CIVIL RIGHTS

DIVISION

Selection of Cases

and Reasons Matters

Were Closed

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on the Constitution, Committee on the

Judiciary, House of Representatives

September 2000

GAO/GGD-00-192

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

B-285057

September 27, 2000

The Honorable Charles T. Canady

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division (which uses the

abbreviation CRT) is the principal federal authority charged with the

responsibility of enforcing the nation’s civil rights laws. The direction of

CRT enforcement efforts has been the subject of several Subcommittee

hearings. Furthermore, CRT enforcement actions have been affected by

several U.S. Supreme Court decisions rendered in the 1990s that provided

new guidelines for the enforcement of certain federal civil rights laws and

affirmative action programs.1

In your CRT-oversight role, you requested

that we review several issues that included, among other things,2

determining CRT’s approach for selecting cases to pursue and the reasons

that matters were closed.3 This letter provides information on these two

issues for the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and

Voting sections in CRT.

CRT was established in 1957 and is the primary institution within the

federal government responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting

discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, handicap, religion, age,

familial status, and national origin (referred to as protected classes).4CRT

has grown in size from 15 attorneys in 1958 to 274 attorneys at the end of

fiscal year 1999. CRT’s responsibilities also grew over this period. CRT

1

Adarand Constructors, Inc., v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S.

44 (1996); Shaw v. Reno, (Shaw I), 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and Shaw v. Hunt, (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899

(1996).

2

We have responded to other issues that you requested we review in two products issued earlier this

year, Information on Civil Rights Division Operations (GAO/GGD-00-58R, Feb. 17, 2000) and Civil

Rights Division’s FY 2000 Performance Plan Could Be Improved (GAO/GGD-00-90R, Mar. 30, 2000).

3

A “matter” is defined as an activity that has been assigned an identification number but has not

resulted in the filing of a complaint, indictment, or information. A “case” is defined as an activity that

has been assigned an identification number that has resulted in the filing of a complaint, indictment, or

information.

4

CRT uses the term “protected class” to refer to the different groups covered in the statutes that it

enforces.

Background
B-285057

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

enforces the federal Civil Rights Acts; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965,

as amended through 1992; the Fair Housing Act (FHA)5

; the Equal Credit

Opportunity Act (ECOA); the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); the

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); the Uniformed and Overseas

Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); the Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act; and additional civil rights provisions

contained in other laws and regulations. These laws prohibit

discrimination in education, employment, credit, housing, public

accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and

conducted programs.

CRT is headed by an Assistant Attorney General who reports to the

Associate Attorney General. CRT has eight sections that have enforcement

responsibilities over particular subject areas related to prohibited

discrimination. The Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil

Enforcement, and Voting sections are among the largest of these sections.

These three sections are managed by a section chief and several deputy

section chiefs. CRT’s organizational chart and a brief description of the

organization can be found in appendix I.

Because CRT does not have written policies or procedures for selecting

matters that are to be pursued as cases nor written documentation of

internal processes for handling matters and cases, we interviewed the

section chiefs for the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil

Enforcement, and Voting sections and asked them to describe the process

to us. According to these officials, the process, from initiating a matter to

the filing of a lawsuit, can vary among the sections. While some steps were

common to all three sections, variation occurs because of the structure of

the statutes they enforce.

The Employment Litigation section receives referrals from the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section receives referrals from the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) and federal bank regulatory agencies.6 All

three sections receive allegations of discrimination from numerous other

5

The Fair Housing Act is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended. Key amendments to the

act were contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

6

For the Employment Litigation section, the term ”charge” refers specifically to those allegations of

discrimination referred to them by EEOC. HUD refers allegations of discrimination under FHA to the

Housing and Civil Enforcement section. The federal bank regulatory agencies also refer allegations of

discrimination to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

We will use the term “referral “ to refer to HUD, regulatory agency, and EEOC referrals. The more

general term “allegation of discrimination” will be used to describe all other instances of alleged

discrimination.
B-285057

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

sources such as citizens, advocacy groups, private attorneys, and other

federal agencies. According to CRT, when a referral or allegation of

discrimination is received, each section will frequently initiate a matter to

review or investigate the referral or allegation.

The Employment Litigation section reviews referrals received from EEOC

and has the discretion to select which matters to pursue as investigations.

If the Employment Litigation section does not pursue the referral received

from EEOC, the section is to return the file to the agency and issue a rightto-sue letter to the charging party or their attorney. The right-to-sue letter

informs the charging party of their right to file a private lawsuit. In

contrast, the Housing and Civil Enforcement section is required to file a

lawsuit for some HUD referrals that involve violations of the FHA, when

the complainant or respondent elects to have the case heard in federal

court. The Voting section differs from the other two sections in that it

generally does not receive referrals from other federal agencies.

The sections also undertake investigations that tend to be larger and more

complex than referrals that allege a single act of discrimination against a

person or persons. In the Employment Litigation and Housing and Civil

Enforcement sections, these investigations are referred to as “pattern or

practice,”7 and in the Voting section, they are systemic investigations.

We found that, in addition to initiating matters to investigate referrals or

allegations of discrimination for possible litigation, the Voting section

initiated matters to monitor private lawsuits and to observe elections.

Appendix II provides more detailed information on CRT’s process for

handling matters and cases.

One of CRT’s roles is to represent the United States as plaintiff in a case

whereby it brings a lawsuit against an entity for alleged discriminatory

behavior or practices. However, CRT can also represent the United States

as a defendant in certain circumstances. For example, CRT sometimes

becomes involved in cases while representing the United States as

defendant because of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs against federal

agencies challenging the enforcement of certain laws passed by Congress.

7

According to CRT, pattern or practice investigations and cases are generally defined as attacking a

systemic practice of discrimination and not a single act against a person or persons.
B-285057

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

In addition, CRT also participates on behalf of the United States as an

amicus curiae or intervenor8

in lawsuits brought by others.

We reviewed case selection in CRT’s Housing and Civil Enforcement,

Employment Litigation, and Voting sections. According to officials in these

sections, CRT does not have written procedures for selecting cases to

pursue. Our review of cases found that—although cases were pursued for

legal reasons—for many cases, the sections had discretion in deciding

which cases they would pursue based on various criteria. Officials said

that the predominant criterion for selecting cases to pursue is the legal

merit of the case. Some cases we reviewed were initiated because the

particular section had been delegated responsibility for defending certain

charges brought against federal agencies. Officials said that other criteria

or factors, in addition to legal merit, were more apt to be considered when

they decided to initiate a matter for starting an investigation or considered

participating in a lawsuit as an amicus curiae or intervenor. The section

chiefs said other factors that were considered when selecting a case to

pursue included (1) the priorities of the Attorney General or the Assistant

Attorney General; (2) targeting enforcement to affect certain types of

discrimination; or (3) targeting areas of the country with a predominance

of minorities or prevalence of discrimination, among other things.

To determine CRT’s approach for selecting cases to pursue, we reviewed

44 Housing and Civil Enforcement section and 6 Voting section cases that

were initiated during fiscal year 1998.9

For the Employment Litigation

section, we reviewed 21 cases—which included 20 cases initiated during

fiscal year 1998 and the single pattern or practice case initiated in fiscal

year 1999, since no pattern or practices cases were initiated in fiscal year

1998. We interviewed section chiefs about factors considered when they

decided to investigate the matters that became cases. In interviews with

the section chiefs, we found numerous instances where the previously

mentioned factors were considered when cases were pursued. For

example, our review of the Housing and Civil Enforcement section case

files showed that the section had initiated pattern or practice cases, which

the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General deemed a priority for

the section because of their broad impact, according to the section chief.

The section chief indicated that, in one lending pattern or practice case,

8

A plaintiff refers to the party that initiates a lawsuit in court. A defendant is one against whom an

action is brought. An amicus curiae refers to a person who advises a court on a matter of law in a case

to which he is not a party. To be an intervenor is to enter into a lawsuit as a third party for the

protection of an alleged interest.

9

The cases reviewed were initiated as matters in fiscal year 1998 (Oct. 1, 1997 to Sept. 30, 1998) and

subsequently, a formal complaint was filed whereby the matter became a case.

Results in Brief
B-285057

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

the section targeted the discriminatory practices of a major lender that

served a large area with a predominantly African-American population to

send a message to other lenders in the area. Our review of the

Employment Litigation section case files showed that several of the

discretionary cases targeted a particular type of discrimination that

involved complaints based on sexual harassment. The section chief stated

that these types of EEOC referrals were often pursued as cases when they

were deemed to have merit because this type of discriminatory behavior

was difficult to identify through means other than individual EEOC

referrals of harassment. Our review of the Voting section’s discretionary

cases found, for example, that the section had selected a case that

involved the enforcement of voting practices and procedures for a

language minority group, which was selected, in part, because it addressed

a priority area of enforcement of the Assistant Attorney General. In

addition, officials said that this case enabled the section to file a minoritylanguage lawsuit in a location of the country that had been experiencing a

growth in its minority population and that had not been targeted for

enforcement in the past.

To determine the reasons that matters were closed, we reviewed the

population of 54 Housing and Civil Enforcement section closed matters

and 22 Voting section closed matters initiated in fiscal year 1998. For the

Employment Litigation section, we reviewed a statistically representative

sample of 64 Employment Litigation section closed matters from the

population of 149 closed employment matters initiated in fiscal year 1998.

The three sections had different reasons for closing matters because the

types of matters initiated often differed. In our review of the Housing and

Civil Enforcement and Voting sections matter files, we found that most

matters were closed due to a lack of merit, the problem was resolved, or

no further action was warranted. Voting section officials indicated that

they also closed matters that were initiated to monitor private lawsuits and

elections because no further action was warranted. For example, private

lawsuits were subsequently resolved through court actions.

For the Employment Litigation section, most matters were initiated to

review referrals from EEOC and to determine whether the section should

participate in the matter or close it by notifying the charging party of their

right to file a private lawsuit. Of the 64 closed matters, the 61 EEOC

referred matters were closed because the section determined that

participation was not justified. For some of the closed employment

matters, the files cited additional reasons for closing the matter and not

selecting it for further investigation. These included reasons such as (1)

the limited scope of the referral—whether multiple victims would be
B-285057

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

entitled to remedial relief—did not justify the resources necessary for

prosecution, (2) EEOC did not recommend litigation, (3) the matter was

resolved, or (4) the individual was represented by a private attorney. Seven

of the closed EEOC-referred matters were selected for further

investigation, and most of these were closed because the section

determined the facts of the matter were problematic. The Employment

Litigation section chief said that the decision to select a matter for further

investigation was based on factors such as whether the matter had the

potential to affect a larger population, target enforcement in a particular

location, target a particular type of discrimination, or result in a change of

policies or practices that were discriminatory.

On September 11, 2000, CRT officials provided oral comments whereby

they agreed with the message of this report.

Our review focused on three of the CRT sections—Employment Litigation,

Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Voting. These sections were selected

because they were among the largest of the eight sections with

enforcement responsibility in the division. Our objectives were to (1)

describe the reasons why each section selected some matters to pursue as

cases filed in court and (2) describe the reasons why each of the three

sections closed matters. Section officials said that lawsuits were filed

based on their legal merit. However, inherent in the decision to initiate a

case or not pursue a matter is the application of a variety of judgmental

factors, such as availability of resources and enforcement objectives.

To determine why some matters were closed and others were pursued as

cases, we obtained information from CRT’s Case Management System

(CMS). CRT provided CMS data on matters and cases for fiscal years 1994

to 1999 as of October 31, 1999. CRT’s CMS included limited data on

matters and cases opened and closed by each section, in part, because

each section used the system somewhat differently. Therefore, we

supplemented the CMS data with a review of individual matter and case

files. We reviewed matter and case files in each of the three sections, using

a structured data collection instrument to record information such as the

nature of the allegation and the reasons for closing the matter. Some files

had more information than others, and the Employment Litigation and

Housing and Civil Enforcement sections’ files often contained closing

memorandums that summarized why the matters were closed. After

reviewing these files, we discussed the matters and cases for each section

with the section chief or a deputy section chief. For many of the matters

and cases, the section chief or deputy section chief was able to provide

additional information not found in the files.

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
B-285057

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Using the CMS, we identified all matters that were initiated during fiscal

year 1998 in the three sections in our review and that were closed as of

October 31, 1999, with the exception of the Voting section, in which we

used matters identified as closed by the end of March 2000. We were

unable to identify closed Voting matters using the CMS because the Voting

section had not entered information on closing dates into the database.

Thus, we asked Voting section officials to identify which matters initiated

in fiscal year 1998 were closed when we started our file review. We

reviewed the entire population of closed matters initiated in fiscal year

1998 for the Voting section (22 matters) and the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section (54 matters). Because of the larger number of closed

employment matters initiated in fiscal year 1998 (149 matters), we

reviewed a statistically representative sample (64 matters) from the

population of closed employment matters initiated in fiscal year 1998. Of

these 64 employment matters, 61 were referred by EEOC. For 10 of these

61 referrals, we were unable to determine the protected class and for 13 of

the 61 referrals, we were unable to identify the alleged discrimination issue

because the section decided not to pursue the referral, and the complaint

file had been returned to EEOC. We do not know whether the protected

class and the alleged discrimination issue were similar to those matters for

which data were available. Thus, our findings regarding the protected class

and alleged discrimination issue were limited to matters for which data

were available.

Our case file review included all cases initiated during fiscal year 1998 in

each of the three sections plus the single employment pattern or practice

case that was initiated during fiscal year 1999. We included the additional

pattern or practice case because a CRT enforcement priority is the pursuit

of cases in which a pattern or practice of illegal behavior is alleged, and we

wished to include, if possible, such a case in our review of cases for each

section. Our case file review included both open and closed cases. We

reviewed 21 employment cases, 44 housing cases, and 6 voting cases. We

interviewed section chiefs about factors considered when they decided to

investigate the matters that became cases and factors considered when

they decided to file a lawsuit or amicus brief or intervene in a lawsuit.

Officials said that the primary factor considered in deciding to file a

lawsuit is the merit of the legal issues. They said that factors other than

legal merit were more apt to be considered when they decided to initiate

an investigation or participate in some other manner. Therefore, when we

interviewed section officials about the reasons for pursuing a case, we

discussed the factors considered when the section decided to initiate an

investigation into the initial matter that subsequently became a case.
B-285057

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

We performed our audit work in Washington, D.C., from November 1999

through August 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.

The Employment Litigation section enforces the provisions of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and other federal laws

prohibiting employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race,

sex, religion, and national origin against state and local government

employers.

The section has two enforcement mechanisms. Under the statutes it

enforces, the Attorney General has authority to bring lawsuits where there

is reason to believe that a pattern or practice of discrimination exists.

Generally, these are factually and legally complex cases that seek to alter

an employment practice—such as recruitment, hiring, assignment, and

promotions—which has the purpose or effect of denying employment or

promotional opportunities to a class of individuals. Under its pattern or

practice authority, the section obtains relief in the form of injunctive relief,

systemic relief reforming unlawful employment policies and practices,

offers of employment, back pay, and other compensatory relief for

individuals who have been the victims of the unlawful employment

practices. According to CRT, these cases are frequently resolved through

settlement agreements prior to trial.

The section’s second enforcement mechanism is filing lawsuits based upon

referrals from EEOC. Individuals who believe that they were unlawfully

denied an employment opportunity or otherwise discriminated against by a

state or local government employer may file charges with the EEOC. If,

after investigation, the EEOC determines that a charge has merit and

efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are unsuccessful, the EEOC may

refer it to the Employment Litigation section. The section then has

authority to determine whether to initiate litigation. If the section decides

not to initiate litigation, it issues a right-to-sue letter to the charging party.10

A limited number of these lawsuits are initiated each year. According to

the section chief, while the charges referred by EEOC for individuals may

be small in scope when compared with pattern or practice lawsuits that

target systemic discrimination practices, the individual cases are

important. These individual cases are important because they (1) might not

be pursued without the section’s participation and (2) often address types

10The section is required under Title VII to notify the charging party of their right to file a private

lawsuit.

Employment Litigation

Section

Responsibilities
B-285057

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

of discrimination that may not be remediable through pattern or practice

lawsuits.

The section also represents the Departments of Labor and Transportation

and other federal agencies when they are sued for what is alleged to be

overzealous enforcement of federal laws that prohibit discrimination

and/or require affirmative action by government contractors or recipients

of federal financial assistance. In addition, the section has authority to

prosecute enforcement actions for the Department of Labor of referrals

arising under Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination in

employment by federal contractors.

The number of matters initiated by the Employment Litigation section has

increased significantly over the past 6 years. As shown in figure 1, the

number of matters increased over 250 percent from fiscal year 1994 to

1999. Although the number of cases initiated fluctuated some from year to

year, the section initiated on average about 19 cases per year between

fiscal years 1994 and 1999. According to the section chief, the number of

matters increased significantly because EEOC streamlined its processing

of referrals and was referring more matters.

Enforcement Efforts in

Fiscal Years 1994 to 1999
B-285057

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Source: CRT’s Case Management System.

The Employment Litigation section represents other federal agencies when

they are sued for allegedly overzealous enforcement of federal laws that

prohibit discrimination or when they are challenged regarding the use of

affirmative action programs regarding government contractors or

recipients of federal financial assistance. Our analysis of the Employment

Litigation section cases showed that of 113 cases initiated in fiscal years

1994 through 1999, 67 cases, or 59 percent, involved defending other

federal agencies. According to the section chief, these types of cases

increased because of a Supreme Court decision in 1995, referred to as the

Adarand decision,11 which affected the standard applied to federal

affirmative action programs. According to a section official, they had to

11In Adarand Constructors Inc., v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that federal

affirmative action programs to benefit minorities must meet the same “strict scrutiny” standard that

applies to state and local programs. To survive strict scrutiny, federal programs must serve a

compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Previously, the Court

had subjected congressionally mandated affirmative action to a lesser standard of review in light of

Congress’ broad authority to enforce equal protection guarantees.

Figure 1: Employment Matters and

Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1999
B-285057

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

devote considerable resources to these cases, which affected its ability to

initiate Title VII litigation.

The Employment Litigation section initiated 20 cases in fiscal year 1998

and 1 pattern or practice case in fiscal year 1999. The section brought

lawsuits alleging violations of Title VII in six cases referred by EEOC that

alleged state or local governmental entities had engaged in discriminatory

activities and intervened in two private lawsuits. These eight cases were

initiated at the discretion of the section. According to the section chief,

the predominate criteria for pursuing discretionary cases is their legal

merit.

The section also represented federal agencies in seven cases and

monitored or provided assistance on six private lawsuits. Because the

section, on behalf of the Department of Justice, is required to represent

federal agencies when federal statutes related to employment

discrimination or affirmative action programs are challenged, the section

does not have the discretion to participate or not participate in these

cases. However, we noted that of the seven cases where the section was

representing other federal agencies, five involved lawsuits against federal

agencies based on the Adarand decision. According to the section chief, an

administration objective in these cases was to comply with the standards

in the Adarand decision while preserving the intent of such programs.

These cases also represented a body of on-going casework within the

Department of Justice.

Aside from legal merit, the factors considered in selecting the eight

discretionary cases included priorities of the Attorney General or Assistant

Attorney General; the impact of the case in a type or category of

discrimination or a particular location; meeting performance goals; and the

casework of the section. Of the six discretionary cases where the section

chose to pursue litigation against a state or local entity, five were filed on

the basis of sex discrimination, and one on the basis of religious

discrimination. According to the section chief, the section was interested

in pursuing referrals by individuals that were based on sex—more

specifically sexual harassment—or religious discrimination because such

discriminatory practices are difficult to detect through pattern or practice

investigations. The section chief said that individual referrals of sexual

harassment and religious discrimination enable the section to combat

these discriminatory practices.

Three of the sex discrimination cases illustrate factors other than legal

merit that are considered when the section decides to pursue a case. In

Selection of

Employment Litigation

Cases to Pursue
B-285057

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

one case, the section chief said that while the primary factor was the

egregiousness of the alleged sexual harassment, another factor considered

was the particular geographic location that the alleged discriminatory

behavior occurred. Specifically, the discriminatory practice complaint was

filed against a city police department in a small town, and the section chief

said that filing the lawsuit enabled the section to publicize the issue of

sexual harassment in order to deter such behavior on the part of other

small-town law enforcement agencies in the surrounding area.

A second sex discrimination case involved a correctional facility. The

section selected the case, in part, because it related to a body of casework

that the section had an interest in pursuing. According to the section chief,

the section has performed a large body of casework in assignment

practices in state departments of corrections. The case we reviewed

involved allegations that a county discriminated against guards at a

correctional facility on the basis of their sex by pursuing certain policies

and practices. The alleged practices discriminated against men and women

by assigning only men to guard male inmates and only women to guard

female inmates during trips outside of the facility. According to the

allegation, these procedures were followed regardless of whether such

gender-based assignments were reasonably necessary as bona fide

occupational qualifications.

In a third sex discrimination case, the section weighed different factors in

selecting a case that involved a lawsuit against a county and its role in

ensuring a sexual harassment-free work environment for a female aide

who was to go into a private home and provide services. According to the

section chief, the case enabled the section to meet a priority of the

Assistant Attorney General that the section initiate work in new areas

apart from police and fire departments, and the case was of particular

interest because it had the potential to establish case law. Other factors

considered included affecting a particular type of discrimination and

meeting performance goals. Specifically, the section was interested in

pursuing sexual harassment cases and investigating a certain number of

EEOC referrals that may become cases. Two of the section’s annual

performance goals were to (1) perform supplemental investigation for a

percentage of EEOC referrals and (2) have a percentage of those

investigations lead to lawsuits.12

12Civil Rights Division‘s FY 2000 Performance Plan Could Be Improved (GAO/GGD-00-90R, Mar. 30,

2000), provided information on potential improvements to CRT’s annual performance plan.
B-285057

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The section intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs in two cases to defend

the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, referred to as Seminole

Tribe13 type cases. These particular cases drew into question the

constitutionality of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act as applied to the state

of Alabama. For example, in one of these cases, the defendant, a state

university, asserted that Congress exceeded its authority when it extended

coverage of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act to the states. Thus, the

defendant argued immunity from claims of discrimination set forth in

these statutes. The section intervened in these cases because the Attorney

General and the Assistant Attorney General have designated these types of

cases a Justicewide priority. Seminole Tribe type cases represent a body of

casework within the Division and the Department of Justice. According to

the section chief, the Attorney General convened a task force to

coordinate all Department of Justice casework related to Seminole Tribe

issues.

Table 1 summarizes the factors considered by the section when weighing

whether to initiate an investigation for discretionary cases.

Case name Case type

Attorney

General

priority

Assistant

Attorney

General

priority

Impact in

particular

location

Impact in

particular type or

category of

discrimination

Performance

goal

Part of body

of casework

on going Other

U.S. v. City of

Winter

Springs, FL

Plaintiff on

behalf of

U.S. in Title

VII Litigation

•

U.S. v. City of

Alma, GA and

Bacon City,

GA

Plaintiff on

behalf of

U.S. in Title

VII Litigation

• • •

U.S. v.

Columbus

County, NC

Plaintiff on

behalf of

U.S. in Title

VII Litigation

• • •

U.S. v. North

Little Rock

School District

Plaintiff on

behalf of

U.S. in Title

VII Litigation

• •

13Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), (holding that Congress lacked authority under

the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to abrogate state’s eleventh amendment sovereign

immunity).

Table 1: Factors Considered by the Employment Litigation Section in Initiating Discretionary Cases
B-285057

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Case type

Attorney

General

priority

Assistant

Attorney

General

priority

Impact in

particular

location

Impact in

particular type or

category of

discrimination

Performance

goal

Part of body

of casework

on going Other

U.S. v. Erie

County, NY

Plaintiff on

behalf of

U.S. in Title

VII Litigation

• •

U.S.and Terry

Piersol v. City

of Belen, NM

Plaintiff on

behalf of

U.S. in Title

VII Litigation

(pattern or

practice

case)

• According to the

section chief, the

primary factor for

initiating the

investigation was the

egregiousness of the

defendant’s behavior.

