United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE 

Information on 

Employment 

Litigation, Housing 

and Civil 

Enforcement, Voting, 

and Special Litigation 

Sections’ Enforcement 

Efforts from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 

2007 

October 2009 

GAO-10-75 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2009

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Information on Employment Litigation, Housing and 

Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation 

Sections’ Enforcement Efforts from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 

Highlights of GAO-10-75, a report to 

congressional requesters 

The Civil Rights Division (Division) 

of the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

is the primary federal entity 

charged with enforcing federal 

statutes prohibiting discrimination 

on the basis of race, sex, disability, 

religion, and national origin. GAO 

was asked to review the Division’s 

enforcement efforts. This report 

addresses the activities the 

Division undertook from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007 to 

implement its enforcement 

responsibilities through four of its 

sections (1) Employment 

Litigation, (2) Housing and Civil 

Enforcement, (3) Voting, and 

(4) Special Litigation. To conduct 

our review, GAO analyzed data on 

cases filed in court and matters 

(e.g., a referral or allegation of 

discrimination) investigated. To 

supplement this analysis, GAO also 

reviewed a sample of closed matter 

files (about 210 of 5,400). GAO 

randomly selected matters 

investigated under different 

statutes for each section and 

considered the government role 

(e.g., plaintiff or defendant) and 

type of issues investigated (e.g., the 

nature of the alleged discrimination 

or violation) to ensure that the 

sample reflected the breadth of the 

work and practices of each section. 

While not representative of all 

closed matters, the sample results 

provided examples of why matters 

were closed. Additionally, GAO 

analyzed complaints and other 

relevant court documents for a 

comparable number of cases filed 

as plaintiff by each section, as well 

as DOJ documents, such as annual 

reports, that described the 

Division’s enforcement efforts. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Employment Litigation Section 

initiated more than 3,200 matters and filed 60 cases as plaintiff under federal 

statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. About 90 percent of the 

matters initiated (2,846 of 3,212) and more than half of the cases filed (33 of 

60) involved individual claims of discrimination. Of these cases, more than 

half (18 of 33) alleged sex discrimination against women. The Section filed 11 

pattern or practice cases—cases that attempt to show that the defendant 

systematically engaged in discriminatory activities. Nine of these cases 

involved claims of discrimination in hiring, and the most common protected 

class (i.e., class of individuals entitled to statutory protection against 

discrimination, such as national origin or gender) was race (7 of 11). 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Housing and Civil Enforcement 

Section initiated 947 matters and participated in 277 cases under federal 

statutes prohibiting discrimination in housing, credit transactions, and certain 

places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels). Nearly 90 percent (456 of 517) 

of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) matters were initiated under its pattern or 

practice authority. The largest number of the FHA matters involved 

allegations of discrimination based on race (228) or disability (206). The 

majority (250 of 269) of the cases that the Section filed as plaintiff included a 

claim under the FHA and primarily involving rental issues (146 of 250). Most 

of the cases alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (115) or race (70).

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 442 matters 

and filed 56 cases to enforce federal statutes that protect the voting rights of 

racial and language minorities, disabled and illiterate persons, and overseas 

and military personnel and addressed such issues as discriminatory voter 

registration practices. The Section initiated most matters (367 of 442) and 

filed a majority of cases (39 of 56) as plaintiff under the Voting Rights Act. 

These matters (246 of 367) and cases (30 of 39) were primarily filed on behalf 

of language minority groups. The Section spent about 52 percent of its time on 

reviews of proposed changes in voting procedures (e.g., moving a polling 

place) submitted by certain jurisdictions covered under the act, as compared 

with cases (about 33 percent) or matters (about 14 percent). 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section initiated 

693 matters and filed 31 cases as plaintiff to enforce federal civil rights 

statutes in four areas––institutional conditions (e.g., protecting persons in 

nursing homes or jails), conduct of law enforcement agencies (e.g., police 

misconduct), access to reproductive health facilities and places of worship, 

and the exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons. Of the 

matters initiated and closed (544 of 693), the largest numbers involved 

institutional conditions (373) and conduct of law enforcement agencies (129). 

The cases filed (27 of 31) primarily involved institutional conditions. 

DOJ provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. 

View GAO-10-75 or key components.

For more information, contact Eileen R. 

Larence at (202) 512-8777 or 

larencee@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-75 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 5 

Results-in-Brief 16 

The Employment Litigation Section Investigated More Matters and 

Participated in More Individual Employment Discrimination 

Cases under Section 706 of Title VII Than under Other Statutory 

Provisions, and Devoted Most of Its Time Spent on Cases to 

Pattern or Practice Cases 23 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Initiated More Matters 

and Participated in More Cases Involving a Pattern or Practice of 

Discrimination under the Fair Housing Act Than Any Other 

Statute or Type of Matter or Case 38 

The Voting Section Initiated Matters and Filed Cases Primarily 

under the Voting Rights Act on Behalf of Language Minority 

Groups, and Devoted the Greatest Proportion of Its Time to 

Reviews of Changes in Voting Practices and Procedures 57 

The Special Litigation Section Primarily Investigated Matters and 

Participated in Cases Involving Institutional Conditions and 

Devoted the Greatest Percentage of Time to these Matters and 

Cases, as Compared with Its Other Areas of Responsibility 83 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 105 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 106 

Appendix II Additional Information on the Employment Litigation 

Section 113 

Appendix III Additional Information on the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section 127 

Appendix IV Voting Rights Section 138 

Appendix V Special Litigation Section 153 

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 
Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 170 

Tables 

Table 1: Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, 

Voting, and Special Litigation Sections’ Available 

Permanent Positions and Salaries and Expenses from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 11 

Table 2: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Employment 

Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 24 

Table 3: Matters the Employment Litigation Section Initiated by 

Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 26 

Table 4: Reasons for Closing Matters 30 

Table 5: Cases the Employment Litigation Section Initiated by 

Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 31 

Table 6: Section 706 Cases Initiated by Subject and Protected Class 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 33 

Table 7: Section 707 Pattern or Practice Cases Initiated by Subject 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 35 

Table 8: USERRA Cases Initiated by Subject from Fiscal Years 2005 

through 2007 37 

Table 9: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 39 

Table 10: Matters the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

Initiated by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 41 

Table 11: Bases of Allegations for the FHA Matters Initiated from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 43 

Table 12: Issues in the FHA Matters Initiated from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 44 

Table 13: Basis of Allegations for ECOA Matters from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 46 

Table 14: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases by Statute 

and Fiscal Year Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 50 

Table 15: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Case Types for 

Cases Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 51 

Table 16: Issues in the FHA Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 52 

Table 17: Bases of Claims for the FHA Cases Filed from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 53 

Page ii GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Table 18: Bases of Claims and Issues for Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section Testing Program Cases Filed from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 56 

Table 19: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Voting Section from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 58 

Table 20: Matters Initiated by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 by Statute 62 

Table 21: Matters Initiated On Behalf 0f Language Minorities from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 65 

Table 22: Section 2 Matters Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 by Protected Class 67 

Table 23: Matters Initiated by the Voting Section under VRA 

Section 2 from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Subject 69 

Table 24: Voting Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

by Statute 73 

Table 25: VRA Section 2 Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 by Protected Class 75 

Table 26: Number of Section 5 Submissions and Changes Received 

by the Voting Section during Fiscal Years 2001 through 

200780 

Table 27: Number of Objections to Section 5 Changes Proposed 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 81 

Table 28: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Cases, 

Matters, and Section 5 Reviews from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 82 

Table 29: Percentage of Time Reported Spent on Section 5 Reviews 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year 83 

Table 30: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Special Litigation 

Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 85 

Table 31: Matters Initiated by the Special Litigation Section from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year 88 

Table 32: Number of Matters Initiated Involving Institutional 

Conditions from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by 

Category and Facility Type 92 

Table 33: Cases Filed by Special Litigation Section from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 by Area of Responsibility 98 

Table 34: Cases Involving Institutional Conditions by Category, 

Facility Type, and Fiscal Year 99 

Table 35: Percentage of Hours Reported for Matters by Facility 

Type and Fiscal Year 103 

Table 36: Percentage of Hours Reported for Cases by Area of 

Responsibility and Fiscal Year 104 

Page iii GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Table 37: Number of Right-to-Sue Letters Issued by the 

Employment Litigation Section 115 

Table 38: Summary of Section 707 Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 116 

Table 39: Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 2001 That Were Still 

Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 121 

Table 40: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation 

Section Matters by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 123 

Table 41: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation 

Section Cases by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 124 

Table 42: Number of On-board Staff for the Employment Litigation 

Section by Position and Fiscal Year 125 

Table 43: Percentage of Attrition for the Employment Litigation 

Section by Position and Fiscal Year 126 

Table 44: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of 

Time Charged to Matters by Statute for Fiscal Years 2001-

2007 132 

Table 45: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of 

Time Charged by Case Type for Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 133 

Table 46: Cases Remaining Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 by Statute and Government Role 135 

Table 47: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Historical Track 

of Available Resources (dollars in thousands) 135 

Table 48: Number of On-board Staff for Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section by Position and Fiscal Year 136 

Table 49: Percentage of Attrition for Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section by Position and Fiscal Year 137 

Table 50: Voting Section Plaintiff Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 

2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by 

Statute 147 

Table 51: Cases Filed under the Voting Rights Act Prior to Fiscal 

Year 2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, 

by Subject 148 

Table 52: Cases Filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Prior 

to Fiscal Year 2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007, by Protected class 148 

