state and local governments. The report evaluates DOJ's regulations and policies clarifying the language of the statute; the processing of complaints based on disability; litigation; and outreach, education, and technical assistance efforts relating to the act. It examines the development, resources, and enforcement efforts of the Disability Rights Section (DRS), the DOJ office with coordination and oversight responsibility over the seven other agencies that enforce Title II. The Commission commended DRS, as a newly created office, for its implementation of the act, particularly in the areas of education and outreach.

The Commission urged DOJ to provide adequate resources to DRS to increase its staff, particularly the number of investigators and litigators; to support and improve monitoring of designated ADA federal agencies, and to develop and publish policy guidance to explain the law and help state and local entities carry out their responsibilities under the law. The Commission reiterated its support for the full implementation of the ADA, urged that DOJ vigorously enforce the law, and stressed the importance of its coverage and implementation in the public sector.

The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Volume I: The Role of Governmental and Private Health Care Programs and Initiatives (September 1999)

In 1999, the Commission published a two-volume report on health care disparities. Volume I, The Role of Governmental and Private Health Care Programs and Initiatives, examines racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in health status, health research, access to health services, and health care financing. The Commission found many health care initiatives implemented at the federal, state, and local levels aimed toward eliminating disparities and improving the health status of traditionally underserved groups. Nonetheless, discrimination in the health care system continues to manifest itself in many ways, including: differential delivery of health care services based on race, ethnicity, and gender; inability to access health care because of lack of financial resources, culturally incompetent providers, language barriers, and the unavailability of services; and exclusion of women and people of color from health-related research.

The Commission's recommendations were directed throughout the government. Congress and the President must allocate funds to close the health care financing gap the gap between qualifying for existing public assistance programs and being able to afford private health insurance. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must include the perspectives of women and people of color in developing the health care agenda and ensure that civil rights objectives are integrated into all health care initiatives. The HHS Office for Civil Rights and offices of women's and minority health should ensure that the agency and its funding recipients consider socio-cultural contexts of individuals lives when designing and reviewing health programs. HHS must also enforce the mandated inclusion of females and people of color in health-related research, both as funding recipients for, and participants in, research. Finally, health care programs must be implemented at the community level in conjunction with community-based organizations that serve women and people of color.

The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Volume II: The Role of Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Efforts (September 1999)

Volume II of the health care report, The Role of Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Efforts, looked at the civil rights enforcement activities of the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and their impact in ensuring equal quality health care. It examined how OCR meets its mandates to implement and enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; the Hill-Burton Act of 1946, which provided federal grants for the constructions of hospitals and other health care facilities; and the nondiscrimination provisions of the community block grant programs.

The report found that OCR needed to improve its enforcement activities in all areas. The Commission recommended an overall restructuring of OCR, staff training to fulfill civil rights enforcement responsibilities, and more effective civil rights enforcement activities. It also recommended that the President, Congress, and the Secretary of HHS allocate more funding for civil rights enforcement because inadequate funding contributed to deficiencies.

Overcoming the Past, Focusing on the Future: An Assessment of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Enforcement Efforts (September 2000)

In September 2000, the Commission released a report on civil rights enforcement of nondiscrimination in employment. It discusses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's enforcement efforts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights statutes in the private sector and evaluates the agency's progress in reducing its complaint backlog, processing charges of discrimination more efficiently and selectively, and improving customer service between 1995 and 2000.

The report determined that EEOC should conduct an internal reassessment of expenditures to identify program areas where funds should be focused. Areas needing improvement were (1) the involvement of advocacy groups and community organizations in policy development; (2) attention to recent developments in regulatory guidelines; (3) customer service, particularly assistance for charging parties and outreach to both charging parties and complaint respondents; and (4) EEOC's relationship with state, local, and tribal employment rights agencies. EEOC was lauded and encouraged to continue expeditiously resolving as many charges as possible. Likewise, EEOC's internal enforcement activities review program was cited as an effort worthy of continuation. The Commission recommended that EEOC (1) expand working relationships with other federal as well as state and local agencies; (2) continue its efforts to reach out to people of color to ensure that they understand their rights under fair employment laws; (3) increase the development of regulatory guidelines; and (4) contact and interact with the public more.

The federal government has sought to uphold individual and group civil rights by establishing laws guaranteeing and protecting these rights. A brief overview of statutes relevant to this study is given below.