Diane

Cummings, et

al., v.

University of

Alabama at

Birmingham

Intervenor on

behalf of

plaintiff

• • • According to the

section chief, the

section has a

responsibility to defend

the constitutionality of

laws passed by

Congress.

Ethel Lois

Larry, Denese

Pounds v.

Board of

Trustees of

the University

of Alabama

and the

University of

Alabama at

Birmingham

Intervenor on

behalf of

plaintiff

• • • According to the

section chief, the

section has a

responsibility to defend

the constitutionality of

laws passed by

Congress.

Source: Interviews with the Employment Litigation section chief.

Appendix III provides more information on the employment cases related

to the types of cases, a description of the employment cases, and their

dispositions as of April 2000.

We reviewed 64 closed matter files in the Employment Litigation section.

Of these 64 matters, 61 were EEOC referrals and 3 were referrals from

another federal agency. We found that all of the EEOC referred matters

were closed because the section concluded that participation was not

justified. The three matters referred by another federal agency were closed

because no further action was warranted.

For 20 of the EEOC referred closed matters, additional information was

available either in the file or from section officials on the reason for

closing the matter. Seven of these closed matters were selected for further

Reasons That

Employment Matters

Were Closed
B-285057

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

investigation or research, and six of these matters were closed because the

attorney found problems with the facts of the matter. Thirteen of the

EEOC referred matters were reviewed by the section and closed for

various reasons, such as the limited scope of the referral did not justify the

resources necessary to prosecute (7 matters); EEOC did not recommend

litigation (3 matters); the matter was resolved (2 matters); or the individual

was represented by a private attorney (1 matter).

According to the section chief, when reviewing EEOC referrals, emphasis

was placed on pursuing those that could impact a particular type of

discrimination, geographic location, affect a large group of people, or

result in a change of policies or practices that were discriminatory. Thus,

most EEOC referrals were returned to EEOC with a determination that

CRT participation was not justified because they did not meet these

criteria. The section chief also said that a secondary consideration was

whether the charging party was represented by a private attorney.

Appendix IV provides information on employment matters, such as the

protected class, the type of state or local entity alleged to have

discriminated, a description of the employment closed matters, and the

reason matters were closed. The appendix also provides additional

information on the reasons the section selected the seven EEOC referred

matters for further investigation or research.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section has responsibility for

enforcing federal civil rights laws, including the Fair Housing Act (FHA),

which prohibits discrimination in all types of housing transactions; the

Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which prohibits discrimination in

lending; and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits

discrimination in places of public accommodation, such as hotels,

restaurants, and certain places of entertainment.

The section is also responsible for enforcing several statutes that prohibit

discrimination in, among other things, programs where the operator of the

program receives federal funds. Such statutes include Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the

basis of race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs; and

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits

discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs.

These kinds of cases can be brought only after a referral from the agency

that administers the relevant federally funded program. According to the

Housing and Civil Enforcement section chief, these kinds of cases

represent only a small number of the section’s cases.

Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section

Responsibilities
B-285057

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The FHA applies not only to actions by direct providers of housing, such as

landlords and real estate companies but also to actions by municipalities,

banks, insurance companies, and other entities whose discriminatory

practices make housing unavailable to persons because of their race,

color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or familial status. Those

practices include (1) directly refusing to sell, rent, or finance housing; (2)

providing false information about housing availability; (3) blockbusting

and steering;14 (4) redlining;15 and (5) discriminating by the use of zoning or

other land power use. In addition, regarding individuals with disabilities,

discrimination includes refusing to permit the reasonable modification of

existing premises and refusing to make reasonable accommodations in

rules, policies, practices, or services. The statute also requires that most

multifamily dwellings constructed for initial occupancy after March 1991

be accessible for persons with disabilities.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 created a new remedial

structure to enforce the FHA, which significantly strengthened the federal

role in the enforcement process by giving the Attorney General and HUD

shared enforcement responsibility. In particular, the act expanded the

types of remedies the Attorney General could obtain in lawsuits addressing

discriminatory policies or “patterns or practices” and also created an

administrative enforcement mechanism.16 Under the amended FHA,

individuals may file discrimination complaints with HUD, which is to

investigate each complaint. If the complaint cannot be resolved in a

conciliation process, HUD is required to determine whether there is

reasonable cause to believe that the act had been violated. If HUD finds

reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, it is to issue

a charge of discrimination. An administrative trial of the charge is to occur

unless either the complaining or responding party elects to have HUD

findings of reasonable cause litigated in federal court by the Department of

14Blockbusting refers to the practice of real estate agents inducing owners to list property for sale or

rent by telling them that persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or

familial status are moving into the area. Steering is the practice of real estate agents directing

prospective home buyers that are interested in equivalent properties to different areas, according to

their race.

15Redlining is the refusal of lenders to make mortgage loans in certain geographic areas regardless of

the creditworthiness of the loan applicant, based on the racial or ethnic composition of the

neighborhood.

16Under the original FHA, Justice could obtain only injunctive relief in cases involving a pattern or

practice of discrimination or the denial of fair housing rights to a group of persons or intervention in

private suits raising issues of general public importance. Justice did not have the authority to bring

lawsuits on behalf of individual victims of discrimination. Similarly, HUD was authorized only to

investigate and conciliate complaints of housing discrimination and had no power to take any

enforcement action in court or before an administrative law judge.
B-285057

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Justice instead of through HUD administrative proceedings. As mentioned

previously, these cases are known as election cases, and the section is

required to file these cases in federal court. Because of the large number of

election cases arising under the Amendments Act, in November 1993, the

Attorney General asked the U.S. Attorneys’ offices to participate in the

program to enforce the FHA by assuming responsibility for many of the

HUD election and prompt judicial action17

cases.

In addition to election cases, the amended act requires HUD to refer to the

Attorney General pattern or practice cases as well as any cases involving

alleged discrimination in zoning and land use decisions. The section has

discretion on whether these referrals warrant filing a lawsuit.

To help enforce the FHA, the section established a fair housing testing

program in 1991. Generally, fair housing testing involves individuals who

pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate to gather information

that may indicate whether a housing provider is complying with fair

housing laws. Evidence gathered from the testing program might result in

the filing of a lawsuit.

The ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction

and applies to any extension of credit, including extensions of credit to

consumers, small businesses, corporations, partnerships, and trusts. The

section may file a lawsuit when a case is referred by 1 of the 12 federal

bank regulatory agencies—such as the Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency (OCC)—or when the section independently identifies a pattern

or practice of credit discrimination.

Our analysis of CMS data indicated that the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section’s volume of cases and matters has declined over the

last 6 years. Between fiscal years 1994 and 1999, the total number of

matters declined overall from 86 to 66, or 23 percent. However, in our

analysis, we found that the percentage of matters involving a pattern or

practice of discrimination increased over the past several years. For

example, in fiscal year 1994, 28 percent (24 of 86) of the matters the

section initiated involved allegations of a pattern or practice, compared

with 55 percent (36 of 66) of the matters the section initiated in fiscal year

17Under section 810 (e) of the Amendments Act, HUD may authorize a civil action for appropriate

temporary or preliminary relief pending final disposition of a complaint of housing discrimination that

has been filed with HUD. The statute provides that when such authorization is received, Justice shall

commence promptly and maintain a prompt judicial action lawsuit. The matters considered for prompt

judicial action include potential emergency situations that require immediate action to prevent a

threatened injury during HUD’s investigation and processing of a complaint.

Enforcement Efforts in

Fiscal Years 1994 to 1999
B-285057

Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

1999. According to the section chief, the increase was due, in part, to the

U.S. Attorneys’ offices assuming some of the responsibility for litigating

election cases, which permitted the section to devote more of its resources

to investigating pattern or practice matters.

Our analysis of CMS data showed an overall decline in the number of cases

initiated by the section over the past several years. Figure 2 shows that,

between fiscal years 1994 and 1999, the total number of cases initiated

declined from 166 to 25, or by nearly 85 percent. Our analysis further

showed that HUD election cases, which accounted for a majority of the

cases initiated during that period, declined from 136 in fiscal year 1994 to

18 in fiscal year 1999. The section chief indicated that the decrease in the

number of election cases being referred by HUD could be the result, in

part, of more complaints of housing discrimination being handled by state

fair housing agencies instead of HUD, as more state fair housing laws are

determined to be substantially equivalent to federal law.

Source: CRT’s Case Management System.

Figure 2: Housing and Civil

Enforcement Matters and Cases

Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994 Through

1999
B-285057

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section initiated 44 cases in fiscal year

1998. Of those cases, 32 were HUD election cases—4 of which included an

additional allegation of a pattern or practice of discrimination. The

remaining 12 cases included 7 pattern or practice cases, 4 cases in which

the section filed an amicus brief, and 1 case in which the section served as

intervenor on behalf of the plaintiffs. The section does not have discretion

about whether to file a lawsuit for the HUD election cases, but the section

has discretion about whether to attach a pattern or practice allegation to

the HUD referred election complaint. Furthermore, the section has the

authority and discretion to independently file pattern or practice cases and

has discretion about whether to pursue referrals other than HUD election

cases.

Regarding nondiscretionary HUD election cases—those that did not

include pattern or practice allegations as part of the complaint—the only

factor considered was the Department of Justice’s legal requirement to file

a lawsuit. However, for the discretionary cases, many of which included a

pattern or practice allegation, the section considered various factors when

deciding to investigate the allegations in the case or participate as an

amicus curiae or intervenor.

Aside from the legal merits of the case, the factors considered in selecting

the discretionary pattern or practice cases included the priorities of the

Administration, Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General; the

impact of the case in a type or category of discrimination or a particular

location; and the casework of the section. According to the section chief,

the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General generally consider

pattern or practice cases a section priority because of their broad impact.

Of the 16 discretionary cases shown in table 2, 11 cases are pattern or

practice cases—4 election cases in which the section included a pattern or

practice allegation, 2 lending cases, 3 testing cases, and 2 general pattern

or practice cases. The remaining 5 discretionary cases involved the

section’s participation in cases as an amicus curiae or intervenor.

The section chief indicated that both of the lending cases in the 44 cases

that we reviewed were considered section priorities of the Attorney

General and Assistant Attorney General and that several other factors

were considered in selecting the cases, such as the type of discrimination

and the location in which the discrimination occurred. For example, one

lending case involved discrimination by the largest bank in a particular

southern state that served a very large area with a predominantly AfricanAmerican population. The section chief indicated that by targeting the

discriminatory practices of a leading lender, the section attempts to make

Selection of Housing

and Civil Enforcement

Cases to Pursue
B-285057

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

significant impact and send a broad message to other lenders, particularly

in areas where discrimination appears to be pervasive. The section chief

also indicated that lending cases are considered part of a body of ongoing

casework. Furthermore, she said that the Department of Justice’s views

about what conduct violates fair lending laws, as expressed in complaints

and consent decrees, have established benchmarks and standards of

conduct within the lending industry, although most of the lending cases

have resulted in settlements and have not gone through litigation.

The section chief indicated that, of the 44 cases we reviewed, the three

testing cases were also section priorities of the Attorney General and

Assistant Attorney General. For the most part, these cases allow the

section to identify potential patterns or practices of housing discrimination

that may go undetected. In one of the three testing cases, the section chief

indicated that the impact of the case in the particular type or category of

discrimination and the particular location in which the discrimination

occurred were considerations in pursuing the case. Specifically, the case

alleged that the owner of numerous rental units in a particular southern

state and his former rental agents had discriminated on the basis of race by

giving false information about apartment availability to African-American

testers and applicants. The section chief noted that, as a result of the

testing efforts, individuals in that area began to come forward with

allegations of discrimination that may otherwise not have been brought

forward.

In the two general pattern or practice cases that involved sexual

harassment, the section considered the impact in a type or category of

discrimination. According to the section chief, these cases alleged sexual

harassment, an egregious form of housing discrimination. In both of these

cases, the defendants were managers and owners of numerous rental

properties that subjected female tenants to housing discrimination on the

basis of sex in the form of sexual harassment. According to the section

chief, the section tries to target these cases to give women an

opportunity—particularly those in subsidized housing who have few

alternative housing options and may not want to jeopardize their living

arrangements—to come forward with complaints of discrimination.

The section chief indicated that, in the 44 cases reviewed, all the pattern or

practice cases that involved discrimination based on race and national

origin were considered priorities of the Administration, the Attorney

General, and the Assistant Attorney General. As shown in table 2, these

cases—which included various election and all testing and lending cases—

accounted for the majority of pattern or practice cases that we reviewed.
B-285057

Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

In several of those cases, the section considered the location in which the

alleged discrimination occurred. For example, one case involved

allegations of housing discrimination in a relatively rural western section

of the country that had a large number of Hispanic immigrants.

Specifically, the owners and operators of a mobile-home park had

discriminated on the basis of national origin by refusing to rent mobilehome space to Hispanic individuals. They also discriminated by refusing to

allow Caucasian individuals to sell their mobile-home units to Hispanic

individuals. According to the section chief, mobile-home parks can be the

only source of housing for some people in rural areas, and pursuing these

cases and others like them enables the section to be responsive to

individuals that may have few housing options.

In addition to selecting pattern or practice cases, the decision to

participate in cases as an amicus curiae or intervenor were based on

several factors, including (1) the priorities of the Administration, Attorney

General and Assistant Attorney General; (2) the impact of the case in a

particular type of discrimination; and (3) the section’s ongoing casework in

the particular area. Three of the four amicus curiae cases and the one

intervenor case were considered part of a body of ongoing casework. For

example, according to the section chief, the section has filed amicus briefs

in various cases to argue for a broad-standing analysis under Title VI. One

amicus curiae case that we reviewed involved race discrimination in police

profiling. Specifically, the plaintiffs in this case claimed that they were

being stopped, searched, and detained by state police troopers along a

major interstate because of their race and/or national origin, rather than on

the basis of legitimate law enforcement reasons. The section’s brief urged

the court to find that there was a private right of action to enforce Title VI

and that the plaintiffs had the right to assert such a claim.

Two other cases that involved the section’s participation as an amicus

curiae involved housing discrimination based on handicap. According to

the section chief, the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General

consider accessibility cases a section priority. One case, for example,

involved the applicability of the FHA requirements for accessible design.

This case was filed against the builders of a condominium, alleging that the

builder had designed and constructed the ground floor units in 10 of the

buildings in a way that made them inaccessible to people with disabilities.

This particular case was also part of a body of the section’s ongoing

casework.

In the one case where the section intervened, the section participated as

an intervenor on behalf of the plaintiffs to defend the constitutionality of a
B-285057

Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

federal statute. This case was considered part of the section’s ongoing

casework. As mentioned previously, these types of cases, referred to as

Seminole Tribe cases, are generally priorities of the Attorney General and

Assistant Attorney General; and in this particular case, the Administration.

In this case, the section had intervened to defend the constitutionality of

parts of Title VI, which the defendants were challenging. Specifically, the

plaintiffs in the case had filed a lawsuit to prevent the construction of a

highway and tunnel through their neighborhood that would require the

condemnation of several homes and allegedly cause flooding, noise and

traffic problems, creating a disparate impact on their predominantly

African-American community. The defendants moved to dismiss the

lawsuit on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity or, in the

alternative, asked the court to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction

in favor of state eminent domain proceedings.

Table 2 shows the factors that the section considered for the pattern or

practice, amicus curiae, and intervenor cases that the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section initiated in fiscal year 1998.

Case name Case type

Administration

or presidential

initiative or

priority

Attorney

General

priority

Assistant

Attorney

General

priority

Impact in a

type or

category of

discrimination

Impact in a

particular

location

Part of a

body of

ongoing

casework

U.S. v. Charles Harlan, et al. Pattern or

practice/

election

• • • • •

U.S. v. Duane B. Hagadone and

Fran I. Goff

Pattern or

practice/

election

• •

U.S. v. Choice Property

Consultants, Inc., et al.

Pattern or

practice/

election

• • • •

U.S. v. Richmond 10-72 Ltd., et

al.

Pattern or

practice/

election

• • • •

U.S. v. A. Waddell Nejam, et al. Pattern or

practice/

testing

• • • • •

U.S. v. Garden Homes

Management Corp., et al.

Pattern or

practice/

testing

• • •

U.S. v. Henry K. Vernon, et al. Pattern or

practice/

testing

• • • •

U.S. v. L. T. Jackson; and L.T.

Jackson Trust

Pattern or

practice

•

Table 2: Factors Considered by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section in Initiating Discretionary Cases
B-285057

Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Case type

Administration

or presidential

initiative or

priority

Attorney

General

priority

Assistant

Attorney

General

priority

Impact in a

type or

category of

discrimination

Impact in a

particular

location

Part of a

body of

ongoing

casework

U.S. v. Lyle KreugeraPattern or

practice

•

U.S. v. Associates National Bank Pattern or

practice/

lending

• • • • •

U.S. v. Deposit Guaranty National

Bank

Pattern or

practice/

lending

• • • • • •

Maryland State Conference of

National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People

(NAACP) Branches, et al. v.

Maryland State Police, et al.

Amicus curiae •

National Fair Housing Alliance

Inc., v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company, et al.

Amicus curiae • •

Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc., et

al. v. Rommel Builders, Inc.

Amicus curiae • • • •

Project Life, Inc., et al. v. Parris

Glendening, et al.

Amicus curiae • • •

Lillian E. Bryant, et al. v. New

Jersey Department of

Transportation, et al.

Intervenor on

behalf of

plaintiff

• • • •

a

This case also included an enforcement of conciliation.

Source: Interviews with the Housing and Civil Enforcement section chief.

Appendix V provides information on the Housing and Civil Enforcement

section cases, such as the origin, legal role of the section, the protected

class, a description of these cases, and their disposition as of May 2000.

Our analysis of the 54 Housing and Civil Enforcement section closed

matter files showed that the section did not pursue specific matters for a

variety of reasons. Half of the matters (27 of 54) were closed due to a lack

of merit, while the remainder were closed because (1) the parties settled,

(2) no further action was warranted, (3) the referral was returned to the

referring agency for administrative resolution, or (4) for various other

reasons, such as the complainant withdrew the complaint.

The 27 matters that the section did not pursue due to a lack of merit

originated from various sources, such as citizens, the section’s testing

program, and a U.S. Attorney’s office. For example, in one of these

matters, the section investigated a complaint received from a citizen that

alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination based on familial status.

Specifically, a couple alleged that a condominium association had asked

Reasons That Housing

and Civil Enforcement

Matters Were Closed
B-285057

Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

them to sign a pledge that they would not have children as a condition of

approval of their rental application. The Housing and Civil Enforcement

section determined that no one else had been asked to sign a similar

pledge and there did not appear to be any danger of a repetition. The

section also determined that at least one other family with children lived in

the complex.

In 8 of the 54 closed matters, the section did not pursue an investigation

because it was able to resolve the matter out of court. For example, two

HUD election matters that alleged rental discrimination on the basis of

familial status resulted in presuit out-of-court settlements.

Seven of the closed matters, which alleged discrimination in lending, were

returned to the referring federal bank regulatory agency for administrative

resolution. In some of these matters, the lending institution had taken

action to remedy the alleged discrimination. For example, one matter

involved a referral from OCC alleging that a particular bank had engaged in

a pattern or practice of lending discrimination through some of its policies.

Specifically, the referral alleged that the bank administered a policy that

required college freshman (except for adults returning to school to further

their education), who applied for credit under the bank’s student creditcard program, to have parental cosigners prior to obtaining a credit card.

The bank took steps to remove the requirement of a cosigner from its

credit-card practice and the matter was returned to OCC for administrative

resolution.

In six of the closed matters, the section concluded that further action was

not warranted. For example, one matter concerned allegations that a

bar/lounge had denied service to a group of individuals on the basis of

their race. The issue became moot when the establishment under

investigation went out of business.

The remaining six matters were closed for various other reasons, such as

the complaint was withdrawn, the complainant decided to file a classaction lawsuit, or the section lacked the resources to pursue the particular

matter.

Appendix VI provides information on the Housing and Civil Enforcement

section closed matters, such as origin, protected class, a description of the

closed matters, and the reason the matters were closed.
B-285057

Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The Voting section is charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal

voting rights statutes. The most important of the laws enforced by the

section include the following:

• section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA),

• section 203 and 4(f)(4) of the VRA,

• section 6 of the VRA,

• section 2 of the VRA,

• National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and

• Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).

Section 5 is a provision of the VRA that requires state and local

governments in certain parts of the country to get federal approval —

known as “preclearance”—before implementing changes in their voting

procedures, which includes anything from moving a polling place to

changing district lines in the county.18 To receive preclearance under

section 5, a covered jurisdiction must obtain an administrative finding by

the Attorney General or a judgment by the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia that a jurisdiction has met the burden of

demonstrating that the Voting change(s) does not have the intent nor the

effect of worsening the position of minority voters.

Section 203 and 4(f)(4) are the language minority provisions of the VRA.

These provisions require certain covered jurisdictions to provide bilingual

written materials and other assistance for elections.

Section 6 provides the Attorney General the authority to assign federal

voting examiners to a county. Federal voting examiners prepare and

maintain lists of persons eligible to vote in federal, state, and local

elections . Section 8 allows the Attorney General to request that federal

observers be sent to any jurisdiction where a federal voting examiner has

been assigned. Federal observers monitor election-day practices in

response to concerns about racial discrimination in the voting process and

to provide information about compliance with bilingual election

procedures.

Section 2 is a nationwide prohibition against certain voting practices and

procedures, including redistricting plans and at-large election systems,

poll-worker hiring, and voter registration procedures that discriminate on

18The detailed list of “covered jurisdictions” is printed in the Code of Federal Regulations in the

appendix to 28 C.F.R. part 51. These are the Department of Justice section 5 guidelines that explain

how the section 5 review process works.

Voting Section

Responsibilities
B-285057

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

Section 2 prohibits not only election-related practices and procedures that

are intended to be racially discriminatory but also those that are shown to

have a racially discriminatory impact. The Department of Justice through

the Voting section—as well as affected private citizens—may bring

lawsuits to obtain court-ordered remedies for violations of section 2.

The NVRA facilitates voter registration for federal elections by allowing

voters to register by mail, when obtaining driver’s licenses, or when

obtaining services from various government agencies; and it permits voter

purges—removal of voters names from the voting registery—only under

very controlled conditions. NVRA also helps ensure that eligible voters are

not removed from the voting rolls and that people who move in the same

registrar’s district retain their eligibility to vote, even if they have not

reregistered at their new location.

UOCAVA requires that the states and territories allow military personnel

and citizens overseas to register and cast absentee votes in elections for

federal offices. The Department of Defense (DOD) receives complaints

and refers them to the Voting section. According to Voting section officials,

DOD is not required to refer complaints to the section, but if it is unable to

resolve complaints on its own, then DOD forwards the complaint to the

Voting section for action. The Voting section is not required to investigate

or file a lawsuit, but section officials said that they usually pursue these

complaints.

To carry out its mission, the section (1) brings lawsuits against states,

counties, cities, and other jurisdictions to remedy denials and abridgments

of the right to vote; (2) defends lawsuits that the VRA authorizes to be

brought against the Attorney General; (3) participates, where appropriate,

in cases involving issues raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno

covering racial gerrymandering (e.g. that race was the sole factor in

drawing the district lines) of election districts; (4) reviews changes in

voting laws and procedures administratively under section 5 of the VRA;

and (5) monitors election day activities through the assignment of federal

observers under section 8 of the VRA.

The Voting section initiated fewer than 100 matters and cases per year

from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1999. As can be seen in figure 3,

the number of matters initiated dropped between fiscal years 1994 and

1995 and increased thereafter. According to a Voting section official, the

number of matters initiated over the course of these fiscal years varied,

Enforcement Efforts in

Fiscal Years 1994 to 1999
B-285057

Page 27 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

depending on the amount of federal observer exercises the section

conducted in any given year.

Source: CRT’s Case Management System and Voting section officials.