Table 53: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Matters 

from Fiscal Year 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year 149 

Page iv GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Table 54: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Cases 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year 150 

Table 55: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Plaintiff 

Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year 150 

Table 56: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on 

Defendant Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by 

Fiscal Year 151 

Table 57: Voting Section: Historical Track of Available Resources 151 

Table 58: Number of On-board Staff for Voting Section by Position 

and Fiscal Year 152 

Table 59: Percentage of Attrition for Voting Section by Position and 

Fiscal Year 152 

Table 60: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 

2001 by Facility Type 157 

Table 61: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 

2001, by Government Role and Facility Type 158 

Table 62: Percentage of Hours Spent on Matters by Facility Type 

and Fiscal Year 159 

Table 63: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent 

on Institutional Conditions Matters, by Facility Type and 

Fiscal Year 160 

Table 64: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent 

on Cases, by Area of Responsibility and Fiscal Year 161 

Table 65: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent 

on Institutional Conditions Cases by Facility Type and 

Fiscal Year 162 

Table 66: Special Litigation Section: Historical Track of Available 

Resources 163 

Table 67: Number of On-board Staff for Special Litigation Section 

by Position and Fiscal Year 163 

Table 68: Percentage of Attrition for Special Litigation Section by 

Position and Fiscal Year 164 

Table 69: Special Litigation Section Subject Values for Matters and 

Cases Recorded in ICM 165 

Figures 

Figure 1: HUD Referrals from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 42 

Figure 2: Housing Testing Conducted from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 55 

Page v GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Figure 3: Language Minority Matters Compared with All Matters 

Initiated by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 64 

Figure 4: Number of VRA Section 2 Matters Filed by the Voting 

Section for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 68 

Figure 5: Matters Initiated and Closed by the Special Litigation 

Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Area of 

Responsibility 90 

Page vi GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Abbreviations 

AAG Assistant Attorney General 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

CRIPA Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

ECOA Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FACE Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act 

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

FHA Fair Housing Act 

FHAP Fair Housing Assistance Program 

HAVA Help America Vote Act of 2002 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

ICM Interactive Case Management System 

IT information technology 

NVRA National Voter Registration Act 

PROMPT Proactive Recruitment of Multicultural Professionals 

 for Tomorrow 

RLUIPA Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 

 of 2000 

SCRA Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

STAPS Submission Tracking and Processing System 

UOCAVA Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

USERRA Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

 Rights Act of 1994 

VRA Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended 

14141 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page vii GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Page 1 GAO-10-75 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 23, 2009 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt 

House of Representatives 

Established after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil 

Rights Division (Division) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is the 

primary federal entity charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal 

statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, 

religion, and national origin. Since its establishment, the Division’s mission 

has expanded to include the enforcement of laws prohibiting 

discrimination in employment, housing, voting, public accommodations, 

education, and the rights of institutionalized persons. To carry out these 

broad enforcement responsibilities, the Division initiates thousands of 

matters and hundreds of cases each year.1

 In hearings as recent as 2008, 

members of Congress raised issues about how the Division carried out its 

enforcement responsibilities from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Specifically, these hearings included testimony on the work of 4 of the 

Division’s 11 sections––Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil 

Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation––over the 7-year period.2

1

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 in court. 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 in court––for example, the investigation of 

a complaint or an allegation of discrimination referred by another federal agency. A 

complaint outlines the facts and legal claims for relief from damages caused, or wrongful 

conduct engaged in, by the defendant. An indictment or information is the formal charge 

made by a prosecutor to initiate a criminal proceeding against the accused. 

2

 The Division has 11 sections—10 program-related sections and an Administrative 

Management section. 

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 
 

During these hearings, members raised issues about the sections’ 

activities, including how they determined which matters to investigate and 

which cases to pursue in federal court in the areas of employment, 

housing, and voting discrimination. Additionally, members also raised 

issues about actions undertaken to protect individuals confined in certain 

institutions operated by, or on behalf of, state or local governments (e.g., 

mental health facilities, nursing homes, jails and prisons, and juvenile 

correctional facilities); efforts to enforce laws prohibiting religious 

discrimination; and actions taken to investigate allegations of police 

misconduct (e.g., excessive use of force).3

In the past, we have done work on the Division and its enforcement 

activities. In September 2000, we reported on the reasons that the 

Division’s Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and 

Voting sections pursued a selection of cases and closed a selection of 

matters.4

 According to section managers, legal merit (i.e., the strength of 

evidence in a case) was the predominant reason in their decisions to 

pursue allegations of discrimination as cases by filing complaints in 

federal court. We reported that the reasons generally given for closing a 

matter were a lack of merit (e.g., insufficient evidence to support 

allegations), no further action was warranted (e.g., the problem was 

resolved), the matter was returned to the referring federal agency for 

administrative resolution by that agency, or corrective action was taken by 

the jurisdiction investigated. In addition, in February and September 2000, 

we reported on how the Division tracked and managed matters and cases 

using its Case Management System, including the limitations of that 

system. We also described the new Interactive Case Management System 

(ICM) that the Division was implementing at the time of our review to 

replace the Case Management System.5

 As the Division’s official case 

management system, ICM was to track, count, and measure all matters and 

cases from their inception to conclusion. 

 

3

A jail is a place of confinement of persons, held in lawful custody under the jurisdiction of 

a local government (e.g., a county), who are awaiting trial or convicted of minor offenses. A 

prison is a state or federal place of confinement for persons convicted of serious crimes. 

4

 GAO, Civil Rights Division: Selection of Cases and Reasons Matters were Closed, 

GAO/GGD-00-192 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000). 

5

 GAO, Civil Rights Division: Policies and Procedures for Establishing Litigation 

Priorities, Tracking and Managing Casework, and Disseminating Litigation Results, 

GGD-00-58R (Washington, D.C.: February 2000) and GAO/GGD-00-192. 

Page 2 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

You asked us to review the enforcement efforts of the Division’s 

Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and 

Special Litigation sections from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Accordingly, this report addresses the following question for each of the 

four sections: From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, what activities did the 

Division undertake to implement its enforcement responsibilities through 

the Section? 

To address our objective for each of the four sections, we analyzed 

electronic data from ICM on the cases pursued and matters initiated by 

each section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. As part of this analysis, 

we took actions to assess the reliability of the ICM data to ensure they 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of these objectives. Those 

actions included ascertaining if, and to what extent, data were missing in 

the information provided; determining the consistency of the data by 

comparing data in related fields; comparing the ICM data with matter and 

case file documents to identify any differences between the electronic and 

file information, as described below; and discussing any anomalies or 

instances of missing data with appropriate agency officials to identify 

possible data entry errors. As appropriate, we made corrections to the 

data or used the data in conjunction with other sources. We found the data 

to be sufficiently reliable for presenting overall trends in the sections’ 

enforcement efforts. Limitations in the data that we identified are noted 

later in this report. 

To supplement our analysis of the ICM matter data and further assess the 

reliability of these data, we compared ICM data with documents (e.g., 

memoranda and correspondence) in matter files for a nongeneralizable 

sample of closed matters––matters that were concluded––for each of the 

four sections.6

 Specifically, we reviewed 49 of about 3,300 closed matters 

for the Employment Litigation Section; 60 of about 1,070 closed matters 

for the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section; 51 of about 345 closed 

matters for the Voting Section; and 51 of about 714 closed matters for the 

Special Litigation Section. In determining our samples, we randomly 

selected matters investigated under each of the statutes enforced by the 

respective section and took into consideration the government role (e.g., 

plaintiff or defendant) and the subject investigated (e.g., the nature of the 

 

6

 A nongeneralizable sample may be either a nonprobability sample where observations are 

selected in a manner that is not completely random, or a probability sample where random 

sampling is used, but the sample size is too small to allow the results to be generalized to 

the broader population. 

Page 3 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

alleged discrimination or violation) to ensure that the sample reflected the 

breadth of the work and practices of the respective section from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007. Because our samples were not representative, we 

were unable to generalize the results to all closed matters investigated by 

these sections during the period of our review. Nevertheless, our file 

reviews provided examples of how the matter data in ICM compared to the 

same information in the matter files, how the sections investigated 

matters, and why the sections closed them. 

Additionally, to supplement our analysis of the ICM case data of each 

section, as well as our assessment of the reliability of these data, we 

analyzed complaints for a comparable number of cases filed in court by 

each of the four sections. Specifically, we analyzed 60 complaints from the 

Employment Litigation Section, 56 complaints from the Voting Section, 

and 31 complaints from the Special Litigation Section, which constituted 

all of the complaints that each of those sections filed as plaintiff during the 

time period of our review. Given the large number (277) of complaints 

filed by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section during the 7-year 

period, we analyzed case documents for a nongeneralizable sample of 33 

cases identified in the ICM data. In selecting the sample of Housing and 

Civil Enforcement Section cases to review, we randomly chose cases that 

involved each of the statutes enforced by the Section, and considered 

other case characteristics, such as the fiscal year in which the case was 

filed in court. For all four sections, we compared the information in the 

complaints to data contained in ICM (e.g., the statutes under which the 

complaints were filed) to identify possible data entry errors. Although the 

information we obtained cannot be generalized to all cases filed by the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section during the period of our review, it 

provided us with information on how the case data in ICM compared to 

the same information in the case files and illustrative examples of the 

types of cases pursued by this Section. 