On July 2, 1964, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[2] characterized as the most comprehensive civil rights legislation since the post-Civil War era.[3] The Civil Rights Act represented Congress response to growing public demand for equality for Americans of all races and embodied significant civil rights provisions aimed at eradicating racial discrimination. Title II of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations;[4] Title III forbids segregation in public facilities;[5] Title IV proscribes segregation in public schools;[6] Title VI prohibits discrimination in all federally funded programs and activities;[7] Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;[8] and Title VIII prohibits discrimination in housing.[9] Together, these provisions promote equality of opportunity in virtually all areas of our national life.

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs Title VI of The Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Restoration Act

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act ensures that public funds are not used to further racial discrimination in federal programs or activities but is designed to eradicate racial and ethnic discrimination in such programs and activities, not to penalize the recipients of federal funds who administer the programs.[10] It provides that:

Congress intended Title VI to cover a broad range of activities, including programs for schools, highways, hospital construction, farm price supports, depressed areas, housing, urban renewal, vocational education, ship and airline subsidies, disaster relief, civilian defense, school lunches, and public health. [12] It is the broadest instrument available for the nationwide elimination of invidious discrimination and the effects of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.[13] In 2001, Title VI applied to approximately 63 federal agencies that administer nearly 1,500 programs and annually distribute more than $1.8 trillion in federal financial assistance.[14]

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987[15] was passed to reaffirm and clarify the definition of programs or activities covered by the nondiscrimination provisions of civil rights statutes after a Supreme Court decision limited their coverage. The act ensures the broad, institutionwide application of Title VI and other civil rights statutes by stating that discrimination is prohibited throughout an entire agency or institution, if any part of that agency or institution received federal financial assistance.[16]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces equal employment laws. Its responsibilities arise from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[17] as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972;[18] the Equal Pay Act of 1963;[19] the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;[20] the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;[21] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;[22] and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.[23]

The Civil Rights Act includes Title VII, which protects people from discrimination in employment. It says:

Historically, men have earned more than women, even when performing the same jobs. The Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938[25] to provide equal pay for men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment.[26]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not cover older Americans. In fact, little could be done to combat age discrimination before the enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).[27] The ADEA prohibits discrimination against employees or job applicants 40 years of age or older. It applies to employers with 20 or more employees, labor organizations affecting commerce with 25 or more members, employment agencies serving at least one covered employer, and federal, state, and local governments.[28]

The Department of Housing and Urban Development enforces fair housing under many laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;[29] Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as the Fair Housing Act);[30] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;[31] the Age Discrimination Act of 1975;[32] Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;[33] the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988;[34] and others.[35] The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 are discussed below.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned discrimination in most housing transactions. Title VIII prohibits discrimination, on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin, and by amendment in 1974, on the basis of sex,[36] in the sale or rental of a dwelling,[37] including the negotiation of terms, conditions, or privileges, and in the provision of services or facilities.[38] It enables HUD to investigate and conciliate complaints of housing discrimination. It also allows state and local agencies to process individual complaints filed with HUD where the Secretary determines that the state or local law provides rights and remedies substantially equivalent to those provided by Title VIII.

To eliminate housing discrimination, Title VIII relied heavily on conciliation and voluntary compliance and lacked an effective enforcement mechanism. In response to concerns raised by fair housing advocacy groups and HUD itself, Congress rewrote the Fair Housing Act and, in 1988, passed the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA).[39] The FHAA established an administrative mechanism for enforcing the law, which could result in the award of damages and civil penalties for complaints filed with HUD and tried by an administrative judge. The FHAA also extends the provisions of the Fair Housing Act to individuals with disabilities and families with children.

Equal educational opportunity is brought about through the Department of Education's enforcement of various statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[40] the Equal Educational Opportunities Act,[41] Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,[42] the Women's Educational Equity Act of 1974,[43] the Age Discrimination Act of 1975,[44] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,[45] Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,[46] and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).[47]

The Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 (also known as the Equal Educational Opportunities Act) prohibits the segregation of students based on race, color, or national origin. The act also prohibits discrimination against faculty and staff and requires school districts to provide students with limited English proficiency an equal opportunity to participate in education programs.[48] Under Section 1703(f) of the act, school districts are required to take appropriate action to rectify language barriers that impede students ability to participate effectively in the schools education programs.[49]