The number of cases initiated was higher in fiscal years 1994 through 1996

than in fiscal years 1997 through 1999. According to Voting section

officials, the section had more cases in fiscal years 1994 through 1996

because it was involved in many cases related to the 1993 Supreme Court

decision in Shaw v. Reno, either as a party in the lawsuit or an amicus

curiae participant. The decision in that case and related cases created a

complex legal, political, and policysetting standard for legislative

redistricting plans. According to section officials, they have participated as

amicus curiae or intervenor in most Shaw-type cases. Officials said that

their objective is to help shape the body of case law to ensure a proper

balance between the requirements of the VRA and the constitutional

standard set forth in the Shaw decision. The section official stated that

these types of cases are large, complex, resource-intensive cases, and they

can continue for years—from the initial liability findings through the

appeals process and remedy stages. The official further stated that the

Figure 3: Voting Section Matters and

Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994

Through 1999
B-285057

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

section dedicated a significant portion of its resources to these types of

cases from 1994 to 1998.

During that same period, according to the same section official, the section

had a significant new enforcement obligation to defend the

constitutionality of the NVRA. The section official said that from

December 1994 to June 1995, the section handled seven NVRA cases

against states. Another major case was filed in June 1996. The official also

noted that several of these cases extended over many years before final

resolution and that two major cases were still open at the time of our

review.

According to the same section official, by the latter part of the 1990s, most

of the NVRA cases had been resolved, the larger Shaw-type cases had

begun to wind down; and the section was then able to focus more of its

resources on section 2 and language minority group issues. According to

the official, the number of matters and cases began to rise in the last

couple of years, as resources were redirected.

The section was also involved in several cases representing the United

States as defendant where a state was seeking a declaratory judgment

action,19 in response to a Department of Justice section 5 objection to a

voting change submitted for preclearance.

The Voting section initiated six cases in fiscal year 1998. All of these cases

were initiated at the discretion of the section. Three of these cases were

Shaw-type cases; two cases involved enforcement of UOCAVA; and one

case involved enforcement of provisions of the VRA related to vote

dilution, voter assistance, and minority language assistance. The factors

considered when the Voting section decided to investigate a matter or

participate in a particular case were based on the type of issues.

Section officials said that, during the 1994 to 1998 time frame in particular,

the section monitored Shaw-type cases to decide whether to participate as

an amicus curiae or intervenor. The section participated as an amicus

curiae in the three Shaw-type cases in our review. The Attorney General

and the Assistant Attorney General have indicated to section officials that

they expect the Department of Justice to participate in these cases to help

frame the legal issues for the body of casework that is developing in this

19A state may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a

declaratory judgment that the voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of

denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.

Selection of Voting

Cases to Pursue
B-285057

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

area. According to section officials, the decision to participate as amicus

curiae or intervenor depends on the extent to which they believe that they

can add value to the issues. If the section believes they can sufficiently

contribute to the development of the evidentiary record, they may

participate as an intervenor whereby they are a party to the case. If they do

not believe they can contribute to the record, they may decide to file an

amicus brief to present the government’s position. According to a section

official, the section has evaluated all cases that challenged congressional

redistricting plans made after the Shaw decision, and the section has

participated as an amicus curiae or intervenor in most.

The two UOCAVA cases were initiated because the section routinely

investigates these types of complaints when DOD refers them. In these

types of cases, the section officials said that they check to see whether

ballots were mailed in time to be returned and counted. If they found that

not enough time had been allowed, they prepared a complaint. According

to section officials, they usually resolved these cases with settlement

agreements. A section official said that the section also usually filed the

complaint and the settlement agreement with the court at the same time.

According to section officials, the Administration and DOD consider

enforcement of UOCAVA a priority because of their commitment to

protecting the voting rights of military personnel overseas.

The last case in our population was one brought against the city of

Lawrence, Massachusetts. In this case, the government brought a lawsuit

under section 2 and section 203 of the VRA that alleged the defendant (1)

failed to provide assistance in the Spanish language, (2) failed to appoint

and assign Hispanic individuals on the same basis as whites to serve as

poll workers, (3) denied Hispanic citizens an equal opportunity to

participate in the electoral process, (4) diluted the voting strength of

Hispanic citizens in its method of electing the city council, and (5) diluted

the voting strength of Hispanic citizens in its method of electing the school

committee. This case originated from citizen complaints. According to

section officials, they investigate all complaints from citizens. In this

particular case, the magnitude of the complainants and the number of

issues, led the section to pursue a broad investigation. Other factors that

were considered when the section decided to initiate this case included

priorities of the Assistant Attorney General, impact in a particular location,

impact on a particular type of discrimination, and part of a body of ongoing casework. According to voting section chief, the Assistant Attorney

General set a priority for the section to protect against voting practices

and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or

membership in a language minority group. They said that remedying
B-285057

Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

insufficient bilingual election procedures on behalf of language minority

groups has been an area of emphasis for the section for several years. Also,

section officials said that in this case, they considered the potential for

having an impact in a particular location of the country where they had not

had a presence before. Officials said that Massachusetts was an area of the

country that the section had not focused on in the past because, prior to

the 1980s, the state did not have a large minority language population.

However, officials said that areas in New England, such as Lawrence, have

experienced a growth in their Hispanic populations in recent years, and

the section is interested in ensuring enforcement of the VRA in these

geographic areas.

Table 3 shows the factors the Voting section considered when they

decided to investigate a matter that led to a case or participate in a case as

an amicus curiae for the six cases initiated during fiscal year 1998.
B-285057

Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Case type

Administration

or presidential

initiative

priority

Attorney

General

priority

Assistant

Attorney

General

priority

Impact in

particular

location

Impact

particular type

or category of

discrimination

Part of a

body of

casework

on going Other

Charles Stovall, et al.,

v. City of Cocoa, et al.

Shaw • • •

Thomas S. Fouts, et

al., v. Sandra Mortham

et al., and Florida State

Conference Black

Business Association,

et al.

Shaw • • •

Martin Cromartie, et al.,

v. James B. Hunt, Jr.

Governor of North

Carolina, et al.

Shaw • • • Section

involved in

case from

origin when

Shaw lawsuit

initially brought

against AG

Reno

U.S. v. the Board of

Elections in the City of

New York

UOCAVA • DOD priority

U.S. v State of

Oklahoma; Oklahoma

State Election Board;

and Lance D. Ward, as

Secretary of the

Oklahoma State

Election Board

UOCAVA • DOD priority

U.S. v City of

Lawrence,

Massachusetts

Language

minority

group

• • • •

Source: Interviews with Voting section officials.

Appendix VII provides information on the voting cases, such as origin,

legal role of the section, protected class, a description of the cases, and

their disposition as of May 2000.

Our analysis of the 22 closed Voting section matters found that the

majority of matters that we reviewed were closed because the section

determined that the complaint lacked merit or that no further action was

warranted. The Voting section initiated matters that reflected three roles

on the part of the section—investigative, monitoring of private lawsuits,

and monitoring of elections.

Table 2: Factors Considered by the Voting Section in Initiating Discretionary Cases

Reasons That Voting

Section Matters Were

Closed
B-285057

Page 32 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Eight of the 10 closed matters that were investigative matters were closed

due to lack of merit. For example, in one closed matter the section

investigated purge procedures that appeared to be inconsistent with the

voter cancellation requirements set forth in the NVRA. A county clerk had

purged about 30,000 voters from the county’s voter registration list. The

Voting section investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence that electors

were harmed by the process to justify filing a lawsuit or continuing the

investigation. Two investigative matters were closed because concerns

raised were resolved through corrective actions. For example, the Voting

section initiated a preelection investigation in response to concerns about

election-day poll workers in a county.At issue was the racial balance of

poll worker appointments. The Director of the Board of Elections agreed

with the concerns raised and took corrective action.

Nine of the section’s closed matters were related to monitoring private

lawsuits. Six of these matters were closed because the lawsuit was

resolved through court actions or the lawsuit was dismissed so no further

action was warranted. For example, the section monitored a lawsuit that

challenged the congressional redistricting in a particular state. The

redistricting plan was established in 1992 by a three-judge court order and

had been in use since then. In August 1997, the plaintiff filed a federal

lawsuit challenging the majority black district in the court-ordered plan,

alleging racial gerrymandering. The Voting section was considering

whether to intervene on behalf of the defendant (state) or file an amicus

brief. The District Court dismissed the case recognizing the inherent

impracticability of attempting to modify the congressional districting plan

through litigation prior to the 2000 Census. According to section officials,

all parties recognized that the 2000 Census redistricting plans should

address the need to comply with the laws. The remaining three matters

were also closed because no further action was warranted (i.e., the Voting

section determined that the lawsuit did not warrant its participation or

further action).

Three of the section’s closed matters were related to its responsibilities for

monitoring elections. These three matters were closed because no further

action was warranted. For example, one matter was closed because the

election was cancelled.

Appendix VIII provides information on the voting closed matters such as

the origin, type of matter, protected class, a description of each closed

matter, and the reason for closing each matter.
B-285057

Page 33 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

On September 11, 2000, we obtained oral comments on a draft of this

report from the Civil Rights Division’s Chief of Staff and the Counsel to the

Assistant Attorney General. These officials agreed with the message and

suggested some technical corrections, which we have incorporated, where

appropriate.

As arranged with the Subcommittee, we plan no further distribution of this

report until 15 days after the date of this letter. We will then send copies to

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee

on the Constitution; and Senator John Ashcroft, Chairman and Senator

Russell D. Feingold, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Subcommittee on

the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. We will also send copies

to the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General; and to Mr. Bill Lann Lee,

the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. We will also make

copies available to others on request.

Please contact Mr. William Jenkins or me on 512-8777 if you or your staff

have any questions about this report. Other contributors are acknowledged

in appendix IX.

Sincerely yours,

Laurie E. Ekstrand

Issue Area Director

Administration of Justice Issues

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
Page 34 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 38

The Civil Rights

Division Structure

Appendix II 40

CRT’s Internal Process

for Handling Matters

and Cases

Appendix III 46

Information on

Employment Litigation

Section Cases

Appendix IV 55

Information on

Employment Litigation

Section Closed Matters

Appendix V 67

Information on

Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section

Cases
Contents

Page 35 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Appendix VI

Information on

Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section

Closed Matters

90

Appendix VII

Information on Voting

Section Cases

105

Appendix VIII

Information on Voting

Section Closed Matters

111

Appendix IX 117

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

Table 1: Factors Considered by the Employment

Litigation Section in Initiating Discretionary Cases

13

Table 2: Factors Considered by the Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section in Initiating Discretionary Cases

22

Table 2: Factors Considered by the Voting Section in

Initiating Discretionary Cases

31

Table III.1: Information on the Employment Litigation

Section’s Discretionary Cases

46

Table IV.1: Information on Employment Litigation

Section’s Matters Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998

That Were Closed as of October 31, 1999

56

Table IV.2: Description of Closed Matters and the

Reasons That Matters Were Closed

59

Tables

Table IV.3: Factors Considered by the Employment

Litigation Section When Selecting Matters for

Investigation That Were Not Pursued as Cases.

66
Contents

Page 36 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Table V.1: Characteristics of Housing and Civil

Enforcement Cases

67

Table VI.1: Information on Matters Initiated During Fiscal

Year 1998 That Were Closed as of October 31, 1999

91

Table VI.2: Description of Closed Matters and the

Reasons That Matters Were Closed

94

Table VII.1: Information on the Voting Section’s

Discretionary Cases

106

Table VIII.1: Information on Voting Section’s Matters

Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as

of March 2000

111

Table VIII.2: Matters and the Reason the Matter Was

Closed

113

Figure 1: Employment Matters and Cases Initiated for

Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1999

10

Figure 2: Housing and Civil Enforcement Matters and

Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1999

18

Figure 3: Voting Section Matters and Cases Initiated for

Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1999

27

Figure I.1: CRT’s organizational chart, as of July 2000 39

Figure II.1: General Internal Process Followed When a

Section Received a Referral or Allegation of

Discrimination or Initiated an Investigation

44

45

Figures
Contents

Page 37 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

CMS Case Management System

CRT Civil Rights Division

DOD Department of Defense

DOL Department of Labor

DOT Department of Transportation

ECOA Equal Credit Opportunity Act

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FHA Fair Housing Act

FHCO Fair Housing Council of Oregon

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

NFHA Northwest Fair Housing Alliance

NSF National Science Foundation

NVRA National Voter Registration Act

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

OTS Office of Thrift Supervision

UOCAVA Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

VRA Voting Rights Act
Appendix I

The Civil Rights Division Structure

Page 38 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The Civil Rights Division (CRT) is headed by an Assistant Attorney

General. He is assisted by three Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. The

Office of the Assistant Attorney General establishes policy and provides

executive direction and control over litigative enforcement and

administrative management activities in the Division.1

CRT has 11

sections—10 program-related sections and an Administrative Management

section. Eight of the 10 program sections have enforcement

responsibilities over particular subject areas that include criminal, voting,

employment, education, housing, disability rights, and conditions in

institutional confinement. Of the remaining two sections, one is

responsible for coordinating federal agencies’ civil rights enforcement

efforts, and the other handles appellate matters and provides legal

guidance. Each of the enforcement sections, with the exception of the

Office of Special Counsel, is headed by a section chief and has several

deputy section chiefs.2

CRT’s litigation work is national in scope. CRT has

no regional offices. Figure I.1 shows CRT’s organizational chart, as of July

2000.

1

Our report, Civil Rights Division: Policies and Procedures for Establishing Litigation Priorities,

Tracking and Managing Casework, and Disseminating Litigation Results (GAO/GGD-00-58R, Feb. 17,

2000) describes CRT’s policymaking role.

2

The head of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices is

appointed by the President of the United States, and the appointee has the title of Special Counsel.
Appendix I

The Civil Rights Division Structure

Page 39 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Source: Civil Rights Division.

Figure I.1: CRT’s organizational chart, as of July 2000
Appendix II

CRT’s Internal Process for Handling Matters

and Cases

Page 40 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

We found that the Civil Rights Division (CRT) did not have written policies

or procedures that explained their internal processes for handling matters

and cases. Therefore, we asked CRT officials in the three sections we

reviewed to describe their processes for us. According to these officials,

their processes, from initiating a matter to filing a lawsuit, can vary among

the sections. While some steps were common to all three sections,

variation usually occurred because of the structure of the statutes they

enforce.

For example, the Housing and Civil Enforcement section receives some

Fair Housing Act (FHA) referrals from the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD)1

for which Justice is required to file a lawsuit.

Managers in the section review these referrals to determine whether they

should be handled in the section or referred to a U.S.

Attorney’s office for handling. In contrast, when the Employment

Litigation section receives a referral from EEOC, it has the discretion

either to (1) close the matter with a right-to-sue letter,2 after reviewing the

charge or (2) consider it for possible litigation. If the section elects to

consider the charge further, it is to (1) conduct a supplemental

investigation and (2) based on the results of that investigation, either close

the matter and issue a right-to-sue letter or recommend that a lawsuit be

filed.

In addition to referrals, the sections undertake investigations that tend to

be larger and more complex than referrals that allege a single act of

discrimination against a person or persons. In the Employment Litigation

section and Housing and Civil Enforcement section these investigations

are referred to as “pattern or practice,” and in the Voting section they are

called “systemic” investigations.

The Voting section is different from the other two sections in that it

generally does not receive referrals from other federal agencies. However,

1

HUD refers allegations of discrimination under FHA to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section.

The federal bank regulatory agencies also refer allegations of discrimination to the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. For the Employment Litigation section,

the term ”charge” refers specifically to those allegations of discrimination referred to them by the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We will use the term “referral “ to refer to HUD,

regulatory agency, and EEOC referrals. The more general term “allegation of discrimination” will be

used to describe all other instances of alleged discrimination.

2

The Employment Litigation section is legally required to notify the charging party when it is not going

to pursue a charge so that the charging party can pursue private litigation. This notification is made by

means of a letter from the Assistant Attorney General to the charging party or his/her attorney and is

referred to as a right-to-sue letter.
Appendix II

CRT’s Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 41 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

like the other two sections it has authority to initiate its own litigation.

According to the section chief, while the section does not have pattern or

practice authority like the other two sections, cases initiated by the Voting

section typically address systemic problems in the method of election of a

given jurisdiction or other discriminatory voting practices. According to

CRT, such systemic cases are very similar in scope and complexity to

pattern or practice discrimination cases of the Employment Litigation and

the Housing and Civil Enforcement sections.

The process for initiating the pattern or practice cases by the Employment

Litigation section and Housing and Civil Enforcement section and the

systemic cases brought by the Voting section is different from that for

referred cases. The sections all have authority to initiate their own

investigations, regarding this kind of case. While many of these

investigations are the result of allegations from citizens and civil rights and

community organizations to the sections, such allegations are not

necessary to initiate an investigation. For example, investigations may be

and are initiated as a result of section survey and outreach work,

information from newspaper articles, U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and other

similar sources of information about discrimination. Before filing such

pattern or practice and systemic cases, approval of the Assistant Attorney

General is required; and for certain statutory claims (public

accommodations), approval by the Attorney General is required.

The sections may also follow a different process, depending on their role

in the case (i.e., representing the United States as plaintiff, defendant,

plaintiff-intervenor, defendant-intervenor, or amicus curiae.) For example,

when the Employment Litigation section defends a federal agency in a

lawsuit brought against the federal government, it would not prepare a

memorandum recommending a lawsuit, as it would do when it is the

plaintiff.

When the sections initiate a matter to investigate or review a referred

charge and pursue the matter as a case (e.g., file a lawsuit), the sections

generally have the same internal process. The Employment Litigation

section receives charges of discrimination from individuals in the form of a

referral from EEOC. The section chief, a deputy section chief, or a trial

attorney may review the referrals, but the decision to investigate a referred

matter is generally made by the section chief. In most instances, EEOC

referrals are reviewed initially by a deputy section chief. The deputy

section chief brings to the attention of the section chief referrals that have

potential for litigation, including all referrals on which EEOC has
Appendix II

CRT’s Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 42 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

recommended pursuing a lawsuit. If the section chief concurs that the

referred matter has potential, it is assigned to a trial attorney.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section receives a number of referrals

from HUD. Some of the HUD referrals of alleged FHA violations are

required to be filed in district court and can be filed either by the Housing

and Civil Enforcement section or a U.S. Attorney’s office. These

nondiscretionary referrals are called “election cases” because either the

complaining party or the respondent has elected to have the case heard in

federal court, rather than through a HUD administrative hearing process.

According to section officials, the sections also receive allegations of

discrimination from numerous sources, such as citizens, private attorneys,

Members of Congress, media, advocacy groups, and federal agencies.

These allegations may involve individual instances of discrimination or a

pattern or practice of discrimination. In each section, an attorney manager

or section chief is responsible for reviewing all allegations of

discrimination and deciding whether further investigation is warranted.

In each section, if a decision is made to investigate a referral or allegation

of discrimination, the section chief assigns a trial attorney, who conducts

an investigation. When the investigation is completed, the trial attorney

makes a recommendation to the section chief on whether the section

should file a lawsuit, close the matter, or participate in some other manner.

However, the section chief is responsible for making the final decision

about closing a matter, recommending a lawsuit, or other participation to

the Assistant Attorney General.

If a referral or allegation of discrimination is not pursued, all appropriate

parties are notified, and the matter is closed. As mentioned previously, the

Employment Litigation section is required to notify the charging parties of

their right to file a lawsuit if the section does not intend to pursue the

EEOC referral. The practice in the section is to prepare a right-to-sue letter

in these instances. The section is also responsible for notifying the

employer when the investigation has been closed.

In all three sections, if a decision is made to pursue a matter and file a

formal complaint to initiate a lawsuit, then the trial attorney is to prepare a

justification package. The contents of this package vary by section but

always include (1) a justification memorandum that presents the facts of

the case and the legal argument for filing a lawsuit, (2) the proposed

formal complaint of a violation of discrimination laws to be filed with the

court, and (3) a cover memorandum from the section chief through the
Appendix II

CRT’s Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 43 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Deputy Assistant Attorney General to the Assistant Attorney General. An

attorney manager and the section chief are responsible for reviewing and

approving the justification package. The Deputy Assistant Attorney

General for CRT reviews and approves the justification package, which is

then forwarded to the Assistant Attorney General for final review and

approval. The justification package also is to be sent to the U.S. Attorney’s

office for the district where the lawsuit is to be filed for review and

concurrence.

If the justification package is not approved, the trial attorney generally

prepares a closing memorandum and notifies the charging party, when

appropriate, that the Department of Justice is not filing a lawsuit. The

matter is then closed. According to CRT officials, the justification package

is rarely disapproved. If the justification package is approved, CRT is to

notify the defendant by letter of the Department of Justice’s intent to file a

lawsuit. After the defendant has been notified, the trial attorney and the

defendant often have presuit settlement discussions.3

If a presuit settlement is reached, a settlement document stating the

agreements reached is prepared and signed by all parties. The settlement

document is almost always filed with the federal district court along with

the complaint. The sections may monitor the settlement agreement for

compliance where appropriate.

If the presuit settlement discussions do not result in a settlement, the

complaint is to be filed in federal district court and the parties are to

engage in litigation conducted pursuant to the federal rules of civil

procedure and evidence. Filing a complaint and the beginning of legal

proceedings do not preclude the trial attorney and defendant from

continuing negotiations and reaching a settlement. According to section

officials, defendants often settle prior to, or during, a trial. If a trial is held,

the plaintiff or defendant can appeal the decision. If the decision is

appealed, the section works closely with the Appellate section of CRT,

which assumes responsibility for the appeal stage of the case.

Figure II.1 shows the general internal process from the time when a

referral or allegation of discrimination is received or an investigation is

initiated, at the discretion of a section, to the closing of the matter or the

case.

3

Settlement negotiations can occur at any time during the process. Negotiations held prior to the filing

of a formal complaint to initiate the lawsuit are referred to as presuit settlement discussions.
Appendix II

CRT’s Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 44 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Figure II.1: General Internal Process

Followed When a Section Received a

Referral or Allegation of Discrimination

or Initiated an Investigation
Appendix II

CRT’s Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 45 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Source: GAO developed based on discussions with CRT officials.
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation

Section Cases

Page 46 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This appendix provides general information and a brief description of the

21 Employment Litigation section cases and their disposition, as of April

2000. In 8 of the 21 cases, the section had the discretion to decide whether

to participate in the case. Table III.1 provides information on the eight

discretionary cases, including the case type, government role, protected

class, defendant type, and discriminatory issue. Six of the 8 cases were

EEOC referrals related to the Employment Litigation section’s

enforcement of provisions of Title VII against state or local government

entities, and the remaining two involved the section intervening on behalf

of plaintiffs in Seminole Tribe type private lawsuits.1

The section also

initiated 13 other cases that involved participating in cases as a defendant

or involved the section monitoring private lawsuits but not actually

participating in the lawsuits. More information is provided on all 21 cases

in the description of cases that follows.

Case name Case type Government role Protected class

Defendant type

accused of

discrimination

Discriminatory

issues

U.S. v. City of

Winter Springs,

Florida

Individual Plaintiff Religion City fire department Discharge

U.S., Pamela

Starling, Gail Berry,

Jackie Embry, and

Janice Waters v.

City of Alma,

Georgia and Bacon

County Georgia

Individual Plaintiff Sex City and county fire

departments

Hiring

U.S. v. Columbus

County, North

Carolina

Individual Plaintiff Sex County agency Sexual harassment

Retaliation

U.S. v. North Little

Rock School District

Individual Plaintiff Sex School district Sexual harassment

Retaliation

1

In general, the Seminole Tribe type cases involve litigation whereby the plaintiffs are charging a

defendant state entity with discrimination, and the state entity argues that it is not covered by the

particular federal law because it violates state’s rights under the Eleventh Amendment. According to

the section chief, the section participates in these cases because it has a responsibility to defend the

constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Table III.1: Information on the Employment Litigation Section’s Discretionary Cases
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 47 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Case type Government role Protected class

Defendant type

accused of

discrimination

Discriminatory

issues

U.S. v. Erie County,

New York

Individual Plaintiff Sex County agency Assignment

U.S. and Terry

Piersol v. City of

Belen, New Mexico

Individual

Pattern or practice

Plaintiff Sex City police Sexual harassment

Retaliation

Discharge

Diane Cummings, et

al., v. University of

Alabama at

Birmingham

Intervenor on

behalf of plaintiff

Plaintiff-intervenor aState agency Seminole Tribe type

case

Ethel Lois Larry,

Denese Pounds v.