In addition to the closed matter data, we also analyzed aggregate matter 

data for matters initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by each of 

the four sections in our review. The Division also provided aggregate data 

for the time each of the four sections reported spending on matters and 

cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

We also analyzed DOJ documents, such as annual reports, hearing 

statements, speeches, and budget documents, that described the Division’s 

enforcement efforts (including special initiatives and areas of focus) from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2007. We interviewed DOJ headquarters, 

Division, and Section officials to obtain information on the four sections’ 

Page 4 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

enforcement efforts during the 7-year period. Furthermore, to identify 

issues and gain additional perspective on the sections’ litigation efforts, we 

interviewed representatives of three nongovernmental civil rights 

organizations and five experts on the four civil rights areas covered in our 

review. We identified these individuals in part through our review of the 

transcripts from oversight hearings in which these individuals had 

testified. Although the information we obtained was not generalizable 

beyond the individuals we interviewed, these interviews helped enhance 

our analysis of the litigation efforts and other activities of the four sections 

during the period of our review. 

We conducted our work from June 2007 through October 2009 in 

accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 

are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in 

this product. Additional details on our scope and methodology are 

contained in appendix I. 

Background 

History of the Division and 

Some of the Major Statutes 

Enforced 

The Division was established within DOJ as a result of the Civil Rights Act 

of 19577

 to enforce all federal statutes affecting civil rights. The act 

provided DOJ with new tools to prosecute racial inequality and political 

disenfranchisement. The act focused specifically on voting, authorizing 

DOJ to bring lawsuits against anyone who had violated or was about to 

violate any other person’s voting rights—either the right to vote in federal 

elections or the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. The 

act was followed by a series of laws that prohibited discrimination in 

employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, 

education, and certain federally funded and conducted programs. These 

laws also expanded the classes of individuals entitled to statutory 

protection from discrimination—referred to as protected classes—

prohibiting discrimination on bases including gender, religion, national 

origin, familial status, and disability. The following are the some of the 

 

7

 Pub. L. No. 85-315, 71 Stat. 634. 

Page 5 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

goals and purposes articulated by Congress in passing the major civil 

rights statutes enforced by the four sections in our review. 

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended8

The purpose of the Voting Rights Act, as reauthorized in 2006, is to 

ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is preserved and protected 

as guaranteed by the Constitution. Originally enacted in 1965, the 

Voting Rights Act reflected Congress’s intention to rid the country of 

racial discrimination in voting. 

• The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

(UOCAVA)9

UOCAVA was enacted in 1986 to facilitate absentee voting by United 

States citizens, both military and civilian, who are overseas, because, 

as noted in the House of Representatives report accompanying the bill, 

when they fail to receive their absentee ballots in time to vote and 

return them, they are clearly and effectively disenfranchised.10

• National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)11

In passing the NVRA in 1993, Congress found that discriminatory and 

unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and 

damaging effect on voter participation in federal elections and 

disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, 

including racial minorities. The NVRA was intended, in part, to 

establish procedures to increase the number of eligible citizens who 

register to vote in federal elections as well as to protect the integrity of 

the electoral process and ensure accurate and current voter 

registration rolls. 

 

8

 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1. 

9

 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff – 1973ff-6. 

10 H.R. Rep. No. 99-765 at 5, 12 (1986). 

11 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg – 1973gg-10. 

Page 6 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

• Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)12

HAVA was enacted after the events surrounding the November 2000 

election, at least partly in response to perceived voting irregularities in 

the State of Florida. Problems identified in this election were related to 

voter registration lists, absentee ballots, ballot counting, and 

antiquated voting systems, among others. 

• The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 196813

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expanded the Division’s authority to 

combat racial, ethnic, religious, and gender-based discrimination by 

prohibiting discrimination in public facilities; employment; schools; 

and certain places of public accommodation, such as motels, 

restaurants, and theaters. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 further 

broadened the reach of the Division, addressing civil-rights-related 

violence, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and the 

rights of Native Americans living on tribal reservations. 

• Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

of 1994 (USERRA)14

Following a review after the 1991 Gulf War of the effectiveness of the 

reemployment rights set forth in the Vietnam Era Veterans’ 

Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974,15 Congress passed USERRA. The 

law was designed, among other things, to encourage noncareer service 

in the uniformed services by eliminating or minimizing the 

disadvantages to civilian careers and employment that can result from 

such service. USERRA protects individuals as they transition between 

their military duties and civilian employment. 

• Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 (CRIPA)16

In passing CRIPA, Congress recognized the commitment of DOJ to 

ensuring the adequate care of the nation’s institutionalized citizens, but 

 

12 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-545. 

13 Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241; Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73. 

14 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-35. 

15 Pub. L. No. 93-508, 88 Stat. 1578. 

16 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j. 

Page 7 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

noted that federal court decisions had made clear that a federal statute 

was necessary to clarify the Attorney General’s authority to bring suits 

on behalf of such persons. As such, Congress passed CRIPA to give the 

Attorney General legal standing to enforce existing constitutional and 

federal statutory rights of institutionalized persons and ensure they are 

afforded the full measure of protections the Constitution guarantees 

them. 

• Fair Housing Amendments Act of 198817

Originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair 

Housing Act (FHA) was significantly amended in 1988. In its report on 

the bill, the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary 

explained its purpose as fulfilling the promise made to the American 

people in the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which was to proscribe housing 

practices that discriminate on account of race, color, national origin or 

religion, and as added later, sex.18 The committee noted that the prior 

act had failed to provide an effective enforcement system to make that 

promise a reality, so the new law was to fill that void by creating an 

administrative enforcement system and removing barriers to court 

action by private litigants and DOJ. The statute’s purposes were also to 

extend the principle of equal housing opportunity to handicapped 

persons and families with children, all of whom had been the victims 

of unfair and discriminatory housing practices. 

• Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)19

In passing the first version of ECOA, Congress found“a need to insure 

that the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the 

extensions of credit exercise their responsibility to make credit 

available with fairness, impartiality, and without discrimination on the 

basis of sex or marital status.” 20Two years later, in 1976, the categories 

of race, color, religion, national origin, and age were added to the law, 

 

17 Pub. L. No. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619. 

18 H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 13 (1988). Color is a valid protected class under various statutes 

(e.g., Title VII and the Fair Housing Act), although separate claims of color discrimination 

are rare. Such claims are usually brought with and subordinated to race discrimination 

claims; for example, in a case of unlawful discrimination on the basis of color where an 

individual has been treated differently on the basis of skin tone. 

19 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.

20 Pub. L. No. 93-495, § 502, 88 Stat. 1500, 1521. 

Page 8 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

as well as prohibitions against discrimination based on the receipt of 

public assistance benefits and the exercise of rights under the 

Consumer Credit Protection Act.21

• Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 

(RLUIPA)22

As explained upon the bill’s introduction in the Senate, RLUIPA was 

intended to protect religious liberty from unnecessary governmental 

influence and represented an attempt to respond to the Supreme 

Court’s decision in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores,

23 in which it 

had held that Congress lacked the authority to enact provisions of the 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act.24

• Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, included 

a provision––codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14141—which responded to 

judicial decisions that had denied both individual victims and DOJ 

standing to pursue relief for police misconduct. The law conferred 

standing upon the Attorney General to bring civil actions for 

prospective relief against governmental authorities for 

unconstitutional patterns or practices, which, according to the report on 

the bill by the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, was a 

recognized gap in the federal scheme for protecting constitutional 

rights.25

 

21 Pub. L. No. 90-321, 82 Stat. 146 (1968) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 

U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C.). 

22 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

23 521 U.S. 507 (1997). 

24 146 Cong. Rec. S6678-02, S6687-88. 

25 H.R. Rep. No. 102-242, at 138 (1991). 

Page 9 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The Division is headed by an Assistant Attorney General, who reports to 

the Associate Attorney 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.26 The Division 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 employment, housing, voting, criminal violations, education, 

immigrant-related discriminatory employment practices, disability rights, 

and institutional conditions. 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. This report focuses on four of the Division’s 

program sections: Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, 

Voting, and Special Litigation. 

Organization of the 

Division and Staffing 

Levels for the Employment 

Litigation, Housing and 

Civil Enforcement, Special 

Litigation, and Voting 

Sections 

According to the Acting Assistant Attorney General and the Division’s 

budget official, changes in the Department’s priorities from fiscal years 

2001 through 2007 affected the resources available to the sections. 

Specifically, officials said that the Attorney General had realigned 

resources in 2005 to reflect the increased prioritization of DOJ’s 

counterterrorism efforts, which became DOJ’s top strategic goal. As a 

result, the Division, like many other DOJ components, had lost staff since 

2002. Table 1 presents the number of permanent positions and salaries and 

expenses available from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, by fiscal year, to 

each of the four sections in our review. (App. II-V provide additional 

information on resources available to each section.) 

 

26 The Professional Development Office is within the Office of the Assistant Attorney 

General. This office was established by the Assistant Attorney General in 2005 to enhance 

the training opportunities for new and experienced Division attorneys. 