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972[50] prohibits exclusion from, denial of the benefits of, or discrimination under federally assisted education programs because of a person's sex.[51] Title IX and its implementing regulations have offered a means for women to gain equal access to classes, activities, and education services. The regulations implementing Title IX outline criteria for what constitutes compliance with Title IX and, thus, nondiscrimination under the law.[52]

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[53] guarantees a free, appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country. [54] IDEA's other goals are to improve the identification and education of children with disabilities, evaluate the success of these efforts, and provide due process protections for children [with disabilities] and their families. [55] IDEA also mandates that students be provided culturally relevant instruction within mainstream environments. At the heart of IDEA are two programs. One aims to identify and meet the unique needs of each infant and toddler with a disability and his or her family. [56] The other ensures that education programs are geared to students individual needs[57] and requires funding recipients to develop procedures to assist students in transitioning into independent adult living. Financial incentives encourage states and localities to meet these objectives and comply with IDEA.[58]

Protections for people with disabilities are provided through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The last of these was described above.

In addition to IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[59] has had profound impact on the education of children with disabilities. Section 504 prohibits exclusion from participation in, denial of the benefits of, or discrimination under any federally assisted program or activity because of a person's disability.[60]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 helped establish protections for individuals with physical and/or mental limitations.[61] Its most powerful clauses, Titles I, II, and III, ensure that people with disabilities are not discriminated against in employment, public services, or public accommodations, respectively. The Commission's Office of Civil Rights Evaluation has only studied enforcement of Titles I and II.

The ban on discrimination in Title I applies to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. [62] It protects qualified individuals with a disability, where qualified is defined as an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position. . . . [63] Title I places a responsibility on employers to make reasonable accommodations necessary for a qualified individual with a disability to perform the job.

Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person s disability in all services, programs, and activities provided or made available by state and local governments or any of their instrumentalities or agencies.[64]

Protection against age discrimination is provided through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,[65] which was discussed above, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.[66] The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on account of age in any program or activity receiving federal funds. However, exclusions are permissible when a specific age requirement is established by law or differentiation is made based upon reasonable factors other than age. [67]

Appendix C Checklist for Evaluating Federal Agencies Civil Rights Enforcement

Accountability and Oversight of the Enforcement Program Throughout the Agency

[1] 29 C.F.R. 1613 1614.

[2] Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).

[3] See John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, Jr., From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1994), pp. 220 46.

[4] 42 U.S.C. 2000a (2002).

[5] Id. 2000b.

[6] Id. 2000c.

[7] Id. 2000d.

[8] Id. 2000e.

[9] Id. 3604.

[10] 110 Cong. Rec. 6544 (1964) (statement of Senator Humphrey).

[11] 42 U.S.C. 2000d (2002).

[12] Bureau of National Affairs, Operational Manual: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1964), p. 93.

[13] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort 1974: To Extend Federal Financial Assistance, vol. 6, November 1975, p. 3.

[14] See U.S. General Services Administration and Office of Management and Budget, 2001 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 2001, p. 6-01, and U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, Federal, State, and Local Governments, Federal Assistance Award Data System, 2001 1st Quarter Summary Table, 2001 2nd Quarter Summary Table, 2001 3rd Quarter Summary Table, and 2001 4th Quarter Summary Table, <www.census.gov/govs/faads>. Note that federal assistance has grown considerably. The Commission's 1996 report stated that Title VI applied to 27 federal agencies and more than 1,000 assisted programs, with the agencies distributing approximately $900 billion in assistance. USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996, p. 12.

[15] Pub. L. No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 1681 note, 1687, 1687 note, 1688, 1688 note (2002); 29 U.S.C. 706, 794 (2002); 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a, 6107 (2002)).

[16] 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a (2002). See also U.S. Congress Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, 100th Cong., 2d sess. S. Rep. No. 64, pp. 1, 4, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 6.

[17] 42 U.S.C. 2000e 2000e-17 (2002).

[18] Id. 2000e-16.

[19] 29 U.S.C. 206 (2002).

[20] Id. 621 634.

[21] 42 U.S.C. 12101 12213 (2002).

[22] 29 U.S.C. 701 796i (2002).

[23] 42 U.S.C. 2000e 2000e-17 (2002).

[24] Id. 2000e-2.

[25] Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, chap. 676, 52 Stat. 1060 (1963) (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. 206 (2002)).

[26] Equal Pay Act of 1963, H.R. Rep. No. 88-309 (1963), reprinted in 1963 U.S.C.C.A.N. 687.