Board of Trustees of

the University of

Alabama and the

University of Alabama

at Birmingham

Intervenor on

behalf of plaintiff

Intervenor aState agency Seminole Tribe type

case

a

Not applicable.

Source: Employment Litigation section case files and interviews with the section chief.

The following paragraphs provide brief descriptions of the 21 cases that

the Employment Litigation section initiated during fiscal year 1998 and the

one pattern or practice case initiated during fiscal year 1999 and their

disposition, as of April 2000. The first eight descriptions involve the

discretionary cases initiated by the section. The remaining 13 cases

involve those where the section was either representing other federal

agencies as a defendant or monitoring a private lawsuit. Some of the cases

were closed, and others were open. The open cases included (1) those

where the section was involved in litigation and (2) those where the case

had been resolved and the section was monitoring compliance with a

settlement agreement or court order. The section may monitor

compliance for several years, as specified in the settlement agreement or

court order.

The section filed a lawsuit against the City of Winter Springs, Florida,

alleging that its fire department discriminated against an individual by (1)

failing and refusing to provide reasonable accommodation to the person

regarding religious observances, practices, and/or beliefs and (2)

discharging or constructively discharging the person from employment, as

a probationary firefighter because of his religion.

Disposition: Open.

(1.) U.S. v. City of Winter

Springs, Florida
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 48 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This case is in litigation. The discovery phase was expected to end in

August 2000 and the trial was to begin in 2001.

The section filed a lawsuit against the City of Alma, Georgia and Bacon

County, Georgia, alleging discrimination against several women on the

basis of their sex by failing or refusing to hire them as full-time

firefighter/emergency medical technicians or full-time

firefighter/paramedics in the Alma-Bacon County Fire and Emergency

Medical Service, an entity jointly operated by the city and county.

Disposition: Open.

A settlement agreement has been filed, and the section is monitoring

compliance.

The section filed a lawsuit against Columbus County, North Carolina,

which alleged the County had, through its Department of Aging,

discriminated against a woman on the basis of her sex by subjecting her to

a sexually hostile work environment. The lawsuit also alleged retaliation

against her for failing or refusing to assign her work because of her

opposition to the unwelcomed sexual conduct and for failing or refusing to

take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory

treatment. A settlement agreement was filed with the court in March 1999.

Disposition: Open.

The section is monitoring compliance with the settlement agreement.

The section filed a lawsuit against the school district alleging that it

discriminated against a woman, on the basis of her sex, by subjecting her

to a sexually hostile work environment and failing or refusing to take

appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment.

The lawsuit also alleged that the school district had retaliated against the

woman by increasing her workload, supervising her work more closely,

and transferring her to a less desirable position after she made an internal

complaint alleging sexual harassment.

Disposition: Open.

The litigation is in the discovery phase, and the trial is scheduled for later

this year.

(2.) U.S. v. City of Alma,

Georgia and Bacon County,

Georgia

(3.) U.S. v. Columbus

County, North Carolina

(4.) U.S. v. North Little Rock

School District
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 49 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The section filed a lawsuit against Erie County’s Correctional Facility,

alleging that the county discriminated against guards at a correctional

facility, on the basis of their sex, by pursuing certain policies and

practices. These policies and practices assigned only men to guard male

inmates and only women to guard female inmates during trips outside the

facility, regardless of whether such gender-based assignments were

reasonably necessary as bona fide occupational qualifications. EEOC

investigated the charge and found reasonable cause to believe that the

guards had been discriminated against based on their sex. A settlement

agreement was filed with the court in April 1999.

Disposition: Open.

The section is monitoring the settlement agreement.

The section filed a lawsuit against the City of Belen, New Mexico, alleging

that its city police department (1) discriminated against women, on the

basis of their sex, by engaging in a pattern or practice of sexual

harassment and (2) discriminated against a female supervisor, on the basis

of sex, and retaliated against her for assisting subordinates who had been

sexually harassed. The original charge in this case, which was referred by

EEOC, involved the supervisor who had been the subject of the retaliatory

behavior. According to the section chief, after investigating, the section

found widespread sexual harassment, so it included a pattern and practice

allegation in its complaint. Subsequently, the section received an

individual EEOC referral that alleged sexual harassment. As a result, the

section amended the complaint for the lawsuit to include the individual

sexual harassment complaints in order to seek compensatory relief for the

individuals subjected to the sexual harassment.

Disposition: Open.

The section was intervenor in this case. The section intervened because

the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting the public interest had

been drawn into question. More specifically, the section intervened to

defend the constitutionality of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, and the Equal Pay Act, as amended. The plaintiffs in this private

suit alleged that the University of Alabama at Birmingham had

discriminated against them on the basis of their sex. Relying on Seminole

Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the University of Alabama argued that it was

immune from the plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims under Title VII and the

Equal Pay Act claims. The University argued that Congress did not

constitutionally abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from

(5.) U.S. v. Erie County,

New York

(6.) U.S. and Terry Piersol v.

City of Belen, New Mexico

(7.) Diane Cummings, et al., 7.

v. University of Alabama at

Birmingham
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 50 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

such claims when it extended the coverage of each of the statutes to the

states.

Disposition: Closed.

This case was dismissed and settled out of court.

The section was an intervenor in this case. This case is similar to the

previous case, Cummings, et al., v. University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The section intervened because the constitutionality of acts of Congress

affecting the public interest had been drawn into question based on the

Seminole Tribe decision.

Disposition: Open.

The case is on appeal.

The section was the lead defense attorney for the Navy. This was an

Adarand type case.2

The plaintiff brought suit against the Navy because of

the Navy’s plans to set aside a government contract at the Naval Surface

Warfare Center for a sole-source award to a small business concern,

owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged

individuals, as defined under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act.3 The

plaintiff protested that, as the incumbent contractor on the predecessor

government contract, the company was not afforded an opportunity to

compete for the contract. The plaintiff contended that the “set-aside” was

in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment of the

Constitution and in further violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

The issue in the complaint became moot when the contractor who

received the 8(a) contract award was disqualified and the contract was

rebid without the 8(a) requirement.

2

In Adarand Constructors Inc., v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that federal

affirmative action programs to benefit minorities must meet the same “strict scrutiny” standard that

applies to state and local programs. To survive strict scrutiny, federal programs must serve a

compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Previously, the Court

had subjected congressionally mandated affirmative action to a lesser standard of review in light of

Congress’ broad authority to enforce equal protection guarantees.

3

According to the complaint, an 8(a) contractor is a “small business concern owned and controlled by

socially and economically disadvantaged individuals...” “Socially disadvantaged” individuals, in turn,

are defined as individuals who ...”have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias

because of their identity as members of a group, without regard to their individual qualities.” Certain

groups are presumed to be socially disadvantaged, including: Black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific,

Subcontinent Asian, and Native Americans.

(8.) Ethel Lois Larry,

Denese Pounds v. Board of

Trustees of the University

of Alabama and the

University of Alabama at

Birmingham

(9.) Synetics Corporation v.

Department of the Navy,

Naval Surface Warfare

Center
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 51 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

The district court dismissed the complaint.

The section was defense attorney for the U. S. DOT. This is an Adarand

type case. In October 1997, the plaintiffs filed suit against the City of

Albuquerque, U. S. DOT, and New Mexico State Highway, Transportation

Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The

plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

goals of 13 percent or any goal higher than 0 percent on a particular

project denies plaintiffs their rights to equal protection, as guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was settled out of court, and the defendants agreed to readvertise

the contract without the goals.

The section was the defense attorney for NSF with assistance from the

Education section on this case. This is an Adarand type case that involves

the constitutionality of a minority fellowship program authorized by

Congress and administered by the NSF.

Disposition: Closed.

In June 1998, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

rendered an order that dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The section is defense attorney for the U.S. DOT. This is an Adarand type

case that involves the constitutionality of the Disadvantaged Business

Enterprise Program.

Disposition: Open

The section is actively litigating this case as defense attorney for DOD.

This is an Adarand type case. The plaintiff challenged DOD’s Price Credit

Program, which was suspended by an act of Congress for 1 year. The

defensive issues for this case related to a challenge to the constitutionality

of affirmative action programs in relation to a statutory federal

procurement program designed to assist small businesses owned by

disadvantaged individuals.

Disposition: Open.

(10.) Highway Supply

Company, Bixby Electric,

Inc., Salls Brothers

Construction, Inc., and

RMCI, Inc., v. City of

Albuquerque, U.S.

Department of

Transportation (DOT), and

New Mexico State Highway,

Transportation Department

(11.) Travis Kidd v. National

Science Foundation (NSF),

et al.

(12.) Kline v. Department of

Transportation of Maryland

and U.S. DOT

(13.) Royal Lubricants, Inc.,

v. Department of Defense

(DOD)
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 52 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The section is negotiating with the plaintiff.

The section was the defense attorney for DOL. The section referred to this

case as an Executive Order type case. The plaintiff in this case brought

suit in December 1997 in the District Court for the Western District of

North Carolina to challenge the final decision and order of the

Administrative Review Board of DOL. The issue concerned whether

Trinity Industries was subject to compliance reviews by the Office of

Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) under Executive Order

11246, as amended. Trinity maintained that its Asheville facility was not

subject to OFCCP jurisdiction because of its complete distinction from any

other of Trinity’s facilities, which had federal contracts. Trinity sought a

waiver from OFCCP review. DOL’s Review Board did not grant Trinity’s

request for a waiver because under the Executive Order, waivers are to be

given explicitly, and that did not happen in this case.

Disposition: Closed.

The District Court’s judgment in July 1998 affirmed the decision of the

DOL Review Board.

The section was defense attorney for the U.S. DOT. This is an Executive

Order 11246 and affirmative action Adarand type case. The plaintiff in this

case filed suit against the state of Washington’s Department of

Transportation alleging that regulations adopted by the Federal Highway

Administration were unconstitutional. These regulations (1) required state

agencies receiving federal funds to adopt, establish, and enforce

affirmative action program; (2) required hiring and utilization goals; and

(3) required the use of race and sex based preferences. Specifically, the

plaintiff alleged that the regulations, policies, and practices, which

required the use of race and sex as a factor in the performance of

contracts, were violations of the due process and equal protection

components of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.

Constitution.

Disposition: Closed

This case was settled out of court.

(14.) Trinity Industries, Inc.,

v. Department of Labor

(DOL)

(15.) Superior Paving

Company, Inc., v.

Washington State

Department of

Transportation, U.S. DOT,

and the Administrator of

Federal Highway

Administration
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 53 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The section monitored the case and provided advice to the Civil Division

as appropriate. This case was the responsibility of the Department of

Justice’s Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch. This case was another

Adarand type case that involved a challenge to HHS’ affirmative action

program for scholarships.

Disposition: Closed.

The court dismissed the case, finding there was no cause of action.

The section monitored this case and coordinated with the Department of

Justice’s Civil Division. The Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch was

monitoring this case that was handled by a U.S. Attorneys office. This is

an Adarand type case that involved a challenge to the standards for

applying affirmative action programs that benefit minorities. The plaintiff

in this case challenged whether it was appropriate for DOD to pay for

federal employees to attend a Blacks in Government conference. The

plaintiff also challenged other unnamed affirmative action programs on the

basis that they discriminated against white males.

Disposition: Closed.

The district court dismissed the case.

The section monitored and provided advice to the state of Utah. This is an

Adarand type case in which the Employment Litigation section did not

have a formal role because the U.S. DOT was not named as a defendant in

the case. The plaintiff in this case challenged, in the state court, Utah’s

implementation of the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Program.

Disposition: Closed

The state court dismissed the case.

This case is similar to the previous case, in that the section monitored a

case in state court where the plaintiff challenged the state’s

implementation of DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.

The section is monitoring the case to determine whether the case will be

moved to federal court.

Disposition: Open.

(16.) Frank Paul Lukacs v.

Health and Human Services

(HHS)

(17.) Shine v. DOD

(18.) Associated Builders

and Contractors v. Utah

Transit Authority

(19.) Carlton Construction

Company v. West Virginia,

Department of

Transportation
Appendix III

Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 54 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

If the case is moved to federal court, the section would consider whether

to intervene.

The section monitored this case and provided advice to the State of

Vermont. In July 1998, the plaintiff filed suit against the University of

Vermont in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The plaintiff

alleged that the defendant’s affirmative action program violated the Equal

Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution. The plaintiff applied for a position at the University of

Vermont and State Agricultural College. The person selected for the

position, an Asian woman, was hired pursuant to the University’s

affirmative action program, which encouraged race-conscious selection of

faculty members. DOL contacted the Employment Litigation section and

asked them to monitor this case because of concerns that Executive Order

11246 requirements might become an issue in the case.

Disposition: Closed.

The executive order was never raised in litigation, and no federal programs

were challenged in the case.

The section monitored this case to determine whether a federal issue

needed to be addressed. This is an Adarand type case that was brought to

the section’s attention by DOT. The plaintiff challenged Dade County’s

Affirmative Action Contracting Program. The plaintiff filed in federal

district court, but the complaint was made only against Metropolitan Dade

County.

Disposition: Closed.

No federal programs were challenged in this case.

(20.) Beth Walter Hondale v.

University of Vermont and

State Agricultural College

(21.) Engineering

Contractor Association of

South Florida, Inc., et al v.

Metropolitan Dade County,

Florida, et al.
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation

Section Closed Matters

Page 55 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This appendix provides general information on the statistically

representative sample of 64 closed matters from a population of 149 closed

matters that we reviewed. Specifically, the appendix provides a

description of each matter and the reason the matter was closed. Of the 64

closed matters, 61 were referred by EEOC, and the remaining 3 were

referred by another federal agency, regarding bid protests. The majority of

the EEOC discrimination allegations were against state and city agencies.

For example, 15 matters alleged discrimination against states, and 27

matters alleged discrimination against city entities such as police and fire

departments. We found that 43 of the 61 referred matters alleged

discrimination on the basis of race and/or sex, 4 alleged religious

discrimination, and 4 alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin.

We were unable to determine the protected class for 10 matters.1 The

employment discrimination issues varied for EEOC referrals. For

example, we found that 10 matters related to harassment, 10 related to

promotion, 7 involved issues concerning discharge, and 7 involved hiring

issues. We were unable to determine the discriminatory issue for 13

matters because the files had been returned to EEOC. Matters often

included more than one issue.

Table IV.1 provides general information for each closed matter on the

matter issue, protected class, and the government entity alleged to have

engaged in discriminatory behavior. The 61 matters referred by EEOC are

listed first.

1

The information was unavailable because the section returned the complaint file to EEOC when it

decided not to pursue the matter.
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 56 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Matter issue Protected class

Government entity alleged to

have engaged in discrimination

behavior

1 Hiring Sex County agency

2 Promotion

Assignment

Retaliation

Race Multistate entity (multijurisdiction)

3 Retaliation

Equal pay

Race

Sex

County sheriff department

and county agency

4 Promotion

Retaliation

Race

Sex

City fire department

5 Racial harassment Race City agency (public golf

course)

6 Sexual harassment Sex City agency

7 Race

Retaliation

Race

Sex

State agency

8 Promotion

Terms and conditions

Race

Sex

City agency and county

agency

9 Unable to determine Unable to determine County agency

10 Discharge Sex State agency

11 Unable to determine Unable to determine County agency

12 Sexual harassment Sex City police department

13 Discipline

Harassment

Promotion

Terms and conditions

Retaliation

National origin County agency

14 Hiring Race City agency

15 References unfavorable

Retaliation

Sex City agency

16 Discharge Race State agency

17 Harassment

Terms and conditions

Retaliation

Race State agency

18 Unable to determine Unable to determine State agency

19 Unable to determine Unable to determine County agency

20 Discipline

Reasonable accommodation

Religion

National origin

State agency

21 Harassment

Retaliation

Sex

Race

School board

22 Sexual harassment

Harassment

Retaliation

Sex

Race

City police department

23 Retaliation National origin State agency

Table IV.1: Information on Employment Litigation Section’s Matters Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as of

October 31, 1999
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 57 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Matter issue Protected class

Government entity alleged to

have engaged in discrimination

behavior

24 Discharge Religion State agency

25 Promotion Race State agency

26 Promotion Race State agency

27 Unable to determine National origin School board

28 Harassment

Intimidation

Terms and conditions

Race State agency

29 Reasonable accommodation

Disability

Sex State agency

30 Sex discrimination Unable to determine State agency

31 Constructive discharge

Harassment

Race City agency

32 Demotion

Harassment

Retaliation

Race

Sex

City agency

33 Promotion

Terms and conditions

Sex County sheriff

34 Discipline

Harassment

Retirement involuntary

Training

Retaliation

Race City agency

35 Discipline

Retaliation

Race City fire department

36 Sexual harassment

Retaliation

Sex City agency

37 Hiring

Terms and conditions

Sex

Race

Age

County agency

38 Sexual harassment

Retaliation

Sex County agency

39 Unable to determine Unable to determine School district

40 Discharge Religion State agency

41 Constructive discharge

Sexual harassment

Sex School board

42 Promotion

Training

Race City police department

43 Assignment Race

Sex

City police department

44 Harassment Race City agency

45 Unable to determine Unable to determine City police

46 Sexual harassment

Terms and conditions

Sex State agency

47 Unable to determine Unable to determine City police department
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 58 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Matter issue Protected class

Government entity alleged to

have engaged in discrimination

behavior

48 Hiring Sex City police department

49 Unable to determine Unable to determine County agency

50 Promotion Sex City police department

51 Promotion

Retaliation

Race

Sex

City police department

52 Hiring Religion City agency

53 Hiring Age

Disability

City agency

54 Constructive discharge

Discharge

Harassment

Sexual harassment

Terms and conditions

Sex City agency

55 Discharge Sex City agency

56 Hiring Race City agency

57 Unable to determine Sex City police department

58 Unable to determine Sex School district

59 Racial harassment Race County agency

60 Unable to determine Race City fire department

61 Unable to determine Unable to determine County agency

62 Bid protest Not applicable Air Force

63 Bid protest Not applicable Air Force

64 Bid protest Not applicable Air Force

Source: Employment Litigation section closed matter files and interviews with the section chief.

Table IV.2 provides a brief description for each of the 64 closed matters

that were initiated during fiscal year 1998 and provides information on the

reasons that matters were closed.2 We found that all 61 matters referred

by EEOC were closed because the section concluded that participation

was not justified. Three matters referred by another federal agency were

closed because no further action was warranted. The order of the matters

in Table IV.2 is presented in the same order as Table IV.1.

Additional information was available for 20 of the closed EEOC referred

matters, regarding the reason the matter was closed. Seven of these

closed matters were selected for further investigation or research but were

not pursued as cases. Most of these were closed because the attorney’s

investigation found that the facts of the matter were problematic. Thirteen

of the closed EEOC referred matters that were reviewed included

2

We were unable to obtain a description for 38 closed matters because the files had been returned to

EEOC.
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 59 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

additional reasons, such as the size and/or limited impact of the referred

matter did not justify the resources necessary to prosecute, the individual

was represented by a private attorney, the matter was resolved, or EEOC

did not recommend litigation.

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons cited

1 The section investigated an

allegation that a county board

had treated the complainant, a

female, differently from male

candidates in past instances

where the county manager’s

recommendations to the

Board was endorsed by the

board. The complainant had

applied for a management job.

She was one of two final

candidates for the job. The

city manager recommended

her to the county board, which

rejected her for the position.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation

was that the section attorney

identified problems with the

facts and recommended that a

right- to-sue letter be issued to

the complainant. Section

attorney noted that the

complainant had a private

attorney who was able to

pursue the claim.

2 The section investigated

allegations of two separate

EEOC referrals that a

multistate transit authority

discriminated against the

complainants, two AfricanAmerican males, on the basis

of race while working at one of

the entity's facilities. EEOC

identified that the

complainants had been

retaliated against after its

investigation.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation

was that the section attorney

identified problems with the

facts and recommended that a

right- to-sue letter be issued to

the complainants. Section

attorney noted that the

complainants had a private

attorney who was able to

pursue their claim.

3 The section investigated an

allegation that a county sheriff

department and a county

agency discriminated against

the complainant, a female, on

the basis of her race, AfricanAmerican. The complainant

alleged that she was denied

equal pay and was discharged

in retaliation for filing a

complaint with EEOC.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation

was that the section attorney

identified problems with the

facts and recommended that a

right- to-sue letter be issued to

the complainant.

Table IV.2: Description of Closed Matters and the Reasons That Matters Were Closed
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 60 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons cited

4 a

Participation not justified. Size and/or limited impact would

not justify the resources

necessary to prosecute.

5 The section investigated an

allegation that a city agency

denied the complainant, an

African-American, a full-time

job as a ground maintenance

worker and subjected the

complainant, a temporary

employee, to racial

harassment.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation

was that the section attorney

identified problems with the

facts and recommended that a

right-to-sue letter be issued to

the complainant.

6 The section investigated an

allegation that a city housing

authority agency subjected the

complainant, a male, to sexual

harassment while working for

the city agency. According to

the complainant, he suffered

retaliatory discharge from his

position because he accused

his supervisor with sexual

harassment.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation

was that the section attorney

identified problems with the

facts and recommended that a

right- to-sue letter be issued to

the complainant.

7 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state

veterans home discriminated

against the complainant, an

African-America female, on

the basis of race and sex

when she was denied a newly

created position.

Participation not justified. b
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 61 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons cited

8 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city agency

and county personnel office

discriminated against the

complainant, a female, on the

basis of sex when she was

passed over for a promotion.

She also alleged that she was

discriminated against on the

basis of race in regard to

reimbursement for wages and

expenses during the period of

time when she temporarily

acted as the Clerk for the City.

EEOC’s preliminary review did

not find sufficient evidence of

discrimination to support a

finding of sex discrimination.

However, the EEOC referred

to the section for review of the

complainant’s allegation that

she had been discriminated

against on the basis of race in

regard to reimbursement for

wages and expenses.

Participation not justified. Size and/or limited impact

would not justify the resources

necessary to prosecute.

9 a

Participation not justified. b

10 a

Participation not justified. b

11 a

Participation not justified. b

12 a

Participation not justified. b

13 a

Participation not justified. b

14 a

Participation not justified. b

15 a

Participation not justified. b

16 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state

commission retaliated against

the complainant, an Asian, for

filing a complaint with EEOC.

The complainant alleged that

her position was abolished in

retaliation.

Participation not justified. Size and/or limited impact would

not justify the resources

necessary to prosecute.

17 a

Participation not justified. b

18 a

Participation not justified. b

19 a

Participation not justified. b

20 a

Participation not justified. b

21 a

Participation not justified. b
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 62 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons cited

22 The section reviewed an

allegation of retaliation by a

city police department. The

female complainant alleged

that her employer retaliated

against her because she filed

a sexual harassment

complaint with EEOC.

Participation not justified. The complainant was

represented by counsel.

There were no unique issues.

23 The section reviewed the

complainant’s allegation that

he had been denied a tenure

position at a state university

because he had filed a

national origin discrimination

complaint against a former

employer.

Participation not justified. b

24 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state

correction agency refused to

provide religious

accommodation for the

complainant. The

complainant, a NativeAmerican, was disciplined and

then discharged for failing to

comply with the state agency

policy regarding hair length.

Participation not justified. The complainant filed a union

grievance and the matter was

settled with the employer.

25 The section reviewed

allegations from five AfricanAmerican complainants that a

particular state liquor control

agency failed to promote

them.

Participation not justified. b

26 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state

correctional institution failed to

promote the complainant, who

was white, on the basis of

race. Some of the evidence

indicated that race was a

factor in the selection process

because the state agency’s

decisions considered its

affirmative action goals.

Participation not justified. EEOC did not recommend

litigation.
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 63 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons cited

27 The section reviewed an

allegation that a school board

discriminated against a female

complainant on the basis of

her national origin.