Page 10 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 1: Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation Sections’ Available Permanent 

Positions and Salaries and Expenses from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Fiscal year 2001 2002a2003b2004c2005d2006e2007f

Employment Litigation Section 

Permanent positions 62 62 62 62 61 61 61

Salaries and Expenses 6,804 7,515 7,797 8,056 8,226 9,279 9,963

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

Permanent positions 100 100 100 100 98 98 98

Salaries and expenses 13,295 13,963 14,278 14,594 14,342 13,541 14,168

Voting Section 

Permanent positions 105 105 105 105 102 102 98

Salaries and Expenses 12,158 13,242 13,596 14,123 13,720 11,758 11,810

Special Litigation Section 

Permanent positions 63 73 73 73 72 72 72

Salaries and expenses 7,500 8,920 9,799 10,048 10,233 12,096 12,656

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Note: Actual dollars in thousands. 

a

Fiscal year 2002 includes a $95,000 rescission. 

b

Fiscal year 2003 includes a $683,000 rescission. 

c

Fiscal year 2004 includes a $1,158,000 rescission, partially offset by the restoration of the fiscal year 

2003 $683,000 rescission. 

d

Fiscal year 2005 includes two rescissions totaling $1,458,000, and subsequent transfers of $228,000 

(Office of Immigration and Litigation $95,000) and U.S. Attorneys ($133,000), and a reduction of 15 

positions (8 attorneys) from civil enforcement activities. 

e

Fiscal year 2006 includes two rescissions totaling $1,410,000 and a transfer of $443,000 to the U.S. 

Attorneys. 

f

Fiscal year 2007 includes an across-the-board reduction of $1,057,000 and a transfer of 4 positions 

and $576,000 to U.S. Attorneys. 

Process for handling 

matters and cases 

All four of the sections undertake investigations on behalf of individuals 

alleging a single act of discrimination against a person or persons as well 

as investigations that tend to be larger and more complex. This second 

type of investigation is referred to in the Employment Litigation, Housing 

and Civil Enforcement, and Special Litigation sections as a pattern or 

practice investigation and in the Voting Section as a systemic 

investigation. A pattern or practice case is one in which the plaintiff 

attempts to show that the defendant—such as an employer, provider of 

housing, or correctional institution—has systematically engaged in 

discriminatory or unlawful activities, especially by means of policies and 

procedures. The number of incidents necessary to show a pattern or 

practice depends upon the nature of the right protected and the nature of 

Page 11 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

the ordinary violations of that right. These cases are factually and legally 

complex and, according to Division officials, time-consuming and resource 

intensive. While the Voting Section does not have pattern or practice 

authority like the other three sections, according to Section officials, cases 

that the Voting Section initiates typically address systemic problems in the 

method of election of a given jurisdiction or other discriminatory voting 

practices. According to the Division, these cases are similar in scope and 

complexity to pattern or practice cases. 

The Division’s process for handling matters and cases in the four sections 

covered in our review generally varies by section because of the structure 

of the statutes or provisions within a statute that each section enforces. 

However, each section’s process shares some common steps. For 

example, all four sections receive referrals of allegations of discrimination 

from numerous sources, such as other federal agencies, private attorneys, 

Members of Congress, citizens, community organizations, and advocacy 

groups. All four sections may also initiate investigations as a result of 

information obtained from section survey and outreach work, 

demographic data, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, media sources, and other 

sources of information about discrimination. However, the extent to which 

the sections have discretion to pursue particular matters varies by section. 

For example, the Employment Litigation Section receives referrals of 

individual charges of discrimination against state and local government 

employers under section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act from the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and has the 

discretion either to close the matter with a letter to the charging party 

(known as a right-to-sue letter)27 after reviewing the charge28 or consider 

the matter for possible litigation. In contrast, the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section receives certain referrals under the Fair Housing Act 

from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); DOJ is 

required by statute to file these referrals in federal district court. These 

 

27 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 Division to the charging party or his or 

her attorney and is referred to as a right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). 

28 As used by the Employment Litigation Section, the term charge refers specifically to 

those allegations of discrimination referred to by the EEOC. The Department of Labor 

(DOL) also refers USERRA complaints to the Employment Litigation Section. We use the 

term referral to refer to HUD, EEOC, DOL, and other regulatory agency referrals. The more 

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

discrimination. 

Page 12 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

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. The 

Voting Section generally does not receive referrals from other federal 

agencies and, like the other three sections, has the authority to initiate its 

own litigation. The Special Litigation Section has discretion under all the 

statutes it enforces to recommend or not to recommend an investigation 

or case; therefore, the Section considers all its work to be self-initiated. 

Generally, all four sections may initiate certain types of investigations, but 

for other types, they must obtain the approval of the Office of the Assistant 

Attorney General. For example, in the Employment Litigation Section, the 

Section Chief can approve opening an investigation on charges of 

discrimination that the EEOC referred to DOJ under section 706 of Title 

VII. 29 A Deputy Section Chief initially reviews the referrals and brings 

those that have potential for litigation to the attention of the Section Chief. 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section can also initiate investigations 

based on most HUD referrals, but as of 2007 had to obtain the approval of 

the Office of the Assistant Attorney General to initiate certain 

investigations, such as allegations of religious discrimination in land use 

regulation under RLUIPA. Once a section decides to investigate a referral 

or allegation of discrimination, the Section Chief or an attorney manager 

assigns a trial attorney to conduct the investigation. Upon completion of 

the investigation, the trial attorney makes a recommendation to the 

Deputy Section Chief or Section Chief on whether to file a lawsuit, close 

the matter, or participate in some other manner,30 and the Section Chief 

makes the final decision whether to close an investigation that has been 

authorized by the Assistant Attorney General or recommend a lawsuit or 

other participation to the Assistant Attorney General. If the Section Chief 

decides not to pursue a referral or allegation of discrimination, the section 

closes the matter and notifies all appropriate parties.31

 

29 By statute, the Employment Litigation Section can investigate and file suit in matters 

involving an individual instance of discrimination under section 706 only after receiving a 

referral from the EEOC. 

30 In USERRA matters handled by the Employment Litigation Section, a recommendation 

about whether to offer representation to the claimant is made. 

31 The Special Litigation Section does not notify all appropriate parties if it decides not to 

recommend an investigation. 

Page 13 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

In all four sections, if the Section Chief decides to pursue a matter and 

recommend filing a complaint to initiate a lawsuit, then the trial attorney 

prepares a justification package.32 The contents of this package vary by 

section, but are to include a justification memorandum for pattern or 

practice cases. This memorandum includes the facts of the case, the legal 

argument for filing a lawsuit, and the proposed complaint to be filed in 

court alleging a violation of civil rights laws. Each package is reviewed and 

approved by an attorney manager and the Section Chief. A Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General then reviews the justification package, and 

forwards it to the Assistant Attorney General for final review and approval. 

Depending on the type of case, the section may also send the justification 

package to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the district where the lawsuit is 

to be filed for review and concurrence. Pursuant to statutory 

requirements, the Attorney General is to authorize some justification 

packages for the Special Litigation Section. 

If the Assistant Attorney General approves the justification package, the 

Division notifies the defendant by letter of DOJ’s intent to file a lawsuit.33

Subsequently, the trial attorney and the defendant often have presuit 

settlement discussions.34 If they reach a presuit settlement, a settlement 

document stating the points of agreement is prepared, reviewed and 

approved by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General, and signed by all 

parties. The settlement document may be filed in the federal district court 

along with the complaint for approval by the judge. In these instances, the 

settlement document is called a consent decree. A settlement entered into 

by the Employment Litigation and Housing and Civil Enforcement sections 

is usually a consent decree. The Section or the relevant U.S. Attorney’s 

Office monitors the settlement agreement for compliance, where 

appropriate. If the presuit settlement discussions do not result in a 

settlement, the Section files the complaint in federal district court and the 

parties engage in litigation conducted pursuant to the federal rules of civil 

procedure and evidence. According to Section officials, defendants often 

 

32 A complaint filed in court is the initial formal statement that starts a lawsuit and that sets 

forth the allegations made by the plaintiff against the defendant and the plaintiff’s demand 

for relief. 

33 The Special Litigation Section does not notify a defendant by letter of DOJ’s intent to file 

a lawsuit. 

34 Settlement discussions 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. 

Page 14 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

settle prior to or during a trial. If a trial is held, the plaintiff or defendant 

can appeal the decision, and then the Section works closely with the 

Division’s Appellate Section, which assumes responsibility for the 

appellate stage of the case. In certain instances, sections may conclude a 

matter without the filing of an approved complaint by reaching an out-ofcourt settlement agreement with the opposing party. For example, the 

Special Litigation Section may resolve a matter in this manner, but leave 

the matter open and monitor compliance with the agreement; thus, the 

matter never becomes a case, although it has been resolved by settlement 

between the two parties. 

If the Assistant Attorney General does not approve the justification 

package, the trial attorney generally prepares a closing memorandum (or 

another form of documentation) and notifies the charging party, 

respondent, or referring agency, as appropriate, that DOJ is not filing a 

lawsuit. The matter is then closed. 

In pursuing investigations and cases, the four sections may play a number 

of different roles depending on the legal and factual circumstances. While 

the Division may act as a plaintiff—with the section representing the 

United States in a case whereby it brings a lawsuit against an individual or 

entity based on unlawful discrimination—it may also be involved in a case 

in other ways. A section may act as amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” 

by filing a brief in an action in which it is not a party, because the Division 

has a strong interest in the subject matter. A section may also intervene as 

a party in a case—either on the side of the plaintiff or the defendant—

because the constitutionality of a federal statute has been questioned or it 

has another interest in the outcome of the case. A section may also 

participate in a case as the defendant, representing the United States in 

lawsuits brought by plaintiffs against federal agencies challenging the 

enforcement of federal laws. 