[27] 29 U.S.C. 621 634 (2002).

[28] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance Manual, p. 0:2301.

[29] 42 U.S.C. 2000d 2000d-7 (2002).

[30] Id. 3601 3619, 3631.

[31] 29 U.S.C. 794 (2002).

[32] 42 U.S.C. 6101 6107 (2002).

[33] Id. 12131 12165.

[34] Id. 3601 3619, 3631.

[35] Other statutes with civil rights provisions related to housing include the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (see Section 3; Pub. L. No. 90-448, 92 Stat. 476 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. 5309 (2002)); the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1974 (see Section 109 of Title I; Pub. L. No. 93-383, 88 Stat. 633 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 5309 (2002)); 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-242, 101 Stat. 1815 (1994)); and 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-550, 905(b), 106 Stat. 3672, 3869 3872 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 3616a (2002)); and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C.A. 1691 1691(e) (2002); 24 C.F.R. 25.9 (2002)). The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 added sex to the protected groups covered under the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It also created new housing assistance programs for lower income families, commonly known as section 8, and the Community Development Block Grant program, authorizing public works funds for local communities to use if they are willing to undertake certain fair housing responsibilities. The 1987 act created the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which provides grants for public agencies and private organizations to conduct fair housing activities that prevent or eliminate housing discrimination. The 1992 act added funds for private fair housing enforcement groups in underserved areas to conduct a national fair housing awareness media campaign.

[36] 42 U.S.C. 3604 (2002); Housing and Community Development Act Amendments to the Fair Housing Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-383, 808(b)(1), 88 Stat. 633, 729 (1974).

[37] The statutory definition of a dwelling is: [A]ny building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure or portion thereof. 42 U.S.C. 3602(VIb) (1988).

[38] 42 U.S.C. 3604(b) (2002). See also Smith v. Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir. 1982); McDonald v. Verble, 622 F.2d 1227 (6th Cir. 1980); United States v. Housing Authority of City of Chickasaw, 504 F. Supp. 716 (S.D. Ala. 1980).

[39] 42 U.S.C. 3601 3619, 3631 (2002).

[40] Id. 2000d 2000d-7.

[41] 20 U.S.C. 1703(f) (2002).

[42] Pub. L. No. 92-318, Title IX, 86 Stat. 373 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 1681 1688 (2002)).

[43] Pub. L. No. 93-380 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 3041 3047 (2002)).

[44] 42 U.S.C. 6101 6107 (2002).

[45] 29 U.S.C. 794 (2002).

[46] 42 U.S.C. 12131 12165 (2002).

[47] Pub. L. No. 105-17, 601 687 (1997).

[48] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Frequently Asked Questions, n.d., <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/edo/faq.htm>.The act prohibits discrimination expressed through the deliberate segregation of students, and the employment, employment conditions, or assignment to schools of faculty or staff. See 20 U.S.C. 1703(a), (d), (f) (2002); and Cornell Law School, US Code Collection, Sec. 1703. Denial of equal educational opportunity prohibited, n.d., <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 20/1703.html>.

[49] 20 U.S.C. 1703(f) (2002).

[50] Id. 1681 1688.

[51] Id. 1681(a).

[52] 34 C.F.R. pt. 106 (2002).

[53] Pub. L. No. 105-17, 601 687 (1997).

[54] Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education, IDEA, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Lessons for All! Lesson 1: History & Impact, History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children with Disabilities Through IDEA, 2001, <http:// www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA25th/Lesson1_History. html> (hereafter cited as OSEP/DOEd, Educating Children with Disabilities Through IDEA ).

[55] OSEP/DOEd, Educating Children with Disabilities Through IDEA.

[56] Ibid.

[57] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Making a Good IDEA Better: The Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, briefing paper, 2002, p. 2.

[58] OSEP/DOEd, Educating Children with Disabilities Through IDEA.

[59] 29 U.S.C. 794 (2002).

[60] Id. 794(a).

[61] 42 U.S.C. 12101 12213 (2002).

[62] Id. 12112(a).

[63] Id. 12111(8), 12112(b).

[64] Id. 12131 12165.

[65] 29 U.S.C. 621 634 (2002).

[66] 42 U.S.C. 6101 6107 (2002).

[67] Cornell Law School, US Code Collection, Sec. 6102. Prohibition of discrimination, n.d., <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/6102.html>.