Participation not justified. b

28 a

Participation not justified. b

29 a

Participation not justified. b

30 a

Participation not justified. b

31 a

Participation not justified. b

32 a

Participation not justified. b

33 a

Participation not justified. b

34 a

Participation not justified. b

35 a

Participation not justified. b

36 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city aviation

department subjected the

complainant, a female, to

sexual harassment by a

coworker. The complainant

also alleged that retaliation by

the coworker created a hostile

work environment.

Participation not justified. The city agency concluded

that the complainant was

sexually harassed and then

discharged the harasser.

37 a

Participation not justified. b

38 a

Participation not justified. b

39 a

Participation not justified. b

40 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state health

agency discriminated against

the complainant, a female, on

the basis of her religion.

Participation not justified. b

41 a

Participation not justified. b

42 a

Participation not justified. b

43 The section investigated an

allegation that a city police

department denied the

complainant, a white female, a

lateral transfer to a position

due to her race and sex.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation

was that the section attorney

noted no back-pay relief was

available and the likelihood of

a repetition of the alleged

discrimination was remote and

recommended that a right-tosue letter be issued to the

complainant.

44 a

Participation not justified. b

45 a

Participation not justified. b

46 a

Participation not justified. b

47 a

Participation not justified. b
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 64 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons cited

48 The section considered

investigating an allegation that a

city police department engaged in

discriminatory employment

practices on the basis of sex by

refusing to hire the complainant

for the position of police officer.

Participation not justified. After researching the matter,

the section attorney identified

problems with the facts and

recommended that a right-tosue letter be issued to the

complainant.

49 a

Participation not justified. b

50 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city police

department denied the

complainant, a female, a

promotion because of her sex.

Participation not justified. b

51 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city police

department denied

complainants, two white

males, promotions because of

their race and sex.

Participation not justified. EEOC did not recommend

litigation.

52 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city college

would not hire the complainant

as a tutor because the

complainant did not provide a

social security number.

Participation not justified. EEOC did not recommend

litigation.

53 a

Participation not justified. Size and/or limited impact

would not justify the resources

necessary to prosecute.

54 a

Participation not justified. Size and/or limited impact

would not justify the resources

necessary to prosecute.

55 a

Participation not justified. Size and/or limited impact

would not justify the resources

necessary to prosecute.

56 a

Participation not justified. Size and/or limited impact

would not justify the resources

necessary to prosecutes.

57 The section reviewed an

allegation against a city police

department. The section attorney

made some telephone calls and

closed the matter.

Participation not justified b

58 a

Participation not justified. b
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 65 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons cited

59 The section reviewed an

allegation that a county

nursing agency subjected the

complainant, a female AfricanAmerican, to racial

harassment by another county

employee.

Participation not justified. b

60 a

Participation not justified. b

61 a

Participation not justified. b

62 The section monitored a bid

protest against a federal

agency, regarding the

awarding of a federal

procurement contract. The

bid protest challenged the

awarding of the contract

based on federal affirmative

action objectives.

No further action was

warranted.

The contractor did not file a

lawsuit against the U.S.

government.

63 The section monitored a bid

protest against a federal

agency, regarding the

awarding of a federal

procurement contract. The

bid protest challenged the

awarding of the contract

based on federal affirmative

action objectives.

No further action was

warranted.

The contractor did not file a

lawsuit against the U.S.

government.

64 The section monitored a bid

protest against a federal

agency, regarding the

awarding of a federal

procurement contract. The

bid protest challenged the

awarding of the contract

based on federal affirmative

action objectives.

No further action was warranted. The contractor did not file a

lawsuit against the U.S.

government.

a

CRT’s file did not contain a description of the matter.

b

No additional reasons cited.

Source: Employment Litigation section closed matter files and interviews with the section chief.

As mentioned previously, the Employment litigation section selected seven

EEOC referred matters for further investigation or research. Although

these matters were not pursued as cases, they were selected for

consideration as potential cases for litigation. Therefore, to provide

information regarding the section’s reasons for initiating these
Appendix IV

Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 66 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

investigations, we asked the section chief to indicate the factors

considered when these seven matters were selected for further

consideration. As shown in table IV.3, EEOC recommended that Justice

consider the matter for litigation in five of the seven matters. In six of the

seven matters, a factor considered, in part, was the particular type or

category of discrimination, such as those related to sex discrimination or

assignment practices. Two of the matters were selected, in part, because

they involved priorities set in 1995 by the prior Assistant Attorney General,

which continue to be priorities under the current Assistant Attorney

General. For example, one matter involved an allegation that a county

board had discriminated against a female applicant for a management

position based on her sex. According to the section chief, the issues in this

matter addressed a priority to identify illegal discrimination against

minorities and women in mid- and upper-level positions. The other matter

considered a priority involved an allegation that a multistate transit

authority discriminated against two African-American males on the basis

of race. According to the section chief, this matter addressed a priority to

identify patterns or practices of illegal discrimination against minorities

and women in government facilities or agencies that deal with the public,

such as public utilities and mass transit systems. Table IV.3 summarizes

the factors considered by the section when it decided to investigate seven

matters referred by EEOC.

Matter

Number Matter issue

Protected

class

Assistant Attorney

General priority

Impact in a

particular type

or category of

discrimination

Impact in a

particular

location

EEOC

recommended

Justice

consider the

matter for

litigation

Part of body of

casework on

going

1 Hiring Sex • •

2 Promotion

Assignment

Retaliation

Race • • •

3 Retaliation

Equal pay

Race

Sex

• •

5 Racial harassment Race • •

6 Sexual harassment Sex • •

43 Assignment Race

Sex

• •

48 Hiring Sex • •

Source: Interviews with the Employment Litigation section chief.

Table IV.3: Factors Considered by the Employment Litigation Section When Selecting Matters for Investigation That Were Not

Pursued as Cases.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section Cases

Page 67 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This appendix provides general information on the 44 Housing and Civil

Enforcement section cases that were initiated in fiscal year 1998.

Specifically, table V.1 contains information on the characteristics of these

cases, including the origin or source, the section’s role in the case, whether

the U.S. Attorney’s office handled the case, the protected class, type, and

the subject matter covered in the case. Following table V.1 is a narrative

that provides a descriptive summary of the facts of each case along with

the case disposition.

Case name Origin

Government

role

U.S. Attorney’s

office handle case

Protected

class Case type Subject matter

U.S. v. Burnette

Company, Inc.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements

U.S. v. Beacon

Woods East

Homeowners’

Association, Inc.

HUD Plaintiff No Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable

accommodations

U.S. v. Zachary

Cowan and

Carla Sydnor

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Marvin

A. Gardner

HUD Plaintiff No Familial

status

Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements

U.S. v.

Metroplex, Inc.,

et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable

accommodations

U.S. v. Dave

Landis and

Annuities, Land,

Patents, and

Securities

Corporation

HUD Plaintiff Yes National

origin

Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in sale

Discrimination in lending

U.S. v. Danny

LeBlanc

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Rent discrimination

U.S. v. Dennis

C. Pospisil, et

al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes National

origin

Race

Election Intimidation/coercion/

retaliation

U.S. v. New

Hampshire

Housing

Finance

Authority

HUD Plaintiff No Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable

accommodations

U.S. v. Cove

Realty, Inc., et

al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination by an entity

engaged in real estate

transactions

Table V.1: Characteristics of Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 68 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Origin

Government

role

U.S. Attorney’s

office handle case

Protected

class Case type Subject matter

U.S. v.

Evergreen Park

Condominium I

Board of

Managers

HUD Plaintiff Yes Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable

accommodations

Refusal to make reasonable

modificationsa

U.S. v. Walt

Whitman

Brokers Ltd., et

al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

U.S. v. Freeport

Housing

Authority

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. James

Ziebold

HUD Plaintiff Yes National

origin

Race

Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Intimidation/coercion/

retaliation

U.S. v. Michael

Hall, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Walter

Hartinger and

Friederike

Hartinger

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Interference/coercion/

retaliation

U.S. v.

Alexander C.

Waterhouse, Jr.,

et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Conifer

307 Oregon,

Ltd., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Rembold

Trusts, Inc., and

Billie Ivory

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability

Discrimination by an entity

engaged in real estate

transactions

U.S. v. Henry B.

Lamb

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 69 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Origin

Government

role

U.S. Attorney’s

office handle case

Protected

class Case type Subject matter

U.S. v. Craig A.

and Mary Ann

Ciarlone, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability

Discrimination in sale

U.S. v. Kenneth

Billington and

Sandra Hagen

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Housing

Authority of the

City of Pasco

and Franklin

County, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Worked jointly with

the U.S. Attorney

Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable

accommodations

Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act and Title II of

the ADA

U.S. v. Coldwell

Banker Corrado

Realty, Inc., and

Guy Corrado

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. John

Hobbs, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Intimidation/coercion/

retaliation

U.S. v. Leslie J.

Waltke, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Oakdale

Estates, Inc., et

al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Betty

Egner

HUD Plaintiff No Handicap

Race

Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability

Intimidation/coercion/retaliation

U.S. v. Charles

Harlan, et al.

HUD Plaintiff No National

origin

Pattern or

practice/election

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability

Discrimination in sale
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 70 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Origin

Government

role

U.S. Attorney’s

office handle case

Protected

class Case type Subject matter

U.S. v. Duane

B. Hagadone

and Fran I. Goff

HUD Plaintiff No Familial

status

Pattern or

practice/election

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

U.S. v. Choice

Property

Consultants,

Inc., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status

National

origin

Race

Pattern or

practice/election

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability

U.S. v.

Richmond 10-72

Ltd., et al.

HUD Plaintiff No Race Pattern or

practice/election

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability

U.S. v. A.

Waddell Nejam,

et al.

Testing Plaintiff No Race Pattern or

practice/testing

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discriminatory representations

in availability

U.S. v. Garden

Homes

Management

Corp., et al.

Testing Plaintiff No Race Pattern or

practice/testing

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory representations

in availability

U.S. v. Henry K.

Vernon, et al.

Testing Plaintiff No Familial

status

Race

Pattern or

practice/testing

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Discriminatory representations

in availability

U.S. v. L.T.

Jackson; and

L.T. Jackson

Trust

Public housing

authority

Plaintiff No Sex Pattern or

practice

Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or

statements

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Intimidation/coercion/

retaliation

Sexual harassment

U.S. v. Lyle

Krueger

HUD Plaintiff No Sex Pattern or

practice

Enforcement of

conciliation

Intimidation/coercion/retaliation

Sexual harassment

U.S. v.

Associates

National Bank

Office of the

Comptroller of

the Currency

(OCC)

Plaintiff No National

origin

Pattern or

practice/lending

Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Pricing/underwriting
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 71 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Origin

Government

role

U.S. Attorney’s

office handle case

Protected

class Case type Subject matter

U.S. v. Deposit

Guaranty

National Bank

OCC Plaintiff No Race Pattern or

practice/lending

Pricing/underwriting

Discrimination by an entity

engaged in real estate

transactions

Maryland State

Conference of

NAACP

Branches, et al.,

v. Maryland

State Police, et

al.

Private

attorney

Amicus No Race Amicus curiae Racial discrimination in police

profiling

National Fair

Housing

Alliance Inc., et

al. v. Liberty

Mutual

Insurance

Company, et al.

Fair housing

group

Amicus No Race Amicus curiae Discrimination in terms and

conditions

Pricing/ underwriting in

insurance

Baltimore

Neighborhoods,

Inc., et al. v.

Rommel

Builders, Inc.

Fair housing

group

Amicus No Handicap Amicus curiae Discrimination in accessibility –

multifamily housing

Project Life,

Inc., et al. v.

Parris

Glendening, et

al.

U.S. Attorney Amicus No Handicap Amicus curiae Refusal to make reasonable

accommodations

Applicability of ADA and FHA

Lillian E. Bryant,

et al. v. New

Jersey

Department of

Transportation,

et al.

District court Plaintiff/

intervenor

No Race Intervenor Environmental justice

Constitutionality of Title VI

a

According to Justice, this refers to allowing an individual to make physical modifications to the

premises.

Source: Review of Housing and Civil Enforcement section case files and interviews with section

officials.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 72 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The following section provides descriptions of cases that the Housing and

Civil Enforcement section initiated in fiscal year 1998 and their

dispositions.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her minor child—tenants of

a 53-unit apartment complex, who had filed a complaint with HUD—

against the owner of the complex, a construction company, and several

other individuals associated with the leasing, management, or operation of

garden apartments. The complaint in this case alleged that the defendants

discriminated on the basis of familial status by enforcing written rules, by

verbal and written notice, that unreasonably restricted the activities of

resident children. Specifically, the woman had asked the resident manager

of the complex if she could hold a birthday party for her son at the pool on

a particular afternoon at a specific time. The manager told her that, based

on pool use restrictions imposed by the complex, she would not be able to

hold her son’s birthday party on the particular afternoon that she had

requested.

Disposition: Closed.

The parties reached an out of court settlement.

This case was filed on behalf of a husband and wife couple who had filed a

complaint with HUD alleging housing discrimination by the home-owners

association that had jurisdiction over the subdivision in which they owned

their single-family home. The complaint in this case alleged that the

husband, confined to a wheelchair with a severe disability, needed

constant access to bathing facilities so that he could cleanse and keep his

body sterile. The complaint alleged that the association had discriminated

against the couple, on the basis of handicap, by refusing to make a

reasonable accommodation from a subdivision deed that prohibited their

parking a mobile home—equipped with water and bathing facilities—at

their residence.

Disposition: Open.

This case was filed on behalf of a couple and their two minor children,

renters of mobile-home space at a recreational vehicle park, who had filed

a complaint with HUD. The complaint alleged that the defendants, an

owner and manager of a recreational vehicle park, had discriminated

against the couple and their children on the basis of familial status.

Specifically, the owner had served them with a 30-day notice to remove

their mobile home from the subject property or he would begin eviction

(1.) U.S. v. Burnette

Company, Inc.

(2.) U.S. v. Beacon Woods

East Homeowners’

Association, Inc.

(3.) U.S. v. Zachary Cowan

and Carla Sydnor
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 73 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

proceedings against them, because of his policy of limiting occupancy to

two persons in front row mobile home space in the recreational vehicle

park.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a settlement decree filed with the court

whereby, the defendant was ordered to pay the complainants $6,665.

This case was filed on behalf of the Idaho Fair Housing Council, a

nonprofit organization, which had filed a complaint with HUD alleging that

the owner of an apartment property injured the organization by engaging

in unlawful discrimination, on the basis of familial status, in the rental of

property. Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that the

defendant, the owner of a four-unit building, included the words “no

children” in an advertisement for a vacancy in his building and made a

statement to two testers (that the Idaho Fair Housing Council instructed to

telephone) that occupancy by children was prohibited or restricted.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that required future

compliance with the FHA, including advertising in compliance with the

act, imposing recordkeeping, and attending training.

This case was filed on behalf of a mother and her disabled son who had

filed a complaint with HUD against the defendants—the management

agents and owner of the subject apartments, the on-site manager, and the

owners of corporations that acted as managing agents for the complex.

The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated against the

woman and her son, on the basis of the son’s handicap, when they welded

shut the gate to which the mother had been given a key to accommodate

her son's disability and allow him access to the nearest exit from his

apartment to the school bus. With the gate welded, the son had to use an

exit at the other side of the complex and be wheeled a distance of more

than two blocks to the school bus. The complaint further alleged that

snow was not shoveled along the path of travel required after the gate had

been welded and the mother had requested an alternative apartment.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a defendant's offer of judgment whereby

the defendants agreed to pay the complainants $45,000.

(4.) U.S. v. Marvin A.

Gardner

(5.) U.S. v. Metroplex, Inc.,

et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 74 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This case was filed on behalf of a husband and wife Italian-American

couple who had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination, on the

basis of national origin, when the defendants refused to sell or to negotiate

for the sale of a particular property. Specifically, the couple alleged that

the corporation that held redemption rights to the subject property

discriminated against them, when the couple attempted to make a written

offer on the property through their real estate agent. The defendant, in

faxing back the complainants written offer on the property, wrote on the

back of the offer that the complainants were "WOPS" and that they should

go to another neighborhood to steal property.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that required the

defendants to pay $5,000 to the complainants in punitive damages, or to

pay $20,000 in civil penalties.

This case was filed on behalf of an African-American male and Louisiana

Acorn Fair Housing—a private nonprofit fair housing organization—

against the defendant, an owner of several apartment units. Specifically,

the man had filed an earlier complaint with HUD that alleged that the

defendant discriminated against him, on the basis of race or color, by

refusing to rent to him a one-bedroom studio apartment. The individual

consulted with Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing, which conducted testing

that confirmed the individual’s complaint.

Disposition: Open on appeal.

The case resulted in a favorable jury decision that awarded Louisiana

Acorn Fair Housing compensatory damages of $1,076, and attorney’s fees,

and punitive damages to the plaintiff-intervenor in the amount of $10,000.

The case also resulted in a favorable court-ordered decision that included

injunctive relief.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her three minor children

who had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination in housing, on

the basis of race, color, or national origin. The complaint alleged that the

defendants and other individuals burned a cross on the lawn of the

woman's residence and slashed two tires on her vehicle.

Disposition: Open.

(6.) U.S. v. Dave Landis and

Annuities, Land, Patents,

and Securities Corporation

(7.) U.S. v. Danny LeBlanc

(8.) U.S. v. Dennis C.

Pospisil, et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 75 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This case was filed on behalf of a woman with multiple serious illnesses—

including AIDS, Hepatitis C, and liver disease—that severely restricted her

ability to walk without assistance and conduct daily activities. The woman

had filed a complaint with HUD that alleged that the defendant, the New

Hampshire Housing Finance Authority,1

had discriminated against her by

improperly refusing to make a reasonable accommodation in its

administration of its section 8 program. Specifically, it had refused her

request to use her housing voucher to subsidize an apartment in

Massachusetts rather than New Hampshire. She had requested the

accommodation to eliminate the hardship she would face if she were

forced to live a substantial distance away from her medical specialist and

other supports on which she relied.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that provided for

injunctive relief and compensatory relief for the complainant in the

amount of $45,000. The order further required the defendant to impose

recordkeeping and reporting and to inform all employees, agents, and

representatives involved in administering its fair housing programs about

the prohibitions on discrimination imposed by the FHA.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman, her two minor children, and two

other adults, who filed complaints with HUD alleging discrimination on the

part of a licensed real estate brokerage firm and the receptionist and real

estate agent employed there. The complaint alleged that the defendants

discriminated against the complainants on the basis of familial status.

Specifically, the complainants had responded to an advertisement placed

by the firm for a five-room apartment. She spoke with the firm’s agent,

who told her that the owner of the property did not want to rent to anyone

with children. The complaint also indicated testing by the particular

county’s housing services, which revealed discrimination on the basis of

familial status.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that required the

defendant to impose recordkeeping and reporting and attend fair housing

training with the employees. The decree further required the defendants

to pay $10,000 in damages to the complainants.

1

The New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority is a state entity that assists in the development

and/or operation of low-income housing, including the administration of section 8 programs.

(9.) U.S. v. New Hampshire

Housing Finance Authority

(10.) U.S. v. Cove Realty,

Inc., et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 76 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This case was filed on behalf of a couple and their minor son who had filed

a complaint with HUD alleging violations of the FHA, based on the son's

disability. The complaint in this case alleged that a home-owners

association and its managing agent had denied the couple’s request to

make structural modifications to their condominium unit, deemed

necessary as a result of the son's mobility impairment. In particular, the

complainants alleged that the defendants had denied their request to

install, at their expense, a motorized elevator or wheelchair lift outside

their condominium unit.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, providing for injunctive

relief only and requiring the defendant to allow and accommodate the

construction of an elevator in the complainants’ condominium.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her minor son, who had filed

a complaint with HUD alleging housing discrimination, on the basis of

familial status. Specifically, it was alleged that the woman inquired about

rental apartments from a sales agent with a licensed real estate brokerage

firm. For about 4 months, she was repeatedly told that no children were

allowed. When she claimed she had no children, she was finally shown an

advertised apartment.

Disposition: Open.

The case was resolved through a partial consent order that required the

defendant to impose recordkeeping and reporting and attend fair housing

training with the employees. The decree further required the defendants

to pay $1,000 in damages to the complainants.

This case was filed on behalf of a foster mother who had filed a complaint

with HUD alleging housing discrimination, on the basis of familial status.

Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that a public housing

authority and its former director threatened to evict her if she did not

move into a smaller apartment, despite her custody of three minor foster

children. According to the defendant’s occupancy guidelines, a threebedroom apartment should be occupied by four to six people.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that required the

defendants to discontinue or withdraw the eviction notice and to

(11.) U.S. v. Evergreen Park

Condominium I Board of

Managers

(12.) U.S. v. Walt Whitman

Brokers Ltd., et al.

(13.) U.S. v. Freeport

Housing Authority
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 77 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

implement nondiscriminatory rental policies. The order further required

the defendants to pay $7,500 in damages to the complainant.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman, a co-owner of property

containing three rental apartments, who had filed a complaint with HUD

that alleged that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of

race and national origin. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the

defendant had made threatening telephone calls to the complainant's

rental home stating that if she rented to African-American or Hispanic

applicants, her home would be blown up. A police department

investigation revealed the defendant's identity.

Disposition: Closed.

The case resulted in a favorable court-ordered decision that provided for

injunctive relief and $2,500 in compensatory damages.

This case was filed on behalf of six families, alleging discrimination in the

operation of a mobile-home park. Specifically, the complaint alleged that

the defendants enacted, published, implemented, and enforced policies,

rules, and regulations, regarding the mobile home park, which were

designed to (1) discourage families with children from residing in the park;

(2) discriminate against families with children in the park; and/or (3)

unreasonably restrict the terms, conditions, and privileges of use of the

park for tenants with children. Additionally, complaints were filed with

HUD by five of the six families on whose behalf the case was brought,

alleging that the defendants retaliated against them for filing a fair housing

complaint or asserting their fair housing rights.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order providing for injunctive

and monetary relief.

This case was filed on behalf of a Caucasian woman, her son, and her

African-American boyfriend. She had filed a complaint with HUD alleging

that the owners of an apartment complex, in which the complainant

resided with her son, discriminated against her, on the basis of race

because of her association with an African-American. Specifically, the

complaint in this case alleged that the respondents discriminated against

them by harassing the woman and her family and by issuing her an eviction

notice because of her association with him.

(14.) U.S. v. James Ziebold

(15.) U.S. v. Michael Hall, et

al.

(16.) U.S. v. Walter

Hartinger and Friederike

Hartinger
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 78 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, which provided for

$15,000 in monetary relief for the complainants, as well as injunctive relief.

The order further required the defendant to impose recordkeeping and

reporting and attend fair housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of a couple and their minor children, who had

filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination, on the basis of familial

status by the owner, officers, and resident managers of a recreational

vehicle park. Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that when the

complainants moved into the recreational vehicle park, the defendants

discriminated against them by adopting and implementing a policy of

imposing different rental charges, based on the number of occupants in the

household. By enforcing this policy against the complainants, the

defendants made the property unavailable to the complainants on the basis

of familial status.

Disposition: Open.

This case was filed on behalf of a couple, and their two children, who had

filed a complaint with HUD against the defendants—an owner and resident

managers of an apartment complex in which they resided. Specifically, the

complainants alleged that the defendants had discriminated against them

on the basis of familial status by not allowing their children into the

recreation room of the complex.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved by a consent order for monetary payment for the

complainants in the amount of $4,700, plus injunctive relief. The order

further required the defendants and their employees to attend fair housing

training.

This case was filed on behalf of the Fair Housing Council of Oregon

(FHCO), a nonprofit organization established for the purpose of furthering

the goal of equal housing opportunity, in part through counseling, testing,

and other enforcement efforts. FHCO had filed a complaint with HUD

against an owner and site manager of 30 condominium units alleging that

the organization’s testing efforts had revealed that the defendants had

discriminated against families with children, regarding the sale and

availability of the condominium units.