The Division’s Interactive 

Case Management System 

Tracks Matters and Cases 

Over the past 20 years, the Division has used various case management 

systems to manage its workload. In October 2000, the Division 

implemented the Interactive Case Management System (ICM) as its official 

system to track, count, and capture performance measurement 

information for all matters and cases from their inception to their 

conclusion and to assist staff in their case work. According to Division 

documentation, ICM was also designed to serve as a tool for senior 

management to oversee the work of the Division and to assist senior 

managers in reporting accurate matter and case data at all levels of the 

organization, improving accountability, analyzing the Division’s 

Page 15 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

performance, and responding to congressional inquiries about the work of 

the Division. Additionally, ICM was designed to capture and report on the 

level of effort that attorneys and professionals dedicate to investigations 

and case-related tasks to help Division managers oversee attorneys’ work. 

In September 2009, as part of our work on the Division’s enforcement 

efforts from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, we reported on the extent to 

which the Division had conducted and documented assessments of ICM’s 

performance since its implementation in fiscal year 2001, and additional 

data the Division could collect using ICM to assist in reporting on its 

enforcement efforts.35 We reported that in accordance with DOJ guidance 

that encourages components to conduct assessments of electronic data 

systems at least once a year, the Division reported conducting annual 

assessments of ICM’s performance from fiscal years 2001 through 2006; 

although the Division has not assessed the performance of ICM since fiscal 

year 2006 and lacks documentation of prior assessments. We also reported 

that opportunities exist to collect additional data that have been 

consistently requested by Congress for oversight purposes, which would 

improve the Division’s use of ICM for reporting on the four sections’ 

enforcement efforts. To strengthen the Division’s ability to manage and 

report on the four sections’ enforcement efforts, we recommended that 

the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Division (1) conduct and 

respond to annual assessments of the performance of the Division’s case 

management system and ensure that these assessments are documented 

and maintained so they can be used to improve the performance of the 

system; (2) require sections to record data on protected class and subject 

in the Division’s case management system in order to facilitate reporting 

of this information to Congress; and (3) as the Division considers options 

to address its case management system needs, determine how sections 

should be required to record data on the reasons for closing matters in the 

system in order to be able to systematically assess and take actions to 

address issues identified. DOJ concurred with our recommendations. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Employment Litigation Section 

initiated more than 3,200 matters and filed 60 cases as plaintiff under 

federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, 

Results-in-Brief 

 

35 GAO, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division: Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Case 

Management System and Better Meet Its Reporting Needs, GAO-09-938R (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 30, 2009). 

Page 16 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

color, sex, religion, national origin, and military service, and retaliation 

against a person for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an 

investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices. About 90 percent of 

the more than 3,200 matters the Section initiated (2,846 of 3,212) alleged 

violations of section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which involve 

individual claims of discrimination. Additionally, about 96 percent of the 

matters (3,087 of 3,212) initiated were as a result of section 706 referrals 

from the EEOC and USERRA referrals from the Department of Labor.36 As 

such, much of the Section’s matters are driven by what the Section 

receives from other agencies. Consequently, the number of section 706 and 

USERRA matters initiated declined in the latter fiscal years, which Section 

officials attributed to a decline in referrals from EEOC and the 

Department of Labor, respectively. Because the Section did not require 

staff to maintain information in ICM on the subjects of the matters, such as 

harassment and retaliation, or the protected class, such as race and 

religion, of the individuals who were allegedly discriminated against, we 

could not determine this information for over 80 percent of the matters the 

Section closed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. In our September 2009 

report on ICM, we recommended that the Division require the sections to 

record data on protected class and subject in the Division’s case 

management system in order to strengthen its ability to account for its 

enforcement efforts.37 DOJ concurred with our recommendation. In 

addition to the matters initiated, the Section filed 60 cases in court as 

plaintiff from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, and filed more than half (33 

of 60) under section 706 of Title VII. According to Employment Litigation 

Section officials, the primary reason for pursuing a case was that the case 

had legal merit, i.e., the strength of evidence in the case. The majority of 

the Section’s cases (18 of 33) involved sex discrimination against women, 

and one-third (11 of 33) involved claims of race discrimination,38 with six 

 

36 The Employment Litigation Section considers all EEOC charge referrals and Department 

of Labor USERRA referrals as matters even if an investigation is not opened. However, the 

section does not consider requests for right-to-sue letters as matters. While a charging 

party is required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, according to Section 

officials, some charging parties may prefer to initiate litigation on their own and, in such 

instances, will request that DOJ provide a right-to-sue letter as obtaining a right-to-sue 

letter is a precondition to filing a Title VII claim in federal court. According to Employment 

Litigation Section officials, the section honors such requests and issued 14,608 such letters 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. (App. II includes information on the number of rightto-sue letters issued each fiscal year by the Section.) 

37 GAO-09-938R. 

38 Individual cases can involve multiple protected classes and subjects. 

Page 17 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

cases filed on behalf of African Americans and five cases filed on behalf of 

whites. For example, in March 2005, the Section filed a lawsuit alleging 

that the city of Cairo, Illinois, discriminated against a female employee by 

sexually harassing her, denying her a promotion, and terminating her 

employment because she refused sexual advancements from her 

supervisors. Most of the 11 pattern or practice cases the Section filed 

during the 7-year period involved claims of discrimination in hiring (9 of 

11) and the most common protected class was race (7 of 11), with four 

cases filed on behalf of African Americans, two on behalf of whites, and 

one on behalf of American Indians or Alaska Natives. For example, in 

January 2001, the Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Delaware State 

Police Department was discriminating against African Americans in hiring 

for trooper positions.39 Of the 16 USERRA cases the Section filed from 

fiscal year 2005—the year the Section began filing these cases—through 

2007, more than half (10 of 16) alleged violations of reemployment rights 

and/or discharge under USERRA. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Housing and Civil Enforcement 

Section initiated 947 matters and participated in 277 cases under federal 

statutes prohibiting discrimination in housing, credit transactions, and in 

certain places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels).40 The Section 

enforced provisions of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the land use provisions of the Religious 

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), among others. 

According to Section officials, the Section considers legal merit when 

deciding whether to pursue a matter as a case as well as (1) whether it 

looks like the matter will be resolved locally, (2) whether litigation would 

resolve a significant statutory issue, and (3) whether the plaintiff has the 

resources to proceed on its own should the Section choose not to get 

involved. During the 7-year period, the Section initiated more matters (517 

of 947) and participated in more cases (257 of 277) involving 

discrimination under the FHA than any other statute or type of matter or 

case. More than half (517 of 947) of the matters initiated involved an 

 

39 African American refers to the protected class “black or African American.” 

40 One of the cases the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed was as plaintiff 

intervenor against multiple defendants. When the Section entered into a consent decree 

with some of the defendants, it created an additional Department of Justice (DJ) number–– 

a unique identification number assigned by DOJ when a matter or case is first entered into 

ICM––so it could track both the settlement and the remaining ongoing litigation; however, 

the Section treats this as one case, as there was one complaint. 

Page 18 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

allegation under the FHA,41 primarily alleging discrimination on the basis 

of race or disability and involving land use/zoning/local government or 

rental issues.42 For example, the Section investigated a matter in which a 

landlord of an apartment complex allegedly turned away families with 

children or assigned them to a particular floor. According to Section 

officials, the large number of land use/zoning/local government matters it 

initiated was due to the Section regularly receiving referrals from HUD as 

well as complaints from other entities involving these issues. Over the 7-

year period, the Section experienced a general decline of election matters 

involving an allegation under the FHA derived from HUD referrals, with 

the fewest number of total matters, 106, in fiscal year 2007. Section 

officials attributed the decrease, in part, to a decline in referrals from HUD 

as a result of more complaints of housing discrimination being handled by 

state and local fair housing agencies instead of HUD. The majority (250 of 

269) of cases that the Section filed in court as plaintiff involved a claim 

under the FHA—more than half (132 of 250) of which involved a pattern or 

practice of discrimination. Additionally, more than half (146 of 250) of the 

FHA cases involved rental issues and nearly half (115 of 250) were brought 

on behalf of persons with a disability. For example, one of the complaints 

we reviewed was filed on behalf of a man with a disability who had filed a 

complaint with HUD against the property manager and owner of his 

apartment complex, alleging the defendants discriminated against him on 

the basis of his physical impairments when they unreasonably prolonged 

meeting his request for a ground floor apartment and did not provide the 

reasonable accommodation of an accessible parking space. The number of 

cases filed by the Section generally decreased from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007 from 53 to 35, which Section officials generally attributed to 

fewer election cases being referred from HUD. Overall, almost 70 percent 

(185 of 277) of the cases the Section participated in from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007 originally derived from a HUD referral, but declined to about 

50 percent (17 of 35) of cases filed in fiscal year 2007. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 442 

matters and filed 56 cases as plaintiff to enforce federal statutes that 

protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities, disabled and 

illiterate persons, and overseas and military personnel and address such 

 

41 This includes FHA either solely or in combination with ECOA and RLUIPA. 

42 Rental matters involve discrimination in property that is listed for a fee, and can involve 

issues such as eviction, the discriminatory provision of services and facilities occupancy 

restrictions, and the assessment of rental fees based on the number of occupants. 