(17.) U.S. v. Alexander C.

Waterhouse, Jr., et al.

(18.) U.S. v. Conifer 307

Oregon, Ltd., et al.

(19.) U.S. v. Rembold

Trusts, Inc. and Billie Ivory
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 79 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants

were ordered to pay the complainants $6,000, in addition to injunctive

relief. The order further required the defendants and their employees to

attend fair housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of FHCO. Specifically, FHCO had filed a

complaint with HUD that alleged that, through its testing efforts, FHCO

had determined that the defendant, owner and manager of real estate, had

discriminated against families with children in the rental of property.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants

were ordered to pay the complainants $6,000, in addition to injunctive

relief. The order further required the defendant to impose recordkeeping

and reporting and to attend fair housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of an African-American couple and their two

children who had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination on

the basis of race and color. Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged

that the defendants—owners of real estate property, including a singlefamily home—a real estate agent, and a real estate agent company, had

listed the owner’s home for sale. The complaint further alleged that, after

the complainants showed interest in the property, the defendants abruptly

removed the property from the market and misrepresented to the

complainants that the property was no longer for sale, when in fact it was

for sale.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that required the owners of

the property to enter into an agreement with the complainants for the sale

of the subject property and pay $3,500 to the complainants. In addition,

the order contained standard injunctive relief provisions and required the

real estate agent and company to waive all commissions on the sale of the

property and attend fair housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her three minor children

who had filed a complaint with HUD that alleged discrimination, on the

basis of familial status. Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that

(20.) U.S. v. Henry B. Lamb

(21.) U.S. v. Craig A. and

Mary Ann Ciarlone, et al.

(22.) U.S. v. Kenneth

Billington and Sandra

Hagen
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 80 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

the defendants, property owners, refused to rent the property to the

complainant because she had three children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order requiring, among other

things, the defendants to pay the complainants $1,000.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman who had filed a complaint with

HUD that alleged discrimination, on the basis of her disability. Specifically,

the complaint alleged that the woman had a physical impairment that

severely limited her ability to walk and required the use of a wheelchair to

assist with her mobility. She resided in a public housing complex and had

requested a reserved parking space to use in the parking lot in close

proximity to her apartment to accommodate her physical impairment. The

complaint further alleged that the defendants—the housing authority that

owned and operated the complex, its executive director, and the

chairperson of its Board of Commissioners—discriminated against her, on

the basis of her handicap by not meeting her request and thus, failing or

refusing to make a reasonable accommodation in their rules, policies,

practices, or services.

Disposition: Closed.

The case resulted in a consent order that provided for injunctive relief, by

providing the complainant with a parking space designated as reserved for

her dwelling, in close proximity to her apartment. The order also required

the defendants to pay the complainant $2,000. The order further required

the defendant to impose recordkeeping and reporting.

This case was filed against a realty company and its owner that provided

management services, including rental advertising for residential single

and multiple family rental properties, in Spokane, WA. A complaint had

been filed with HUD by the Northwest Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA)—a

private fair housing organization that receives and investigates complaints

of unlawful housing discrimination and conducts periodic reviews of rental

policies in a particular area to measure compliance with federal, state, and

local law. NFHA’s review of the company’s rental policies and practices

revealed that it had engaged in discriminatory action, regarding families

with children, by openly advertising and marketing to prospective renters

that the dwellings contained in certain multifamily apartment buildings

were not available, or were available on different terms and conditions, to

families with children.

(23.) U.S. v. Housing

Authority of the City of

Pasco and Franklin County,

et al.

(24.) U.S. v. Coldwell

Banker Corrado Realty, Inc.

and Guy Corrado
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 81 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants

were ordered to pay the complainants $1,500.

This case was filed on behalf of an African-American couple and their

three children, who had filed a complaint with HUD that alleged

discrimination, on the basis of race. Specifically, it was alleged that the

defendants, neighbors of the complainants, had discriminated against them

by seeking to interfere with, intimidate, or impede their choice of

residence on account of race.

Disposition: Closed.

The case resulted in a favorable court-ordered decision and a favorable

jury decision whereby the jury found for the complainants and awarded

them $10,000 in damages.

This case was filed on behalf of a mother and her three minor children,

who had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of

familial status by the defendants, who owned and managed a rental

property. Specifically, the woman was seeking a three-bedroom apartment

that was advertised in a newspaper. When she called to inquire about the

rental, one of the defendants told her that the owner did not want children

in the building. Subsequently, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing

Council conducted housing tests for the same rental and was told that the

owner did not want children. In an amended complaint, the government

alleged that the defendants discriminated against the complainant and her

children by refusing to negotiate with her over the rental of an apartment

because of her familial status and by making statements that indicated a

preference, limitation, and discrimination on the basis of familial status.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants

were ordered to pay the sum of $1,500 to the complainant. Injunctive relief

was also provided, and the defendants were ordered to impose

recordkeeping and reporting and training to any individuals involved in the

leasing of any of the units owned or operated by the defendants.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her minor children and the

owner of a mobile-home dealership. Specifically, the owner of the

dealership had filed a complaint with HUD, which alleged that the owners

(25.) U.S. v. John Hobbs, et

al.

(26.) U.S. v. Leslie J. Waltke,

et al.

(27.) U.S. v. Oakdale

Estates, Inc., et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 82 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

and operators of a mobile home park had discriminated against the

woman, her children, and fiancé on the basis of familial status when they

refused to rent or to negotiate the rental of a lot because of children. The

dealership lost the sale for the mobile home that would have been placed

on the lot but for the discrimination.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that provided for injunctive

relief and monetary relief in the amount of $7,000 payable to the woman

and $1,000 to the owner of the mobile home dealership. The order further

required the defendants to impose recordkeeping and reporting. At the

request of the United States, copies of records and reports are to be made

available to the United States for monitoring.

This case was filed on behalf of the Arkansas Fair Housing Council—a

nonprofit housing group—and a Caucasian HIV-positive male and an

African-American male who had filed a claim with HUD against an

apartment complex owner. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the

owner discriminated against the two male individuals when she refused to

rent or make unavailable to them a dwelling because of their race, color, or

handicap.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that provided for injunctive

and monetary relief. The order also required the defendant to advertise in

compliance with the FHA, to impose fair housing rental policies, and to

attend fair housing training and provide training to her employees.

This case was filed on behalf of several individuals of Mexican and Anglo

national origin against owners of a mobile-home park. Specifically, those

individuals had filed complaints with HUD alleging that the owners

discriminated against them, on the basis of national origin, by refusing to

allow them to rent a mobile-home space or sell a mobile home in the park

to persons of Mexican national origin. After HUD referred the matter, the

Housing and Civil Enforcement section added a charge that the defendants

had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by (1) refusing to

allow a Caucasian resident at the park to sell his unit to Hispanic persons,

(2) telling a manufactured home sales agent that she could not sell the unit

to Hispanic individuals, and (3) making derogatory statements about

Hispanic individuals to several persons.

(28.) U.S. v. Betty Egner

(29.) U.S. v. Charles Harlan,

et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 83 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that included a total of

$92,500 in monetary relief--$75,000 collectively for the complainants, a

$10,000 civil penalty, and $7,500 in attorney’s fees for the plaintiffintervenor-- fair housing training for the defendants, and reporting and

monitoring requirements for the period of the decree.

This case was filed on behalf of two families and the Idaho Fair Housing

Council, who filed a complaint with HUD that alleged discrimination, on

the basis of familial status, against the owner and resident manager of a

256-unit apartment building. The Housing and Civil Enforcement section

also included a charge that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or

practice of discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the

defendants imposed a standard that limited occupancy of two-bedroom

apartments to two persons as well as rules and regulations that

unreasonably restricted the use of facilities by children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, which required a total

payment of $105,000. The order also required that the defendants attend

and provide to their employees fair housing training, impose tenant rules

and regulations and undertake marketing measures consistent with fair

housing, and comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

This case was filed on behalf of the Housing Discrimination Project, a

private nonprofit corporation that promotes fair housing practices. The

corporation had filed a complaint with HUD against a private rental agency

and its president, alleging that they limited prospective applicants based

on the race, national origin, and familial status preferences of a landlord.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section also added a charge that the

defendants’ conduct was a pattern or practice of housing discrimination,

such as their use of coded vacancy reports provided to their employees to

reflect those landlords that would not rent to African-Americans,

Hispanics, or to families with children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree in which the defendants

agreed to provide fair housing training to their employees and agents,

undertake affirmative marketing and other affirmative measures, and

comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In addition, the

(30.) U.S. v. Duane B.

Hagadone and Fran I. Goff

(31.) U.S. v. Choice

Property Consultants, Inc.,

et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 84 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Housing Discrimination Project received $30,000 in compensatory

damages.

This case was filed on behalf of a private nonprofit fair housing

organization, Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Richmond, Inc., and

two individuals who had filed a complaint with HUD against the owners

and managers of an apartment complex in Richmond, VA. Specifically, the

complaint alleged that those individuals had discriminated on the basis of

race by refusing to rent to African-Americans. Based on further

investigation, the section added a pattern or practice charge of racial

discrimination to the complaint.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree whereby the defendants

agreed to develop a fair housing policy, require their employees to attend

fair housing training, and hire an independent consulting firm to conduct

self-testing of the complex over the next 3 years. The agreement also

required the defendants to pay $480,000 in damages and civil penalties.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section’s testing program. The complaint alleged that the

owner of numerous rental units in Jackson, MS, and his former rental

agents had discriminated on the basis of race. Specifically, the complaint

alleged that the defendant and his agents gave false information about

apartment availability to African-American testers and applicants.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree, which provided a total of

$200,000 in monetary relief, including a $5,000 civil penalty. The decree

also required that (1) the owner’s employees undergo fair housing training,

(2) the owner maintain detailed records of apartment availability and make

the information available to all prospects, and (3) notify the public of his

nondiscriminatory policy.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section’s testing program. The complaint alleged that the

defendants—owners and managers of three apartment complexes—

discriminated on the basis of race. Specifically, the complaint alleged that

the defendants discouraged African-American testers from renting units

and told them that there was a long waiting list for apartments, while

Caucasian testers were encouraged to rent units. In addition, the

(32.) U.S. v. Richmond 10-72

Ltd., et al.

(33.) U.S. v. A. Waddell

Nejam, et al.

(34.) U.S. v. Garden Homes

Management Corp., et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 85 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

complaint alleged that African-American testers were falsely told that

apartments were unavailable, while white testers were told of, and shown,

available apartments.

Disposition: Open.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section’s testing program that revealed that the defendants,

the owner and manager of an apartment of complex, engaged in a pattern

or practice of discrimination based on race and familial status.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated

against African-Americans and families with children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, which provided for

$75,000 in monetary relief, including $25,000 in civil penalties against the

owner of the complex and $1,000 in civil penalties against the manager.

The order also required the owner to attend and send his employees to fair

housing training, implement and advertise nondiscriminatory rental

policies, pay for self-testing over the next several years, and impose

recordkeeping and reporting.

The complaint in this case alleged that the defendant, the owner and

manager of numerous identified rental properties, had engaged in a pattern

or practice of discrimination based on sex. Specifically, the defendant had

subjected numerous female tenants (and, on some occasions, their minor

daughters), and prospective female tenants to severe, pervasive, and

unwelcome verbal and physical sexual advances. Further, the defendant

had explicitly based the terms, conditions, and privileges of the women's

tenancy on the granting of sexual favors.

Disposition: Open.

This case started several years ago with one individual who had filed a

complaint with HUD. In 1995, an administrative law judge held that the

defendant had sexually harassed a former tenant, and ordered him to pay

$32,000 in damages and civil penalties. In 1998, the section filed a

complaint that alleged that the defendant had breached a HUD-approved

conciliation agreement that had resolved a claim of sexual and racial

harassment filed by a second tenant. The section later amended the

complaint to include allegations that the defendant engaged in a pattern or

practice of sexual harassment against other female tenants.

(35.) U.S. v. Henry K.

Vernon, et al.

(36.) U.S. v. L.T. Jackson;

and L.T. Jackson Trust

(37.) U.S. v. Lyle Krueger
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 86 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendant

was prohibited from managing any residential property for a period of 6

years. In addition, the defendant was required to pay the $32,000

judgment, plus applicable interest, due to the initial Administrative Law

Judge proceeding, the $2,000 plus interest, under the conciliation

agreement, and $2,000 to a third victim.

This case was filed against Associates National Bank, a major issuer of

VISA and MasterCard bankcards, claiming that the bank violated the Equal

Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating, on the basis of national origin,

against Hispanic individuals. Specifically, the complaint alleged that

individuals applying for a certain MasterCard through the bank’s Spanishlanguage application were processed through a separate approval system,

which used a credit-scoring system that required higher passing scores

than those required for English-language applicants. Consequently, some

Spanish-language applicants were denied credit on a discriminatory basis.

The complaint further alleged that approved Spanish-language applicants

were given lower-credit line assignments than English-language applicants

and that they were offered different credit services than those offered to

other customers.

Disposition: Open.

The complaint in this case alleged that Deposit Guaranty National Bank

had discriminated, on the basis of race, against African-American loan

applicants in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana through the use of

subjective underwriting practices. The complaint further alleged those

African-American applicants for home-improvement loans whose

applications were credit scored were at least three times as likely to be

rejected than similarly situated white applicants.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a settlement agreement approved by the

court, whereby those applicants whose applications for homeimprovement loans were evaluated under the bank’s flawed underwriting

system are to share in a $3 million fund. Among other things, the

agreement also provides that (1) loan applications are to be underwritten

using uniform and centralized policies and procedures, (2) applications

initially denied are to receive a second level of review by senior

underwriting officials, (3) decisions to override the result indicated by a

(38.) U.S. v. Associates

National Bank

(39.) U.S. v. Deposit

Guaranty National Bank
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 87 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

credit score can only be made by a small number of bank officials, and (4)

reviews and analyses of all underwriting decisions are to be conducted to

ensure consistency with fair lending requirements.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section’s participation in this case was

limited to the filing of an amicus brief on certain Title VI (of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964) issues—whether there can be implied a private right of

action to sue under Title VI regulations alleging discriminatory effect and

whether the plaintiffs have standing to do so. The plaintiffs in this case

were the Maryland State Conference of NAACP branches and various

minorities who had residence in the United States and were from other

countries. In the part of their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs

alleged that they were stopped, searched, and detained by state police

troopers along a major interstate in Maryland because of their race and/or

national origin, rather than on the basis of legitimate law enforcement

reasons. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that such stops were pursuant to a

policy and practice of stopping and searching African-American and other

minority motorists along the interstate. The section, as amicus curiae,

urged the court to find that there was a private right of action to enforce

Title VI regulations establishing an “effects standard” and that the plaintiffs

had standing to assert such a claim.

Disposition: Closed.

The court found for the plaintiffs on the issue of standing and the parties

reached an out-of-court settlement.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section’s involvement in this case was

limited to the filing of an amicus brief. NFHA had alleged that the

defendants, insurers doing business in Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and the

District of Columbia, had discriminated in the provision of home-owners

insurance on the basis of race in violation of the FHA. The defendants

moved to dismiss on three grounds: (1) that the FHA did not apply to the

sale of home-owners insurance; (2) that, if applicable, those claims were

barred by the McCarran Ferguson Act (15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq); and (3) that

the doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" required that the plaintiffs’ challenge

to the defendants’ practices be brought before the state insurance

regulators, rather than in a private action. The brief addressed those

issues and concluded that none had merit.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through an out-of-court settlement.

(40.) Maryland State

Conference of NAACP

Branches, et al., v. Maryland

State Police, et al.

(41.) National Fair Housing

Alliance, Inc., et al. v.

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company, et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 88 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section’s role in this case involved

filing two amicus briefs, regarding the applicability of the requirements of

the FHA related to accessible design. Specifically, the plaintiffs, Baltimore

Neighborhoods, Inc., and one individual brought this action against the

builders of a condominium alleging that the builder had designed and

constructed the ground floor units in 10 of the buildings in a way that

made them inaccessible to persons with disabilities. In its first brief, the

section set forth the standard for determining whether the defendants had

violated the accessibility provisions of the FHA. In its second brief, the

section presented the court with its views on what equitable remedies

were appropriate in a case in which the defendants were found liable for

violating the accessibility provisions of the FHA.

Disposition: Open.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section’s role in this case involved the

filing of an amicus brief. The plaintiffs in this case sought injunctive and

monetary damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), FHA,

and the Maryland Discrimination in Housing Act, based on the defendants'

denial of a long-term berth in the state of Maryland's port for the

decommissioned hospital ship upon which the plaintiffs intended to

operate a short-term residential, educational, and training program for

recovering substance abusers. The defendants had maintained, inter alia,

that neither the ADA nor the FHA were applicable to the facts as alleged

by the plaintiffs.

Disposition: Open.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section’s participation in this case was

that of intervenor on behalf of the plaintiffs. Specifically, the plaintiffs in

this case filed this action to prevent the construction of a highway through

their neighborhood, which would require the condemnation of several

homes and would allegedly cause flooding, noise, and traffic problems.

The plaintiffs claimed that the construction of the highway would have a

disparate impact on their predominantly African-American community in

violation of Department of Transportation regulations promulgated

pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants moved

to dismiss on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity or, in the

alternative, had asked the court to abstain from exercising federal

jurisdiction in favor of state eminent domain proceedings. The section

intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Eleventh Amendment

immunity abrogating provision of Title VI, which the defendants were

challenging.

(42.) Neighborhoods, Inc.,

et al. v. Rommel Builders,

Inc.

(43.) Project Life, Inc., et al.

v. Parris Glendening, et al.

(44.) Lillian E. Bryant, et al.

v. New Jersey Department

of Transportation, et al.
Appendix V

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 89 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

The court entered an order upholding the constitutionality of the statute.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 90 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This appendix provides general information on the 54 Housing and Civil

Enforcement section closed matters that we reviewed. Table VI.1 contains

information on the characteristics of those matters, including the origin or

source, the protected class, the type, and the subject covered. Table VI.2

provides a description of each matter along with the corresponding reason

for its closing.

As shown in table VI.1, our review of the 54 Housing and Civil

Enforcement section closed matters revealed that they included a wide

range of allegations of fair lending and housing discrimination. Matters

involving pattern or practice allegations of discrimination accounted for 30

of the 54 matters. Of those 30 matters,

• four involved allegations of discrimination in places of public

accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and certain places of

entertainment;

• eleven involved allegations of lending discrimination, such as redlining and

pricing or underwriting;

• eight involved general pattern or practice allegations of housing

discrimination, such as rental and sales discrimination;

• three involved allegations of rental discrimination developed through the

section’s testing program; and

• four involved allegations of discrimination in zoning and group homes.

The remaining 24 closed matters, which did not include pattern or practice

allegations, consisted of 12 matters that alleged zoning discrimination and

12 that alleged various other types of housing discrimination.

Our review also showed that these matters originated from a variety of

sources, such as citizens, housing groups, federal agencies, private

attorneys, the section’s fair housing testing program, and other sections of

the Civil Rights Division. Nearly all matters that alleged a pattern or

practice of lending discrimination were referred by federal bank regulatory

agencies, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the

Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), while the remaining matters in the

population originated from several sources.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 91 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The majority of zoning matters alleged discrimination, on the basis of

handicap, while most of the remaining matters involved allegations of

discrimination based on race. In addition, the matters involved a wide

range of issues related to fair housing and lending discrimination, such as

rental and sales discrimination; discrimination in group homes;

discrimination in lending; and discrimination through intimidation,

coercion, and retaliation.

Matter number Origin Protected class Type Subject matter

1 Citizen Race Title II

Pattern or practice

Discrimination in public accommodations –

gas station

2 Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI)

Race Title II

Pattern or practice

Discrimination in public accommodations –

lodging

3 Nonprofit group Race Title II

Pattern or practice

Discrimination in public accommodations –

swim club

4 Citizen Race Title II

Pattern or practice

Discrimination in public accommodations –

lodging

5 Citizen Race Pattern or practice/lending Redlining

6 Office of the

Comptroller of the

Currency (OCC)

Familial status Pattern or practice/lending Pricing/underwriting

7 Federal Reserve Marital status Pattern or practice/lending Discrimination in terms and conditions

Discounting child support income for

purposes of credit

8 OCC National origin

Race

Pattern or practice/lending Underwriting

9 Federal Reserve National origin

Race

Pattern or practice/lending Redlining

10 Citizen Race Pattern or practice/lending

Pattern or practice/mortgage

Redlining in home mortgage and business

lending

11 Office of the Attorney

General, State of

Maryland

Race Pattern or practice/lending Redlining

12 Office of Thrift

Supervision (OTS)

National origin

Race

Pattern or practice/lending Overage pricinga

13 OCC Age Pattern or practice/lending Underwriting

14 Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation

(FDIC)

National origin

Race

Pattern or practice/lending Overage pricing

15 OCC Age Pattern or practice/lending Underwriting

16 Fair housing group Race Pattern or practice/testing Rent discrimination

17 Testing program Handicap Pattern or practice/testing Rent discrimination

18 Testing program Handicap Pattern or practice/testing Discriminatory advertising or statements

19 Private attorney Handicap Pattern or practice Refusal to make reasonable

accommodations

Zoning

20 Fair housing group Race Pattern or practice Zoning

Table VI.1: Information on Matters Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as of October 31, 1999
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 92 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Origin Protected class Type Subject matter

21 Private attorney Handicap Prompt judicial action

Pattern or practice

Group home

22 Private attorney Handicap Pattern or practice Zoning

Group home

23 Citizen Race Pattern or practice Rent discrimination

24 U.S. Attorney’s office Family status Pattern or Practice Rent discrimination

25 Disability Rights

section forwarded a

request from a private

attorney

Handicap Pattern or practice Rent discrimination

26 Citizen Family status Pattern or practice Rent discrimination

27 Citizen Race Pattern or practice Discrimination in sale

28 Employment Litigation

section

Race Pattern or practice Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation

29 Criminal section Race Pattern or practice Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation

30 Private attorney Race Pattern or practice Rent discrimination

31 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Group home

32 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Zoning

Group home

33 HUD National origin Zoning referral Zoning

34 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Zoning

Group home

35 HUD Familial status

Handicap

National origin

Race

Zoning referral Zoning

36 HUD Race

Sex

Zoning referral Zoning

37 HUD Race Zoning referral Zoning

38 HUD Familial status Zoning referral Housing for older persons

Zoning

39 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Zoning

40 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Zoning

Group home

41 HUD National origin Zoning referral Zoning

42 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Zoning

Group home

43 Citizen Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations –

lodging

44 Newspaper Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations –

bar lounge

45 Citizen Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations –

restaurant/pool hall

46 Citizen Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations –

restaurant

47 Citizen

FBI

Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations –

bar

48 Private attorney Handicap Request by plaintiffs for the

government to participate as

an amicus curiae

Group home
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 93 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Origin Protected class Type Subject matter

49 U.S. Attorney’s office Sex Quiet titleb Provisions in an individual will

50 HUD Family status

Religion

Election Discrimination in terms and conditions

51 HUD Familial status Election Rent discrimination

Occupancy standard

52 HUD Familial status

National origin

Prompt judicial action Discrimination in sale

53 U.S. Attorney’s office

Section initiated

Handicap Investigation Accessible new construction

54 Section initiated

investigation

National origin

Race

Investigative task force to

identify pattern or practices in

lending

Business lending

a

An overage refers to an extra amount charged to a borrower as a means of increasing compensation

to brokers and loan officers.

b

Generally, a quiet title action is a remedy available for a person to clear title to real property against

any kind of interest or adverse claim.

Source: Review of Housing and Civil Enforcement section closed matter files and interviews with

section officials.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 94 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Table VI.2 below provides a description of each matter along with the

corresponding reason for its closing.

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

1 This matter arose from a citizen complaint that a gas

station had discriminated against African-American

customers by requiring them to pay first and then pump

gas while allowing Caucasian customers to pump gas

before paying.

Other—The Housing and Civil Enforcement section

concluded that their active involvement in the case was

not necessary because the complainant was being

represented by an attorney who had filed a class-action

suit.

2 An African-American couple had filed a complaint with the

FBI alleging that they had been quoted a lower hotel rate

over the telephone, but when they arrived, the owners of

the particular inn attempted to increase the rate. The

owners explained that their daughter had erroneously

quoted a lower rate to the couple that did not apply during

the July 4th weekend.

Lacked merit—The FBI completed an investigation and

determined that there was no evidence of discrimination.

3 A human rights organization requested an investigation

into the apparent discriminatory conduct of a swim club.

Specifically, two African-American boys were denied

admission to the swimming pool and a television crew

captured the discriminatory conduct of the staff on tape.

When the two boys offered to pay the standard $3.00

admission fee, they were informed that they would not be

admitted unless they purchased a $200 club membership.

Minutes later, the television crew filmed a young

Caucasian male—a nonmember of the pool—entering the

pool after paying a $3.00 fee.

No further action was warranted. Upon its investigation,

the Housing and Civil Enforcement section learned that

because of financial problems, the pool management

planned to close pool operations at the end of the

summer season. The section attorney concluded that

further investigation or action related to the allegations in

all likelihood would not be fruitful.

4 The FBI investigated possible racial discrimination at a

motel. An inn had allegedly discriminated against two

Caucasians by refusing to rent them a room because of

their association with an African-American church.

Lacked merit—The FBI investigation did not develop

evidence of discrimination.

5 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section received

allegations that two lending companies treated certain

heavily minority-populated areas differently than other

areas of a particular locale, including employing different

appraisal practices and policies for properties within those

areas. Additionally, data submitted pursuant to the Home

Mortgage Disclosure Act suggested that the lenders might

have been employing different marketing practices in

those same minority areas. CRT initiated an investigation.

Lacked merit.

6 OCC wrote to document the substance of its telephonic

referral of violations by a bank. The legal violations

stemmed from the adoption and apparent application of

discriminatory mobile-home appraisal guidelines that were

in effect at the bank. Specifically, the complaint alleged

that the bank had discriminated against families with

children by adopting and endorsing a policy that treated

family mobile-home parks as inferior to, and less valuable

than, adult-only mobile-home parks. OCC found three

instances where individuals were harassed.

The matter was returned to OCC for administrative

resolution and corrective action was taken.

Table VI.2: Description of Closed Matters and the Reasons That Matters Were Closed
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 95 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

7 The Federal Reserve conducted a regular full-scope

examination of a bank to determine its level of compliance

with consumer credit, civil rights, and consumer laws and

regulations. The examiners reviewed the bank’s written

loan policies and procedures and conducted interviews

with bank staff to determine the bank’s articulated lending

standards and evaluation practices. The review found

evidence that the bank had engaged in a practice of

routinely discounting the child support income of creditcard applicants. The Federal Reserve found four

instances where individuals were harassed.

The matter was returned to the Federal Reserve for

administrative resolution.

8 OCC referred materials to the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section that supported its belief that a bank

had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination

against persons of non-Asian race and/or national origin in

extending credit for residential mortgages. The referral

had come to OCC’s attention following a targeted fair

lending examination of the bank. OCC conducted

comparative file reviews and performed statistical

modeling based on data derived from the bank’s credit

files. OCC’s analysis showed 25 potential victims,

involving 29 instances of discrimination.

The matter was returned to OCC for administrative

resolution.

9 The Federal Reserve referred this matter to the Housing

and Civil Enforcement section, indicating that it had

reason to believe that a mortgage company had engaged

in a pattern or practice of lending violations. Specifically,

during a compliance examination, it determined that the

company adhered to guidelines issued by a correspondent

lending institution that excluded the offering of certain

loans secured by residential properties in certain

geographic areas in a particular state. Since the excluded

areas contained a disproportionately high percentage of

the state’s minority population, the Federal Reserve

believed that the exclusion of these areas resulted in a

pattern or practice of treating applicants within the

excluded areas differently from those outside those areas

on the basis of race and national origin.

Lacked merit—The Housing and Civil Enforcement

section noted in its file that information from the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve indicated that no loans

were actually denied as a result and that the company

made the loans through other correspondent banks.

10 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section received a

complaint that a one-branch bank was redlining a

predominantly African-American area of a particular city in

both its home mortgage and business lending activities.

However, neither a former bank official nor an AfricanAmerican contractor who had unsuccessfully sought a

construction loan from the bank could provide any direct

evidence of unlawful lending practices.

Lacked merit—The Housing and Civil Enforcement

section’s investigation, together with OTS’s examination

of the bank’s lending practices—a process in which they

shared with that agency all they had—failed to produce

sufficient evidence of racially discriminatory practices to

warrant the initiation of litigation.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 96 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

11 A state Attorney General requested that the Housing and

Civil Enforcement section review information obtained by

its office, regarding allegations that a corporation had

engaged in a pattern or practice of redlining college

students from preapproved solicitations at predominantly

African-American colleges.

Lacked merit—Evidence submitted to the section for

review did not support redlining allegations. It appeared

that the company was not involved in the selection

process and had merely purchased a student list culled by

a vendor list. The section attorney’s files further indicated

that if evidence was found that the company was

responsible for the racial composition of the student list, it

would consider reopening the matter for further

investigation.

12 OTS submitted this referral, concerned that a savings

bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of

discrimination on the basis of race and national origin

through its policy of charging overages or granting

shortages and overages to individual loan customers.

Specifically, the savings bank’s own review of shortages

and overages by the borrower’s race found a

disproportionate number of overages charged to minority

borrowers and a disproportionate number of shortages

granted to Caucasian applicants. The review also found

that the average overage charged to African-American

borrowers was higher than that charged to Caucasian

borrowers. In response, the bank changed its policy. In

response to OTS’s concerns over the bank’s policy, the

bank made further changes to its policy. OTS analyzed

the bank’s data on overages and found that their policy—a

race conscious overage policy—appeared to have been a

well intentioned, but misguided, remedy for perceived

discrimination.

The matter was returned to OTS for administrative

resolution. The bank subsequently stopped its policy after

OTS asked them to do so.

13 OCC wrote to document an understanding reached

between the Housing and Civil Enforcement section

attorney and OCC attorneys over two pattern and practice

violations that had occurred at a bank and its subsidiary.

Both instances involved age discrimination against elderly

account holders and credit seekers. OCC wrote to obtain

the Housing and Civil Enforcement section’s consent for

OCC to handle the matter independently.

The matter was returned to OCC for administrative

resolution.

14 The FDIC referred this matter, citing disparate treatment in

the area of overages. The loans in question were all made

through a savings bank’s wholly owned mortgage lending

facility. FDIC used documentation from the state banking

department in finalizing its examination report.

Specifically, an analysis of a population of residential

loans, excluding home improvement loans, was

performed. The analysis revealed that when overages

were imposed, minority applicants were charged more

frequently and at higher rates of overages than

nonminority applicants.

The matter was returned to FDIC for administrative

resolution. A settlement was reached between the bank

and the state banking department providing for

compensation to minorities who paid higher overages.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 97 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

15 During an examination, OCC determined that a particular

bank had a policy of requiring college freshmen (except

for adults returning to school to further their education),

who apply for credit under the bank’s student credit-card

program, to have parental cosigners prior to obtaining a

credit card. After the matter was brought to the attention of

the bank’s board of directors, the bank conducted a review

and determined that a total of 91 freshman accounts had

been approved and required a cosigner. However, no

applicant had been denied credit as a result of the bank’s

policy. It appeared that the bank had treated those

applicants less favorably than others because of their age.

The bank had taken steps to remove the requirement of a

cosigner from its credit-card practice and the matter was

returned to OCC for administrative resolution.

16 A private fair housing organization conducted a number of

tests of rental properties operated by a particular company

and sent the results of the tests to the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section for review.

Lacked merit—After reviewing the information, the section

decided there was insufficient information to support a

pattern or practice claim.

17 The Housing and Civil Enforcement testing program

conducted two tests at a nursing home regarding the

treatment of prospective patients/residents with

asymptomatic HIV. These patients were seeking shortterm nursing home care for injuries or illnesses unrelated

to their HIV status.

Lacked merit—The tests were inconclusive of

discrimination.

18 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section reviewed a

report from its testing program of tests performed at a

nursing facility. The test summary discussed the actions of

the admissions director, regarding her meetings with a

tester posing as AIDS/HIV-positive and a tester posing as

non-AIDS/HIV-positive.

Lacked merit—The tests were inconclusive.

19 The plaintiffs in this matter brought a civil action to enjoin

the defendant’s refusal to allow an assisted living facility

for mentally retarded adults in an area on the same terms

and conditions as other assisted facility living housing

occupied by nonmentally disabled or nonhandicapped

persons. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s denial

of a special exception permit for an assisted living facility

in a multifamily hotel zone where assisted living facility

use is specifically allowed with a permit constituted

discrimination and violated the FHA.

Settled—The plaintiff was issued the permit for an

assisted living facility.

20 This investigation was prompted by a complaint from a fair

housing group alleging that a particular community’s plan

to demolish a residential hotel as a part of a Tax

Increment Financearedevelopment plan was a form of

racial discrimination.

Lacked merit—The investigation disclosed no evidence of

discriminatory impact. The section also concluded that

even if the action had a discriminatory impact, no

evidence was found that the community’s inclusion of the

hotel site for demolition in the redevelopment plan was in

any way a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 98 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

21 A nonprivate organization that provides services to

developmentally and/or physically or mentally

handicapped individuals of all ages sought prompt judicial

action and injunctive relief against the city for prohibiting

the construction of a group home for six mentally ill

disabled adults, on the basis of an illegal “dispersion

ordinance.” The ordinance mandated that a home for

disabled residents could only be located in a

neighborhood that had the least number of previously

approved and currently operating residential facilities. The

matter was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s office as a

possible prompt judicial action or pattern or practice

matter.

Settled—As a result of discussions between the city

attorney, the attorney for the provider, and the Assistant

U.S. Attorney, the matter was resolved without litigation.

22 This matter involved an appeal of the decision of a

township zoning board that denied the petitioner’s request

for a permitted use, special exception use, or variance to

operate a group home on the subject premises. The

petitioner appealed the decision to the court of common

pleas, which held that the petitioner had failed to meet all

the criteria of the township zoning ordinance and

concluded that the petitioner had not produced sufficient

evidence to indicate that the proposed use was similar to

a permitted use or qualified for a variance. The court also

found that the ordinance was valid under federal law and

had not discriminated against the handicapped or

discriminated on the basis of familial status.

Lacked merit—The facts failed to show that the

complainants were members of a class protected by the

FHA.

23 The complainant alleged that African-Americans with

section 8 vouchersbhad to wait far longer and jump

through more procedural hoops to gain entrance into an

apartment complex than similarly situated Caucasians.

Over several telephone calls, the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section attorney asked the complainant if

she could identify similarly situated Caucasians persons

who got into the complex with less waiting. The

complainant could not identify any such persons and

repeatedly told the attorney that she would get back to him

with information. She did not provide the information.

Lacked merit—The section was unable to substantiate the

complaint.

24 The complainant, a 29-year old male, had applied as a

prospective renter with a trailer-park association. Because

there was no one in the complainant’s household who was

age 55 or older, and because he was under 45 years, his

occupancy did not meet the requirements of the

association’s policy, as set forth in the provisions of a prior

consent order. Specifically, in a different case involving

the association and the issue of familial discrimination in

housing, the judge signed a consent decree that included

a provision permitting the association to hold itself out as

“housing for older persons” if it met the requirements of

the FHA. The order stated that at least one person in each

household must be 55 years or older. This provision also

included a requirement that no one in the household be

less than 45 years old.

Lacked merit—The section had insufficient information to

warrant taking further action.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 99 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

25 A man and his social worker met with an assisted living

facility’s owner/ administrator to apply for housing. Upon

seeing him, the owner questioned the complainant about

having AIDS. When the complainant admitted that he was

HIV-positive, the owner denied his admission to the home

stating that her basis for the decision was an unavailability

of trained staff who could care for an HIV resident. The

man claimed a violation of his rights under the Americans

with Disabilities Act, the AIDS Omnibus Act, the

Rehabilitation Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

Lacked merit—The investigation did not substantiate

allegations.

26 A condominium association had asked a couple to sign a

pledge that they would not have children as a condition of

approval of their rental application.

Lacked merit—No evidence found to support pattern or

practice of family status discrimination. After investigating,

the Housing and Civil Enforcement section found that

there was no indication that anyone else had been asked

to sign a similar pledge, and there did not appear to be

any danger of a repetition. At least one family with

children lived in the complex.

27 The complainant, an African-American woman with

children, alleged discrimination against a particular

housing authority. Specifically, the woman claimed that

after she was accepted into the authority’s lottery for

moderate/low income home purchases and although she

drew an appropriate number from the lottery that qualified

her to purchase a home, she had not been contacted by

the developer.

Lacked merit—A fair housing agency within the state

investigated the complaint and determined that the claims

were without merit. The complainant then began working

with the housing authority through the same lottery

process to purchase a home.

28 This matter was referred by the Employment Litigation

section, which had sued a particular city over its police

hiring procedures. Specifically, an African-American police

officer hired pursuant to the consent decree in that case

had alleged that the building contractor he had hired to

build his house told him that city officials had pressured

the contractor to avoid doing business with him. This

allegation came amidst a dispute over whether he would

be forced to move his family into an apartment within the

city limits, pending completion of the house due to a city

rule requiring police officers to reside within the city 15

months after being hired.

Lacked merit—The section found no evidence to support

a pattern or practice of housing discrimination.

29 A woman alleged that because she was African-American,

a man and/or his then minor sons had vandalized her

house, after they sold it to her.

Lacked merit —An FBI investigation had not produced

sufficient information to connect the individuals to the

vandalism and further investigation was not warranted.

30 Sixteen private lawsuits were filed against a real estate

company alleging various types of discrimination, such as

steering and refusal to rent.

Settled —Preliminary investigation revealed that the

underlying private claims against the company had been

settled.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 100 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

31 This zoning matter involved a complaint of housing

discrimination filed with HUD by owners and operators of

a group home for 12 developmentally disabled adults.

They alleged the city had used a city-zoning ordinance to

discriminate against residents of the group home. They

filed their complaint after a code inspector contacted them

and told them that they needed a conditional use permit to

operate the home (which had been operating for several

years) and that they would be unable to obtain one

because the home was located in an area that had a

zoning classification which did not permit that type of use.

No further action was warranted. After contacting both the

complainant and the City Attorney’s Office, the Housing

and Civil Enforcement section learned that the city had

not taken enforcement action against the group home and

had no plans to do so. The complainant told the section

attorney that since his contact with the code inspector and

filing of the HUD complaint, he had not heard anything

more about the matter.

32 This matter involved a city’s closing of three group homes

for recovering substance abusers for fire and safety

reasons, allegedly in violation of the disability provisions of

the FHA. The alleged discrimination occurred when the

city issued the complainant “Notices of Code Violations”

for operating rooming houses without permits in singlefamily zoned districts and for fire safety and building code

violations. The city ordered the complainant to remove

residents from the premises and return the houses to their

intended use as single-family dwellings. The complainant

filed a complaint with HUD.

Lacked merit —After a review of the files and

communication with the complainant, the section

concluded that this matter was not appropriate for further

action by Justice.

33 This HUD zoning referral concerned allegations of

discrimination against persons of Hispanic origin. The

complainants alleged that the city required them to satisfy

certain conditions before issuing a housing permit that it

had not imposed on other similarly situated non-Hispanic

whites.

Lacked merit —Further investigation revealed that the

allegation could not be substantiated.

34 HUD referred this matter as a zoning and land use case.

The complaint alleged that a particular city had

discriminated against the complainants by refusing to

allow them to operate group homes in the city. The

complainants in state court litigated the issues raised in

the HUD complaint. The state court granted the

complainants’ motion for summary judgment and held that

the local zoning ordinance did not prohibit the operation of

the group homes in this case.

Settled —The complainants entered into a settlement

agreement with the city. The attorney spoke with the

counsel for the complainants, who informed CRT that he

expected the two group homes to be operating within 1 to

2 months.

35 The complainant filed a complaint with HUD alleging that a

particular city had violated the FHA, on the basis of race

(African-American), national origin (Hispanic), familial

status, and handicap, by refusing to rezone an area of

property owned by the complainant from industrial use to

multifamily residential use.

Settled—The complainant and the city entered into a

settlement agreement in voluntary resolution. CRT

assisted as mediator in the resolution.

36 The complainant, an African-American female, alleged

that a particular county and several of its officials had

discriminated against her, on the basis of race and sex,

through its denial of several applications she made

regarding property she owned.

Lacked merit —According to section officials, allegations

involving race or sex would have been difficult to prove.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 101 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

37 A husband and wife filed a complaint with HUD alleging

that, because of their race, a city had discriminated

against them in the administration of its permit and

building code enforcement powers in connection with the

couple’s attempts to rehabilitate two small apartment

buildings they owned in a redevelopment area. The HUD

investigative file indicated that the city had been enforcing

its codes against all landlords in the affected area—both

African-American and Caucasian—citing landlords of both

races for code violations and taking by eminent domain

the buildings of both African-American and Caucasian

landlords that were not being rehabilitated.

Lacked merit—The evidence in the HUD file provided little

support for the complainants’ allegations. In addition, this

referral reached CRT only several weeks before

expiration of the 18-month statute of limitations, effectively

precluding further investigation by CRT.

38 This matter involved the complainant’s desire to use a

land parcel to build a mobile home park that would be

open to all ages. Initially, the city restricted use of the

parcel to housing for those over 50 years of age. Because

this violated the FHA, the city later raised its age

restriction to 55 and older. Before the city had raised the

age restriction, the complainant sued the city in state

court, subsequently lost, and failed to file a timely appeal.

The complainant then turned to HUD, and HUD referred

the case to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section.

Other—Based on the attorney’s review, any legal action

CRT might have taken would have been limited to

injunctive relief and the section would not have been able

to obtain damages if it filed suit. The city had already

changed the age restriction, so a lawsuit would not have

accomplished much.

39 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section was asked to

participate as an amicus curiae in this zoning case. The

complainant, a developer, alleged that the respondent had

refused to grant reasonable accommodations to its zoning

regulations after such had been requested, thus

prohibiting the development of an assisted living facility for

the disabled elderly. The complainant also alleged that the

respondent granted a use variance to a development for

able-bodied seniors in the same zone and 500 feet from

the complainant’s proposed development.

Lacked merit—After a review of their pleadings, CRT

decided that participation would not be appropriate.

40 This HUD zoning referral alleged discrimination on the

basis of handicap. Specifically, the complainants, a youth

services group and its executive director, alleged that a

city had discriminated, on the basis of handicap, when it

refused to approve a group home for mentally disabled

minors.

Other—The section attorney concluded that it would be

difficult to prove that the boys qualified as handicapped,

that intentional discrimination took place based on

handicap, and that the city had denied a reasonable

accommodation.

41 This matter was an early referral from HUD in connection

with a zoning/land use complaint alleging that a county

had discriminated, on the basis of national origin, by

denying use permits and/or requests for rezoning to place

additional residential units on vacant land currently zoned

for commercial use. The Housing and Civil Enforcement

section reviewed the HUD file and requested that HUD

further investigate a number of issues. In its last

conversation with HUD, the Housing and Civil

Enforcement attorney was informed that HUD had not yet

made a final determination, with respect to the complaint

(and a second one making the same allegations) and the

specific issues the section attorney had raised.

No further action was warranted. HUD did not make a

formal referral.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 102 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

42 This was a HUD zoning referral filed by a complainant

who applied for permission to construct an “accessory

dwelling unit” in which the family would live while the

complainant operated his residence as a group home. The

city delayed permission for a few months, but eventually

granted it.

No further action was warranted. All that was at issue in

this action was damages and there were no important

legal issues to be resolved.

43 This matter was referred by a Caucasian woman who

alleged that she and her fiancé, an African-American man,

were refused a hotel room at a motel because they were

an interracial couple.

Lacked merit—The FBI conducted a test of the hotel,

using an interracial couple, which did not reveal racial

discrimination. Insufficient evidence existed to pursue a

case. Also, the complainants filed a private suit in federal

court.

44 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section received

information alleging that a bar lounge had denied service

to a group of people because the group had included two

African-Americans. The incident was publicized in a local

newspaper. The section requested that the FBI conduct

an investigation into the matter. The FBI determined that

the bar had stopped doing business and was for sale.

No further action was warranted. The issue became moot

when the establishment under investigation went out of

business.

45 This matter concerned an incident in which the proprietor

of a restaurant/pool hall refused to serve two young

African-American boys. When the mother of the two boys

demanded an explanation, the proprietor explained that

she had mistakenly thought the boys were the same ones

who had previously entered the restaurant/pool hall and

cursed at her.

Lacked merit—A subsequent FBI investigation revealed

that while the restaurant/pool hall served a primarily

Caucasian clientele, it also had African-American patrons.

Further, the investigation did not reveal any known

incidents in which African-Americans had been denied

service.

46 This matter concerned a citizen complaint about an

incident in a particular town. The complainants, a

Caucasian couple and their adopted 4-year-old AfricanAmerican son, visited the town as tourists. Upon entering

the town, the husband and son visited some of the stores

while the wife spoke to the mayor’s wife. During their

conversation, the wife mentioned that her son was

African-American. In response, the mayor’s wife said that

the son could not eat in any of the restaurants. Shortly

thereafter, the complainants left town. At no point were the

complainants ever denied service at the town’s

restaurants.

Lacked merit—Subsequent calls by the attorney to the

civil rights entities and public interest organizations in the

area revealed no prior known incidences of discrimination.

47 This matter involved a display outside a bar that appeared

to depict the lynching of an African-American male.

Members of the local NAACP were “appalled and

offended” by the display and requested corrective action.

After the FBI conducted an investigation, the bar

management made assurances that the display was not

meant to depict an African-American being lynched.

No further action was warranted. The bar management

agreed to alter the appearance of the display. The FBI

then submitted photographs to the section to substantiate

the changes.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 103 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

48 The plaintiffs requested the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section’s participation as an amicus curiae in

support of their motion for summary adjudication on the

validity of an apartment complex’s tenancy requirements.

Specifically, an elderly couple, residents of a housing

complex, had filed suit against the complex alleging that

its practice of inquiring into the details of an applicant’s

disability and ability to live independently violated the Fair

Housing Amendments Act and HUD regulations.

Lacked merit—The facts of the case were insufficient to

support such a brief.

49 The U.S. Attorney’s office asked the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section for advice regarding a case it was

handling. Specifically, the U.S. was the defendant in an

action to quiet title to a piece of real property that had

been left by will to a lodge to be used exclusively for

“Masonic” purposes. The U.S. was the residuary legatee

under the will and had a right of reentry if the lodge used

the property in violation of the will. The Masons wanted to

build a retirement home on the property and proposed a

settlement of the action that would have given them a

preference for the units in order to meet the requirement

that the property be used exclusively for Masonic

purposes. The U.S. Attorney’s office was concerned that

this preference might violate the FHA. Before the section

reached a conclusion, the U.S. Attorney’s office concluded

that a retirement home that did not have a preference for

Masons would still fit within the provisions of the will.

Settled—They settled the case with the entry of an agreed

judgment mooting any fair housing problems that may

have resulted from a preference for Masons.

50 A woman had filed a complaint with HUD alleging that a

particular apartment complex and its management

company discriminated against her and her family, by

making exceptions in enforcing rules against families with

children, who were Jehovah’s Witnesses. The complaint

also alleged that the curfew imposed limited her and her

children’s enjoyment of their dwelling and that such

policies had an adverse impact on families with children.

Settled—The parties and the U.S. Attorney negotiated a

presuit out-of-court settlement agreement, which provided

the complainants with $1,000 and obligated the

respondents to treat families with children the same as

other tenants.

51 The complainants in this case had filed a complaint with

HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status.

Specifically, the complainants alleged that, on two

different occasions, they called to inquire about rental

rates of apartments that had been advertised for rent.