Page 19 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

issues as discriminatory voter registration practices. It enforced the VRA, 

the NVRA, UOCAVA, and beginning in fiscal year 2002, HAVA. The Voting 

Section has the discretion to initiate a matter or pursue a case under all of 

its statutes, with the exception of the review of changes in voting practices 

or procedures, which it is statutorily required to conduct under section 5 

of the VRA. During the 7-year period, the Section initiated more matters 

(367 of 442) and filed more cases (39 of 56) under the VRA than the other 

statutes it enforced. The Section initiated most matters (246 of 367) on 

behalf of language minority groups, primarily Spanish speakers (203 of 

246). For example, in one matter, the Section obtained copies of bilingual 

general election materials from the elections administrator to determine 

whether the jurisdiction was complying with requirements that it provide 

written materials and other assistance for elections (e.g., ballots) in the 

language of the applicable minority group. The Section also initiated 162 

matters under section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits voting practices or 

procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in 

a language minority group. About half of these matters were initiated on 

behalf of language minority groups (80 of 162), primarily Spanish speakers 

(71 of 80) and about half involved a racial minority (88 of 162), primarily 

African American voters (71 of 88).43 For example, one matter involved 

allegations that African American students at a college and a university 

faced discriminatory treatment in the registration process for the 2000 

presidential election. The majority of the cases that the Section filed in 

court under the VRA were on behalf of language minority groups (30 of 39 

cases), primarily Spanish speakers (27). While cases involving language 

minority groups were filed under various VRA provisions, the largest 

number of cases (24 of 30) involved claims under section 203 alleging that 

the covered jurisdiction had failed to provide voting-related materials or 

information relating to the electoral process in the language of the 

applicable minority group. For example, in one case, the Section alleged 

that, in conducting elections, a city, where over 46 percent of the total 

citizen voting age population was Hispanic, had not translated fully into 

Spanish written election-day materials and information, such as the 

official ballot, forms for voters with disabilities, and signs identifying a 

polling place’s location, among others. The Section filed 13 cases that 

involved a claim under section 2 of the VRA, 5 on behalf of language 

minority groups and 10 on behalf of racial minority groups—6 on behalf of 

 

43 Seven matters involved both a language minority and a racial minority group and in one 

matter the specific protected class was not identified. 

Page 20 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Hispanics and 3 on behalf of African Americans.44 For example, the 

Section alleged that certain voting practices—such as hostile acts dire

at Hispanic voters or requiring Hispanic voters to prove their citizenshi

without credible evidence calling into question their citizenship—were in 

violation of section 2. According to aggregate data on time spent on 

matters, cases, and other activities for the 7-year period, the Voting 

Section reported devoting the greatest total percentage of time (52 

percent) to administrative reviews of proposed changes in the voting 

practices and procedures of certain jurisdictions covered under section 5 

of the VRA, such as a proposed redistricting plan––which would make 

changes to the geographic boundaries of voting districts––or the 

relocation of a polling place, as compared with cases (33 percent) or 

matters (14 percent). 

cted 

p 

 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section 

initiated 693 matters and participated in 33 cases enforcing federal civil 

rights statutes in four areas––institutional conditions, the conduct of law 

enforcement agencies, access to reproductive health facilities and places 

of worship, and the exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized 

persons. The Section enforced the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 

Act (CRIPA), Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (14141), 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), and the provisions of 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) 

protecting the rights of free exercise of religion for institutionalized 

persons. The Section could bring cases involving the exercise of religious 

freedom under RLUIPA and access to reproductive health facilities under 

FACE, on behalf of individuals. However, the Section was statutorily 

required to file only cases that alleged a pattern or practice involving 

institutional conditions under CRIPA and 14141 and of police misconduct 

under 14141. Because the Section had discretion under all these statutes to 

pursue an investigation or case, it considered all of its work to be selfinitiated. During the 7-year period, the Section initiated 693 matters and 

participated in 33 cases under federal statutes corresponding to its four 

areas of responsibility, but these matters and cases primarily involved 

institutional conditions. Of the 693 matters initiated, the Section 

concluded or closed 544 matters. The majority of the closed matters (373 

of 544) concerned a wide range of allegations about institutional 

conditions in various types of facilities––adult corrections (e.g., jails and 

prisons), health and social welfare (e.g., nursing homes, mental health 

44 Two cases involved both racial and language minority groups. 

Page 21 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

facilities, facilities for persons with developmental disabilities, and group 

foster homes), and juvenile corrections (juvenile correctional facilities or 

entire juvenile correctional systems). The allegations included failure to 

provide adequate medical, mental health, and nursing care services to 

residents; staff’s physical abuse of residents; and overcrowding in the 

facility. The Section also initiated and closed 129 matters involving the 

conduct of law enforcement agencies, specifically allegations of police 

misconduct in law enforcement agencies, such as police use of excessive 

force (i.e., more than necessary to subdue a citizen). During the 7-year 

period, the Section participated in 33 cases––31 as plaintiff, 1 as defendant, 

and 1 as defendant intervenor. The majority (27 of 31) of the cases that the 

Section filed as plaintiff alleged a pattern or practice of egregious and 

flagrant conditions that deprived persons institutionalized in health and 

social welfare (13), juvenile corrections (7), and adult corrections (7) 

facilities of their constitutional or federal statutory rights. Cases involving 

juvenile correctional facilities constituted the largest number (7) of any 

one type of facility and included such allegations as a pattern or practice 

of failing to protect inmates from undue risk of suicide and abuse from 

staff; failure to provide adequate mental health, special education, 

rehabilitation therapy, or psychiatric services; use of isolation or physical 

restraints; and failure to provide the number of professional staff legally 

required for that type of facility. According to Special Litigation Section 

officials, the Section filed two of the seven cases because the respective 

jurisdiction refused to cooperate with the Section and settle the case. The 

Section filed the other cases because Section officials believed conditions 

in the juvenile facilities were so egregious that filing a case was the proper 

avenue for the Section to monitor the respective jurisdictions’ remedial 

efforts. In addition, the Section brought cases against two city and one 

county police department. All three cases alleged police use of excessive 

force. According to aggregate data on the time spent on matters and cases 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section reported devoting the 

greatest percentage of time (62 percent) to matters and cases (81 percent) 

involving institutional conditions, as compared with its other areas of 

responsibility. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and 

comment. DOJ provided technical comments, which we incorporated into 

the report as appropriate 

Page 22 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The Employment 

Litigation Section 

Investigated More 

Matters and 

Participated in More 

Individual 

Employment 

Discrimination Cases 

under Section 706 of 

Title VII Than under 

Other Statutory 

Provisions, and 

Devoted Most of Its 

Time Spent on Cases 

to Pattern or Practice 

Cases 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Employment Litigation Section 

was responsible for enforcing federal civil rights statutes that prohibit 

discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex, religion, national 

origin, and military service, and retaliation against a person for filing a 

charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing 

discriminatory practices. During the 7-year period, the Section initiated 

more matters (2,846 of 3,212) and participated in more cases filed in court 

as a plaintiff (33 of 60) under section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act, based on claims of individual employment discrimination referred 

from the EEOC, than other statutory provisions. A majority of these cases 

involved individual claims of sex discrimination on behalf of women (18 of 

33), and about one-third (11 of 33) involved claims of race discrimination. 

Most of the pattern or practice cases filed by the Section during the 7-year 

period involved claims of discrimination in hiring (9 of 11) and the most 

common protected class was race (7 of 11). 

The Employment 

Litigation Section Had 

Various Statutory 

Responsibilities from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

The Employment Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing civil rights 

laws that prohibit discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex, 

religion, national origin, and military service, and retaliation against a 

person for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an 

investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices. Two major statutes 

enforced by the Employment Litigation Section are Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act and USERRA. The Section was responsible for enforcing Title 

VII from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. The Section began enforcing 

USERRA in September 2004 after the Attorney General transferred 

responsibility for USERRA enforcement to the Civil Rights Division. The 

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights delegated USERRA 

enforcement authority to the Employment Litigation Section. The 

Employment Litigation Section initiates Title VII litigation in two ways—

(1) under section 706 in response to referrals from the EEOC or (2) under 

section 707 at the discretion of the Section. The Section initiates USERRA 

litigation in response to referrals from the Department of Labor. Table 2 

provides a description of the Section’s responsibilities under Title VII of 

Page 23 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

the Civil Rights Act and USERRA. (App. II provides additional information 

on the statutes enforced by the Employment Litigation Section.) 

Table 2: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Employment Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Statutory provision Description of responsibilities 

Section 706 of Title VII of Civil Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-5 

Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex, religion, and 

national origin. Individuals who believe they were unlawfully denied an employment 

opportunity or otherwise discriminated against by an employer may file charges with the 

EEOC. If after investigation the EEOC determines that a charge made against a state 

or local government has merit and efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are 

unsuccessful, the EEOC must refer the charge to DOJ to bring an enforcement action. 

Section 706 provides the Attorney General with the authority to file suit based upon an 

individual charge of discrimination that EEOC has referred to DOJ. If the Section 

decides not to initiate litigation, it is required under Title VII to notify the charging party 

of his or her right to file a private lawsuit. Section 706 also grants the Attorney General 

the authority to intervene in private cases against a public employer that are of general 

public importance. 

Section 707of Title VII of Civil Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-6 

Section 707 provides the Attorney General with authority to bring lawsuits against state 

and local governments where there is reason to believe that there has been a pattern or 

practice of employment discrimination. 

The Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-35 

USERRA prohibits discrimination in employment and related practices based on military 

service as well as protects individuals who have not been timely and properly 

reemployed following their return from military service. The Department of Labor (DOL) 

investigates USERRA complaints, makes a determination as to whether the complaint 

has merit, and attempts to resolve voluntarily those complaints that are deemed 

meritorious. If DOL is unable to resolve a complaint, at the request of the 

servicemember, DOL will refer the complaint to DOJ. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal laws. 

The Section Initiated More 

Matters and Participated in 

More Cases under Section 

706 of Title VII Based on 

Claims of Individual 

Employment 

Discrimination Than Other 

Statutory Provisions 

Page 24 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The Employment Litigation Section initiated over 3,200 matters from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007. About 90 percent of the more than 3,200 matters 

the Section initiated (2,846 of 3,212) alleged violations of section 706 of 

Title VII. Of the total time charged to matters during the 7-year period, 

about 65 percent was devoted to section 706 matters, including time 

charged to ongoing matters initiated prior to fiscal year 2001.45

Additionally, the Section initiated about 96 percent of the matters (3,087 of 

3,212) as a result of section 706 referrals from the EEOC and USERRA 

referrals from the Department of Labor. As such, much of the Section’s 

matters are driven by what the Section receives from other agencies. As 

shown in table 3, the number of section 706 and USERRA matters initiated 

declined in the latter fiscal years, which a Section Chief attributed to a 

decline in referrals from the EEOC and the Department of Labor, 

respectively.46 In addition to initiating matters as a result of referrals from 

other federal agencies, the Section also has the authority to initiate section 

707 pattern or practice matters at its own discretion. The Section initiated 

more than 100 pattern or practice matters based on its analysis of data on 

employers or job classifications; referrals from congressional members, 

citizens, and civil rights organizations; media reports; and other sources.47

Section officials stated that these matters have been a longstanding 

priority for the Section. 

The Section Initiated Most 

Matters under Section 706 and 

Most Matters Resulted from 

Agency Referrals 

 

45 The Division’s time data show that from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section’s 

professional staff charged about 20 percent of their time to matters, about 47 percent to 

cases, and about 33 percent to other activities, such as professional development and 

outreach. According to Section officials, the Section Chief and the six deputies charge all 

their time to other activities. Appendix II provides information on the time charged to cases 

and other activities by fiscal year. 

46 In addition to information maintained in ICM, the Section also maintains information on 

USERRA referrals in a word processing file. According to the Section, the information 

generated from the word processing file identified that the Section received 262 USERRA 

referrals—122 in fiscal year 2005, 81 in fiscal year 2006, and 59 in fiscal year 2007. For 

purposes of this report, we are reporting on the information from ICM—the Division’s 

official case management system. 

47 According to Employment Litigation Section officials, section 707 matters are assigned a 

Department of Justice (DJ) number—a unique identification number assigned by DOJ 

when a matter or case is first entered into ICM—and recorded in ICM only after an attorney 

has spent 4 hours on them. 

Page 25 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 3: Matters the Employment Litigation Section Initiated by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Statute FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

Section 706 486 494 512 377 430 269 278 2,846

Section 707 7 5 13 55b4 5 16 105

USERRA n/a n/a n/a n/a 110 75 56 241

Othera 3 6 0 0 1 2 8 20

Total 496 505 525 432 545 351 358 3,212

Source: Division ICM data. 

Note: n/a—not applicable 

a

Other includes matters referred to the Section involving section 709 of Title VII, which requires 

employers to file certain reports with the EEOC, and matters involving Section initiatives. 

b

Thirty-nine of the 55 matters initiated in fiscal year 2004 were related, and one of the matters initiated 

in fiscal year 2004 also involved the Fourteenth Amendment. 

According to data maintained by the Section in ICM, the Employment 

Litigation Section conducted investigations for about 390 of the 

approximately 3,100 closed matters the Section initiated from fiscal years 

2001 through 2007.48 Section officials stated that professional judgment, 

recommendations made by the EEOC or the Department of Labor (in the 

case of section 706 and USERRA referrals, respectively), strength of the 

evidence, and Section resources are considered when deciding whether to 

recommend an investigation. Section officials acknowledged that the data 

maintained in ICM may understate the number of matters investigated 

because the stage field—which tracks the history of a matter—may not yet 

have been updated to indicate that an investigation had been authorized. 

Additionally, officials stated that some matters included in the Section’s 

ICM data were referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern 

District of New York, which has communicated to the Section its interest 

in receiving Title VII and USERRA referrals.49

 

48 About 220 additional matters were initiated by the Employment Litigation Section prior 

to fiscal year 2001. The Employment Litigation Section authorized an investigation for 

about 90 of these approximately 220 matters and they remained open during some part of 

our review period. 

49 We could not determine the number of matters referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Offices 

because the Employment Litigation Section does not track this information in ICM. 

Page 26 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Because the Section did not require staff to maintain information in ICM 

on the subjects of matters and the protected classes of the individuals who 

were allegedly discriminated against, we could not determine this 

information for the majority of the matters closed from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007. Specifically, the subject field—the field that provides 

information on the nature of the allegation, e.g., harassment and 

retaliation—was not captured in ICM for about 85 percent of the matters 

and the protected class field, e.g., race and religion, was not captured in 

ICM for about 83 percent of the matters. According to Section officials, 

staff are not required to maintain this information—information that is key 

to ensuring the Division executes its charge to enforce statutes prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of protected class—in ICM because the Section 

does not view this information as necessary for management purposes. 

Additionally, Division officials stated that when planning for ICM’s 

implementation with Section officials, the Division did not consider 

requiring sections to provide these data. As previously discussed, in our 

September 2009 report on ICM, we recommended that the Division require 

the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Voting 

sections to record data on protected class and all four sections to record 

data on subject in the Division’s case management system in order to 

strengthen its ability to account for its enforcement efforts.50 The Division 

concurred with our recommendation. Information on protected class and 

subject, however, was available for most of the approximately 85 closed 

matters initiated under section 707 from fiscal years 2001 through 2007.51

According to ICM data, these matters largely focused on claims of race 

discrimination against African Americans (about 56 matters) 52 and sex 

discrimination against females (about 48 matters), and most of the section 

707 matters had a subject of hiring, recruitment, and/or testing program. 

Similarly, because the Section does not systematically collect information 

in ICM on the reasons matters were closed, we were not able to readily 

determine this information for the approximately 3,300 matters the Section 

Information on the 

Characteristics of the Matters 

Closed by the Employment 

Litigation Section and the 

Reasons for Closing Each 

Matter Was Not Readily 

Available 

 

50 GAO-09-938R. 

51An additional 20 section 707 matters were initiated by the Employment Litigation Section 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. However, because those matters were still open at the 

time of our review, given sensitivity concerns, we did not review certain types of 

information related to these matters, including protected class data. 

52 According to ICM data, 6 of the matters involved claims of race discrimination against 

whites and 3 against Asians. Information on protected class was not included in ICM for 9 

of the section 707 matters. Each matter can involve multiple protected classes (e.g., race). 

Page 27 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

closed from fiscal years 2001 through 2007.53 However, interviews with 

agency officials and our review of a nongeneralizable sample of 49 

Employment Litigation Section closed matter files provided information 

on some of the reasons why the Section closed these matters. The reasons 

Section officials gave for closing matters included: 

• intervention is not justified, 

• a similar or related case is or has been prosecuted, 

• the size and/or limited impact would not justify the resources 

necessary to prosecute,54

• the facts in the file would not justify prosecution, 

• the Section does not have jurisdiction to bring suit, 

• a lawsuit has been filed by the charging party, and 

• the employer provided or offered appropriate relief on its own. 

The Section also closed matters when Division managers did not approve 

the Section’s recommendation to proceed with a case, although Division 

officials we interviewed could not identify instances in which this had 

occurred and the Section does not maintain this information in ICM or 

other Section-level information systems. In our September 2009 report on 

ICM, we reported that capturing such information in ICM would enable the 

Division to conduct a systematic analysis of the reasons that matters were 

closed and determine whether there were patterns in the reasons that the 

Division or sections may need to address.55 For example, Division 

management may provide additional guidance on factors it looks for in 

deciding whether to approve a section’s recommendation to pursue a case. 

As previously discussed, we recommended that the Division determine 

how sections should be required to record data on the reasons for closing 

matters in the system in order to be able to systematically assess and take 

actions to address issues identified. DOJ concurred with our 

recommendation. 

 

53 The Section closed approximately 3,300 matters from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, of 

which about 200 were initiated prior to fiscal year 2001. 

54 According to the Employment Litigation Section, size refers to both the size of the 

employer and the parameters of the claim. For example, a matter is considered small in 

size if the employer is small and/or the nature of the claim is narrow (e.g., a claim for 1 

week of back pay). Limited impact refers to the nature of the relief obtainable and whether 

such relief would have an impact on anyone other than the charging party. 

55 GAO-09-938R. 

Page 28 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

We also reviewed documents from a nongeneralizable sample of 49 closed 

matter files and determined the reasons provided in the files for closing 

matters were generally consistent with the reasons identified by Section 

officials and varied by the statutory provision under which the 

investigation was conducted.56 As shown in table 4, the most common 

reason (9 of 19) for closing a section 706 matter was that the size and/or 

limited impact would not justify the resources necessary to prosecute or 

the facts in the file would not justify prosecution. However, for 7 of the 19 

section 706 closed matter files, the reason the matter was closed was not 

contained in the file documentation we received, and Section officials 

attributed this to a filing error. Eight of the 10 section 707 matters we 

reviewed were closed because the Section found that the evidence did not 

support the allegations. For example, in four of these matters, which were 

related, the Section determined that although there was some evidence 

that supported the allegation of a pattern or practice of discrimination 

against African American job applicants, several factors would make 

litigation difficult, including (1) the small number of African American 

applicants, which meant there was little applicant data on which to build a 

strong pattern or practice claim of hiring discrimination; (2) the remaining 

evidence was 5 to 10 years old; and (3) the facts upon which the Section 

would bring a case had already been unsuccessfully litigated. The most 

common reason for closing USERRA matters was because the Section 

agreed with the Department of Labor’s recommendation against providing 

representation. 