Each time, they were informed that the complex did not

rent to people with children.

Settled—An out of court settlement agreement was

reached without a lawsuit. Compensation was paid to the

complainant and modifications were made to the

respondent’s rental policies.

52 This prompt judicial action, referred by HUD, involved

national origin and familial status discrimination against an

Indian male, who claimed that a co-op refused to sell him

a one-bedroom unit because they did not believe only he

and his brother would live there. The co-op indicated that

their experience with Indian families was that they have

their extended families live with them.

Other—The complainant withdrew his complaint.

53 This joint investigation between the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section and the U.S. Attorney’s office was

designed to target noncompliant new construction at the

blueprint or building stage.

Other—The section lacked the resources to pursue.
Appendix VI

Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed Matters

Page 104 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

54 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section created a task

force to look at business lending problems nationwide.

This file related to a particular geographic location as part

of a larger investigation.

Other—The investigation focused on other locations.

a

According to CRT, tax increment finance is a technique used for financing urban renewal.

b

According to CRT, section 8 vouchers are HUD subsidies that are issued to individuals to use as rent

payment. To receive these vouchers, which are generally administered through public housing

authorities, individuals must meet certain income eligibility requirements to qualify for the program.

Source: Review of Housing and Civil Enforcement section closed matter files and interviews with

section officials.
Appendix VII

Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 105 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This appendix provides general information on the six cases initiated by

the Voting section in fiscal year 1998 and provides a brief description of

each case and its disposition as of May 2000. The six cases were initiated

at the discretion of the section.

The section participated as amicus curiae in three Shaw-type cases and

participated as plaintiff in three cases. Race was the protected class for

half the cases, national origin was the protected class for one, and the

remaining two cases related to voting protections for military personnel

and civilians residing overseas. Table VII.1 provides information

regarding the origin, government role, protected class, case type, and

discrimination issue for each of the Voting section cases initiated during

fiscal year 1998.
Appendix VII

Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 106 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Case name Origin Government role Protected class Case type

Discrimination

issues

Charles Stovall, et al.,

v. City of Cocoa, et al.

Section initiated Amicus curiae Race Participation in Shawtype case14th Amendment issue

Thomas S. Fouts, et

al., v. Sandra

Mortham et al., and

Florida State

Conference Black

Business Association,

et al.

Section initiated Amicus curiae Race Participation in Shawtype case14th Amendment issue

Martin Cromartie, et

al., v. James B. Hunt,

Jr. Governor of the

State of North

Carolina, et al.

Section involved in case

from origin when Shaw

lawsuit initially brought

against AG Reno

Amicus curiae Race Participation in Shawtype case14th Amendment issue

U.S. v. The Board of

Elections in the City of

New York

DOD referred, and

Section initiated for

UOCAVA and Section 5

enforcement

Plaintiff U.S. citizens/military

personnel residing

overseas

Overseas voters

Section 5-related

U.S. citizens/military

personnel residing

overseas

U.S. v. State of

Oklahoma; Oklahoma

State Election Board;

and Lance D. Ward,

as Secretary of the

Oklahoma State

Election Board

DOD Plaintiff U.S. citizens/military

personnel residing

overseas

Overseas voters U.S. citizens/military

personnel residing

overseas

U.S. v. City of

Lawrence,

Massachusetts;

Patricia Dowling,

Mayor of Lawrence;

Lawrence Board of

Registrars of Voters;

Robert Hutton,

Chairperson, James

Driscoll, Ronald

Martin, members of

the Lawrence Board

of Registrars of

Voters; and James

McGravey, City Clerk

and member of the

Lawrence Board of

Registrars of Voters.

Citizen Plaintiff National origin Language minority

group

Voter assistance

Vote dilution

Assistance

At-large

Bilingual

Dilution

Method of election

Polling place

Redistricting

Source: Review of Voting section case files and interviews with section officials.

The following provides a brief description of Voting section cases initiated

during fiscal year 1998 and their disposition as of May 2000.

Table VII.1: Information on the Voting Section’s Discretionary Cases
Appendix VII

Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 107 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The section participated as an amicus curiae in this case. The case

involved a determination of whether a consent decree designed to achieve

compliance with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as amended,

violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

U.S. Supreme Court has rendered several opinions— referred to as the

Shaw line of cases1that provide guiding principles for interpreting

protections under the Equal Protection Clause in this context. The

applicability of the U.S. Supreme Court guidelines to this case required a

comprehensive analysis to determine whether, as a threshold issue, strict

scrutiny applied to the district plan at issue, and if strict scrutiny did apply,

whether the plan was narrowly tailored to further a compelling

governmental interest. The section filed an amicus brief on June 11, 1999,

to convey to the court the U.S. interest in the effective enforcement of

section 2 of the VRA.

Disposition: Closed.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order in

August 1999 wherein it concluded that the districting plan was

constitutional because it was not based predominantly on race, and the

court ordered the consent decree to be entered.

The section filed a motion with the court to participate as amicus curiae in

support of the defendants and defendant-intervenors. In its motion, the

section stated that it had been involved in previous constitutional

challenges to congressional and state legislative districting plans in

Florida, and elsewhere, because those cases, like this one, raised issues

concerning the proper interpretation and application of the VRA.

Specifically, the Department of Justice stated that it had a strong interest

in cases that consider the balance that must be struck between the

requirements of the VRA and the constitutional standard set out in the

Shaw line of cases mentioned previously.

Disposition: Closed.

In April 1999, the court granted the Department of Justice motion to

participate as amicus curiae. However, the section did not file an amicus

brief because the district court dismissed the case on procedural grounds

before the section had an opportunity to present its brief.

1

Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 509 U.S. 630 (1993); and Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (1996). See

also Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); and Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).

(1.) Charles Stovall, et al., v. City

of Cocoa, et al

(2.) Thomas S. Fouts, et al., v.

Sandra Mortham, et al., and

Florida State Conference, Black

Business Association, et al.
Appendix VII

Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 108 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The section participated as amicus curiae in this case. The case stems

from the original Shaw v. Reno case that challenged North Carolina’s

redistricting. The Voting section has been involved in the North Carolina

cases from the beginning. In this particular case, the Voting section filed a

brief as amicus curiae with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District

of North Carolina in June 1998. The brief addressed the plaintiffs’

contention that the redistricting plan enacted by North Carolina in May

1998, and precleared by the Assistant Attorney General in June 1998,

violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection

Clause. The Department of Justice brief stated that the redistricting plan

was not subject to the strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause

because the redistricting plan was not predominantly based on race.

Disposition: Open.

This case is on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The section brought action pursuant to sSection 5 and 12(d) of the VRA of

1965, as amended, to enforce rights guaranteed by section 5.2

The action

was also brought to enforce the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The suit sought injunctive relief to ensure

that U.S. citizens serving in the military and nonmilitary voters residing

outside the U.S. would be given a reasonable opportunity to execute and

return ballots and therefore, to have their ballots counted. The complaint

stated that state law previously precleared under section 5 of the VRA

required absentee ballots to be mailed to eligible military absentee voters

at least 32 days in advance of an election. However, New York City had

implemented a new voting procedure that failed to mail absentee ballots to

eligible military absentee voters sufficiently in advance of the election

without obtaining preclearance in violation of section 5. Election officials

also violated UOCAVA when they failed to mail absentee ballots to military

voters and nonmilitary overseas voters sufficiently in advance of the

election. The complaint stated that, as a result, U.S. citizens would be

deprived of an opportunity to vote in the November 3, 1998, general

election unless relief was granted.

2

Under section 5, any change with respect to voting that a specially covered jurisdiction—or any

political subunit within it—makes is legally unenforceable unless and until the jurisdiction obtains

from the federal court in the District of Columbia or from the Attorney General, a determination that

the change is not discriminatory on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority

group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the Attorney General

objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable. The Voting section files lawsuits to enjoin

the enforcement of voting changes that have not received the required section 5 preclearance. section 5

of the VRA applies to nine states in their entirety and one or more counties in seven other states.

(3.) Martin Cromartie, et al., v.

James B. Hunt, Jr. Governor of

the State of North Carolina, et al.

(4.) U.S. v. the Board of

Elections in the City of New

York
Appendix VII

Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 109 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Disposition: Closed.

A settlement agreement was filed with the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of New York, whereby New York City agreed, among

other things, to extend the deadline by 10 calendar days for receipt of

ballots from military and nonmilitary overseas voters.

The section brought action to ensure that U.S. citizens overseas, who were

qualified to vote in the September 15, 1998, federal primary runoff election

of the State of Oklahoma, and who had filed timely applications for

absentee ballots, would have their ballots counted. In the September

federal primary runoff election, voters in the State of Oklahoma were to

select or participate in the selection of nominees for the offices of U.S.

Senator and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The complaint

stated that election officials in Oklahoma failed to mail absentee ballots to

military and civilian overseas voters on a date sufficiently in advance of

September 15th to allow the casting and return of ballots by the state

established deadline. The U.S. sought a court order to require Oklahoma to

take corrective action.

Disposition: Closed.

The section and the defendants entered into a consent decree, whereby the

state agreed, among other things, to extend its deadline by 14 days to allow

for receipt of absentee ballots.

In this case the government brought a lawsuit under section 2 and section

203 of the VRA. The section’s complaint alleged (1) that defendants failed

to provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or

other materials or information, including ballots, in the Spanish language;

(2) that defendants’ failed to appoint and assign Hispanic persons on the

same basis as whites to serve as poll workers; (3) that defendants’

ineffective oral and written bilingual assistance and discriminatory poll

worker appointment and assignment practices and procedures denied

Hispanic citizens, including Spanish-language minority citizens, an equal

opportunity to participate in the electoral process; (4) that the method of

electing the Lawrence City Council diluted the voting strength of Hispanic

citizens; and (5) that the method of electing the Lawrence School

Committee diluted the voting strength of Hispanic citizens.

Disposition: Open/Closed in parts.

(5.) U.S. v. State of Oklahoma;

Oklahoma State Election Board;

and Lance D. Ward, as Secretary

of the Oklahoma State Election

Board

(6.) U.S. v. City of Lawrence,

Massachusetts; et al.
Appendix VII

Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 110 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

The defendants in this case entered into a settlement agreement of the first

three allegations of the complaint. The settlement agreement was filed

with the court, and the section is to monitor it until December 31, 2003.

The remaining two allegations have been put on hold through a joint

motion to administratively close the case, pending release of the 2000

Census in April 2001.
Appendix VIII

Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 111 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

This appendix provides (1) general information on the Voting section’s

closed matters that we reviewed and (2) a brief description of each matter

and the reason the matter was closed.

Our review of the Voting section’s 22 closed matter files found that 10 of

the closed matters involved section-initiated investigations of potential

discriminatory voting issues, 9 of the closed matters involved the section

monitoring on-going private lawsuits to determine whether they should

participate in a particular case, and 3 of the closed matters involved

monitoring of elections. The origin of the matters varied. The protected

class for most of the closed matters was race. Of the 22 closed matters, 15

of the matters related solely to race discrimination. The 22 closed matters

dealt with a variety of voting issues. Table VIII.1 provides general

information on each closed matter initiated during fiscal year 1998 that

was closed as of March 2000.

Matter number

Section

involvement Matter type Matter subject Protected class Origin

1 Investigation Language minority

group

Voter assistance Spanish language

minority

Section initiated

2 Investigation NVRA compliance Purge/ reidentification Not applicable Section initiated

Identified in

newspaper articles

3 Investigation Absentee ballot fraud Interference with vote Race Citizen

4 Investigation Racial imbalance of

poll workers

Racial imbalance of poll

workers

Race Received periodic

citizen complaints

since 1992

5 Investigation Polling place

procedures

Voter identification

requirements at polls

Race Section initiated

6 Investigation Section 5 related State judicial campaign

finance reforms

Not applicable Referred by section 5

review

7 Preelection

investigation

Voter assistance

Privacy and absentee

voting procedures

Assistance Race Section initiated

8 Investigation Section 2 of VRA Dilution Language minority or

race

Section initiated

9 Investigation Section 2 of VRA Dilution Language minority or

race

Section initiated

10 Investigation Improper election

procedures

Improper election

procedures

Race Citizen

11 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Section 5 related

Section 2 of VRA

Annexation

Redistricting

Regularly scheduled

election cancelled

Race Private attorney

12 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Shaw type case Redistricting Race Private attorney

Table VIII.1: Information on Voting Section’s Matters Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as of March 2000
Appendix VIII

Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 112 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number

Section

involvement Matter type Matter subject Protected class Origin

13 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Section 2 of VRA,

denial of right to vote

Take over of powers of

elected school board

Language minority,

race (Black and

Hispanic)

Citizen

14 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Racial

gerrymandering

Redistricting Race Private attorney

15 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Section 2 of VRA Dilution Race U.S. Attorney Office

16 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Section 2 of VRA Annexation

Incorporation

Race Citizen complaint

17 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Shaw-type case Redistricting Race Private attorney

18 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Shaw-type case Redistricting Race Section initiated

19 Monitor a private

lawsuit

Section 2 of VRA

Minority language

Dilution

Redistricting

Race (Native

American )

Private attorney

20 Monitor election Federal observers Voter assistance

Polling place procedures

Race Section initiated

21 Monitor election Federal observers Voter assistance Race Referred from Section

5 and related to

private litigation

against the same

county that the section

was monitoring

22 Monitor election Language minority

group

Voter intimidation

Bilingual

Interference with vote

Spanish language

minority

Another case in the

section, local official

Source: Review of Voting section closed matter files and interviews with section officials.
Appendix VIII

Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 113 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Table VIII.2 provides a brief description for each Voting section matter

initiated during fiscal year 1998 and the reason that the matter was closed.

Matter number

Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

1

Investigation

The section initiated a section 203 language minority group

investigation in several counties in California, one of which was

this particular matter. The investigation assessed the bilingual

programs in the particular counties.

Lacked merit—No problem existed. County was

found to be providing assistance to minorities.

2

Investigation

The section investigated purge procedures that appeared to be

inconsistent with the voter cancellation requirements set forth in

the NVRA. A county clerk had purged about 30,000 voters from

the county’s voter registration list in August 1997.

Lacked merit—The Voting section investigation did

not reveal sufficient evidence that electors were

harmed by the process to justify filing a lawsuit or

continuing the investigation.

3

Investigation

The issue in this election investigation was whether absentee

ballots were being used without the permission of the voters. The

allegation involved black voters who were approached by a

campaign worker for a white candidate and asked if they would

like to vote in an upcoming circuit judge election using an

absentee ballot. The black voters declined but the campaign

worker requested their names and addresses and the voters

provided the information. Subsequently, the black voters

received absentee ballots in the mail even though they had

declined the initial request to vote absentee. The voting section

provided limited observer coverage for the election to determine

whether the white candidate had fraudulently obtained the

absentee ballots of certain black voters.

Lacked merit—The coverage of the election did not

reveal evidence of fraud.

4

Investigation

The Voting section initiated a preelection investigation in

response to concerns about election day poll workers in a

county. At issue was the racial balance of poll-worker

appointments.

Corrective action—The Director of the Board of

Election agreed with concerns raised and took

corrective action.

5

Investigation

The section conducted an election investigation to determine

whether a particular state’s photo identification requirements

were being administered in a racially discriminatory manner, or

otherwise would have a racial impact. The concern was that

African-Americans generally were not aware of the new state

requirement for voters to provide identification at the polls or that

those who did not have identification could vote after signing an

affidavit.

Lacked merit—The investigation revealed no

complaints or evidence that the identification

requirement was applied in a discriminatory

manner.

6

Investigation

The section investigation focused on whether they should litigate

a section 5 coverage issue against a particular state. The state

had submitted for section 5 review a statutory change that

required campaign contribution disclosures for judicial elections

and provided that judges recuse themselves from individual

cases where a conflict might exist. Following inquiries from the

Voting section, the state withdrew its submission on the grounds

that the changes were not covered under section 5. The section

was considering whether section 5 coverage applied or not. At

the same time, the state legislature was considering one or more

bills in its 1998 session to alter the statute that was at issue.

Lacked merit—The section attorney recommended

against litigation for the time being because the

state legislature was considering changes to the

statutory provisions in question.

Table VIII.2: Matters and the Reason the Matter Was Closed
Appendix VIII

Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 114 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number

Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

7

Preelection

Investigation

The section investigated concerns about assistance provided to

voters in a particular county. Specifically, the concerns related to

providing voter privacy, ensuring voters have assistance from

whom they choose, and ensuring that absentee voters did not

vote twice.

Corrective action—Official in the voting district

acknowledged problems at the polls in the past and

had been proactive in preventing occurrences.

Voting section attorney believed that the official

would continue to be proactive in preventing

reoccurring problems in assistance and voter

privacy.

8

Investigation

The section investigated whether school board elections in a

particular school district had resulted in polarization and lack of

electoral success for Native-Americans.

Lacked merit—The section found that the facts of a

section 2 suit would show polarization and lack of

electoral success, but the school district could show

that Native- American turnout in school elections

was poor. Thus, a potential court assessment

could find that the Native-American electorate was

disinclined to participate. The section attorney

concluded that a lawsuit would not be wise.

9

Investigation

The section initiated an investigation of a particular school district

to determine whether the district’s at-large elections of school

board members denied or abridged the rights of NativeAmericans.

Lacked merit—The investigation concluded that it

could not establish all three preconditions

established by the Supreme Court to show

evidence of unlawful vote dilution under section 2 of

the VRA.a

10

Investigation

The section initiated an investigation in response to citizen

complaints about the way in which a particular county calculated

the results of an August 1998 school board election between a

white incumbent and a black challenger. The same citizens also

complained about the county’s denial of a requested recount by

an unsuccessful black candidate for county commissioner that

was conducted in the same election.

Lacked merit—The investigation found that (1) the

recount was consistent with state law, (2) there was

no evidence of a failure or refusal to count the vote

of a person permitted to vote, and (3) the election

administrator complied with state law when he

denied the recount request of the black county

commission candidate.

11

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section monitored a private lawsuit filed against a particular

city with respect to several actions it had taken. These included

a 1994 annexation, cancellation of a regularly scheduled

municipal election in 1996, and a 1997 redistricting plan. The

city submitted a section 5 preclearance request to the Voting

section, but it was not submitted in a timely manner and the city

delayed providing requested information.

Court action—The District Court order found in

favor of the plaintiff and ordered the city to hold

special city elections. In August 1998, the Attorney

General, through the Voting section, interposed a

section 5 objection to the city’s submitted voting

preclearance request.

12

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section monitored a suit that challenged the congressional

redistricting in a particular state. The redistricting was

established in 1992 by a three-judge court order after the Voting

section had objected to the state legislature’s plan following a

section 5 review. The court-ordered redistricting plan has been

in use ever since. In August 1997 the plaintiff filed a federal

lawsuit challenging the majority black district in the court-ordered

plan alleging racial gerrymandering—that race was the sole

factor in drawing the district lines. The Voting section was

considering intervening on behalf of the defendant or filing an

amicus curiae brief. The court dismissed the case before the

Voting section had to take action.

Court action—The District Court dismissed the

case recognizing the inherent impracticability of

attempting to modify the Congressional districting

plan through litigation prior to the 2000 Census. All

parties recognized that the 2000 Census

redistricting plans should address the need to

comply with the laws.
Appendix VIII

Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 115 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number

Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

13

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section monitored a class-action lawsuit brought by parents

of children in a school district against a state government. The

parents asked the Department of Justice to investigate perceived

violations of their voting rights by the state. The state had

assumed control of the school district in 1993. The private classaction lawsuit alleged that the state had failed to manage the

school district properly and had failed to provide an adequate

education and a safe environment for its students. New state

legislation was initiated to provide a mechanism to return to an

elected school board.

No further action warranted—The section

concluded that there was an insufficient basis upon

which to find any violations of VRA.

14

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section received pleadings and correspondence from

plaintiff’s lawyer in a lawsuit filed against a particular city that

challenged the city’s elections scheduled in 1998 and 2000

because they would be affected by a 1991 city redistricting plan.

The plaintiffs alleged that the city had violated the rights of

voters by racially polarizing six local election districts when it

packed black electors into two districts and whites and others in

the remaining four.

No further action warranted—Claims alleged did

not warrant the Voting section’s participation.

15

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section monitored a case filed that challenged the merger of

two courts on the basis that the merger violated section 2 of the

VRA. The merger involved combining a city recorders court and

a county circuit court. The plaintiffs alleged that merging the two

courts and requiring all judges of the merged court to be elected

on a countywide basis would dilute the voting strength of AfricanAmericans. The plaintiffs based their dilution prediction on

African-American populations of 76 percent in the city and 40

percent in the county.

Court action—District Court granted summary

judgment to the defendant (state), finding that the

plaintiffs failed to show a violation of section 2.

16

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section monitored a case that involved the redefining of a

particular town’s boundaries. In 1998, the section initiated an

investigation to further investigate charges that the incorporation

of the town was racially motivated.

No further action warranted—The section found no

evidence of racial motivation.

17

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section monitored a case that challenged the

reapportionment of districts in a particular county following the

1990 census. The county was covered under section 5 and was

required to submit the changes to the Voting section for

preclearance. In an effort to gain preclearance from Justice, the

county council felt compelled to create a new, additional majority

minority district. The complaint alleged that the council used

race as a predominant factor in deciding district lines.

Court action—The District Court decision found the

redistricting plan created and imposed by the

county to be unconstitutional because it

impermissibly separated voters into different

districts on the basis of race, and that separation

lacked sufficient justification. The county was

required to develop a new plan and file the revised

plan with the court and submit it to Justice for

preclearance.

18

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section considered amicus curiae participation in this case.

The plaintiff challenged a state’s congressional redistricting plan.

The section was interested in the outcome to ensure that the

state satisfied section 2 interest by maintaining a majorityminority congressional district in which African-Americans had an

equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.

Court action—Judge dismissed litigation based on

state motion.
Appendix VIII

Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 116 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Matter number

Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

19

Monitor private

lawsuit

The section monitored this case because the section had section

2 investigations that could be impacted by the decision in this ongoing case against a particular state. The plaintiffs sought

declaratory and injunctive relief against the continued use of the

House and Senate districts in the state on the grounds that they

diluted the voting strength of Native- Americans.

Court action—The case was decided in favor of the

defendants.

20

Monitor election

Federal observers were assigned to cover a municipal election in

June 1997. The observers were assigned to cover the election

because of prior problems with affidavit ballots and voter

assistance in an election that took place in May 1997.

No further action warranted—The June 1997

observation concluded that the election had gone

smoothly and poll workers provided proper

assistance.

21

Monitor election

Federal observers were to be assigned to monitor the treatment

of African-American voters in a municipal election. The

monitoring was to address concerns about voter assistance

procedures. Federal observers were to ensure that black voters

in need of help at the polls were not denied assistance and that

they would receive assistance from the person of their choice, as

guaranteed under the VRA.

No further action warranted—Election was

cancelled.

22

Monitor election

The Voting section monitored the primary election in a county to

determine whether county officials were complying with the

language minority group assistance requirements of the VRA, as

amended. In addition, observers monitored polling place

activities and absentee ballot processing procedures to gather

information regarding challenges to Hispanic voters, which might

rise to the level of intimidation.

No further action warranted—The section

monitored the election for compliance and found

the county to be in compliance

a

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), established three

preconditions a plaintiff must establish in order to prove unlawful vote dilution. Under section 2 of the

VRA, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) the minority group is significantly large and

geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, (2) the minority group is

politically cohesive, and (3) the white majority votes significantly as a bloc to enable it to usually

defeat the minority-preferred candidate.

Source: Review of Voting section closed matter files and interviews with section officials.
Appendix IX

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 117 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters

Laurie Ekstrand or William Jenkins, (202) 512-8777

In addition to those named above, Linda Watson, Brenda Rabinowitz, Lou

V.B. Smith, Kristen Plungas, Bonita Vines, and Jan Montgomery made key

contributions to this report.

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments
Page 118 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters
Page 119 GAO/GGD-00-192 Civil Rights Division’s Case Selection and Closed Matters
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to

obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

To contact GAO FraudNET use:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(182093)