 

56 As previously discussed, because our samples were not representative, we were unable 

to generalize the results to all closed matters investigated by the section during the period 

of our review. Nevertheless, our file reviews provided examples of why the section closed 

matters. 

Page 29 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 4: Reasons for Closing Matters 

Statute Reason for closing matter 

Number of closed

matters reviewed by GAOa

19b

The size and/or limited impact would not justify the resources necessary to prosecute, 

or the facts in the file would not justify prosecution 9

EEOC did not recommend litigation 5

Entity took corrective action 2

Section 706 

Reason not included in the documents in the file 7

10

Evidence did not support the allegations 8

Issue was resolved through private litigation 1

Section 707 

Unable to determine reasonc

1

20

Section agreed with Department of Labor’s recommendation against providing 

representation 10

Representation not provided 4

Reason not included in the documents in the file 2

USERRA 

Other reasons, such as plaintiff to obtain private counsel 4

Source: GAO review of documents from closed case matter files. 

a

The numbers do not total to 49 because some matters were closed for more than one reason. 

b

The numbers do not total to 19 because some matters were closed for more than one reason. 

c

On the basis of the matter documents we reviewed, the attorney recommended going forward with a 

supplemental investigation to enable additional information to be collected. However, the matter was 

closed. 

The Section Filed More 

Than Half of its Cases 

under Section 706 and a 

Majority of These Cases 

Involved Individual Claims 

of Sex Discrimination 

The Employment Litigation Section filed 60 cases as a plaintiff and 

participated in 18 additional cases as a plaintiff intervenor, amicus, or 

defendant from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to Employment 

Litigation Section officials, legal merit is the primary reason for pursuing 

cases. Other factors considered by the Section in deciding whether to 

pursue a case include the impact of the case on a type or category of 

discrimination or on a particular location, and the casework of the 

Section. Other priorities, such as those of the Attorney General, may also 

influence the Section’s decision to pursue particular kinds of cases. In July 

2009, Section officials told us that given that the Assistant Attorneys 

General who authorized suits from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 and the 

Section Chief who made suit recommendations to the Assistant Attorneys 

General during that period are no longer employed by DOJ, it would be 

inappropriate for them to speculate as to why the Section focused its 

Page 30 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

efforts in particular areas. Nevertheless, according to Section officials, 

following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Assistant 

Attorney General asked the various sections within the Division to make 

the development of cases involving religious discrimination a priority. 

Officials stated that in response to the Assistant Attorney General’s 

request, the Employment Litigation Section opened a supplemental 

investigation on charge referrals related to religious discrimination.57

Section officials also reported that they aggressively pursue employment 

discrimination cases involving national origin because the Section receives 

so few meritorious referrals of this type. As shown in table 5, more than 

half of the cases (33 of 60) the Section initiated from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007 were filed under section 706 of Title VII.58 However, about 19 

percent of the total time the Section charged to cases over the 7-year 

period was charged to section 706 cases, according to time data reported 

in the Division’s time reporting system. According to Section officials, 

these cases are small in scope when compared with pattern or practice 

lawsuits that target systemic discrimination practices. Nevertheless, 

according to Section officials, section 706 cases are important because 

they might not be pursued without the Section’s participation. 

Table 5: Cases the Employment Litigation Section Initiated by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Statute FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

Section 706 6 4 5 2 4 3 9 33

Section 707 1 0 0 4 2 3 1 11

USERRA n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 4 6 16

Total 7 4 5 6 12 10 16 60

Sources: GAO review of complaints filed in court and Civil Rights Division ICM data. 

A majority of the section 706 cases (18 of 33) filed from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007 involved claims of sex discrimination on behalf of women.59

For example, in January 2001, the Division filed a lawsuit alleging that the 

Village of Cuba, New Mexico, discriminated against three females by 

 

57 According to a Section Deputy Chief, for a period of time following the September 11 

terrorist attacks, the Division had an attorney coordinator who reviewed all complaints of 

religious backlash. 

58 The Employment Litigation Section referred one section 706 case to the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office for the Southern District of New York from fiscal years 2001 through 2007—U.S. v. 

City of New York and New York City Housing Authority filed on May 31, 2001. 

59 Individual cases can involve multiple protected classes and subjects. 

Page 31 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

failing or refusing to increase their hourly compensation at the same rate 

as the increase in compensation given to male hourly employees. 

Additionally, in March 2005, the Division filed a lawsuit alleging that the 

city of Cairo, Illinois, discriminated against a female employee by sexually 

harassing her, denying her promotion, and terminating her employment 

because she refused sexual advancements from her supervisors. 

About one-third of the section 706 cases (11 of 33) filed during the 7-year 

period involved claims of race discrimination, with six cases filed on 

behalf of African Americans and five cases filed on behalf of whites.60 For 

example, in June 2005, the Division filed a lawsuit alleging that the Weimar 

Independent School District discriminated against an African American 

individual by not selecting her for the high school principal position.61

Additionally, in July 2007, the Division filed a lawsuit alleging that the city 

of Indianapolis discriminated against six white males by promoting 

African Americans and females to the position of sergeant even though 

they were ranked lower on the eligibility list.62 Table 6 provides the 

subjects and protected classes for the complaints the Division filed in 

court from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

 

60 One of the 11 cases involving claims of race discrimination was a lawsuit the Division 

filed in June 2003 alleging that the University of Guam discriminated against 11 individuals 

by discharging them, denying them promotion, and/or retaliating against them on the basis 

of their race and/or national origin. The complainants included eight non-Chamorro 

Caucasians, a non-Chamorro Native American, a non-Chamorro African American, and a 

non-Chamorro Filipina. 

61 The complaint the Division filed in court did not specify the race of the complainant. 

According to the Employment Litigation Section, the complainant was an African American 

female. 

62 The complaint also alleged that the city of Indianapolis discriminated against two males 

on the basis of sex with respect to promotions to the lieutenant position. 

Page 32 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 6: Section 706 Cases Initiated by Subject and Protected Class from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

Subject 

Discharge 2 0 2 1 3 0 3 11

Discrimination in terms/conditions 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

Harassment 2 3 3 0 2 0 2 12

Hiring 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3

Promotion 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 9

Retaliation 2 1 4 1 2 1 1 12

Othera 2 0 0 1 0 3 1 7

Protected class 

National Origin/Ethnicity 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3

 Hispanic or Latino 1 1

 Indian 1 1

 Not Hispanic or Latino 1 1

Race 2 2 1 0 1 1 4 11

 African American 1 1 1 1 2 6

 American Indian or Alaska Native 1 1 2

 Asian 1 1

 White 1 1 1 2 5

Religion 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

 Seventh Day Adventist 1 1

 Not specified 1 1

Sex 3 2 4 2 3 2 5 21

 Female 3 2 3 1 3 2 4 18

 Male 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3

Source: GAO analysis of Division complaints filed in court. 

Note:The 33 individual cases may involve multiple protected classes and subjects. 

a

Other includes assignment, discipline, equal pay, and pregnancy. 

The Section filed 11 pattern or practice (section 707) cases from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007,63 and charged about 63 percent of the total time 

 

63 The Employment Litigation Section referred three pattern or practice cases to the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York—U.S. v. New York City 

Department of Parks and Recreation filed on June 19, 2002; U.S. v. New York City and 

New York City Department of Transportation filed on March 12, 2007; and U.S. v. New 

York City Department of Correctional Services filed on March 15, 2007. 

Page 33 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

spent on cases over the 7-year period to pattern or practice cases, 

including time charged to ongoing cases filed prior to fiscal year 2001.64

According to Division officials, pattern or practice cases have consistently 

been a priority of the Section because they have the greatest impact on 

remedying discriminatory practices.65 Under its pattern or practice 

authority, the Section obtains relief in the form of offers of employment, 

back pay and other compensatory relief for individuals who have been the 

victims of the unlawful employment practices. According to the Division, 

these cases very frequently are resolved by consent order prior to trial. As 

shown in table 7, most of the pattern or practice cases the Section filed 

involved claims of discrimination in hiring, and the most common 

protected class was race. 

 

64 According to Section officials, pattern or practice cases are resource-intensive and 

complex given that multiple plaintiffs are involved; whereas section 706 and USERRA cases 

typically involve an individual plaintiff. 

65 Employers are liable for employment practices that are intentionally discriminatory, as 

well as those that have the effect of being discriminatory, for instance, a physical fitness 

test that eliminates more female than male candidates. 

Page 34 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 7: Section 707 Pattern or Practice Cases Initiated by Subject from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

Subject 

Assignment 1 1

Discharge 1 1

Discrimination in Terms/Conditions 2 1 3

Hiring 1 3 1 3 1 9

Promotion 1 1

Recruitment 1 1

Testing Program 1 1 2 1 5

Protected class 

National Origin/Ethnicity 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4

 Hispanic or Latino 2 1 3

 Other 1 1

Race 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 7

 African American 1 2 1 4

 American Indian or Alaska Native 1 1

 White 1 1 2

Religion 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3

 Jewish 1 1

 Muslim 1 1

 Sikh 1 1

 Other 1 1

Sex 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3

 Female 1 1

 Male 1 1 2

Source: GAO analysis of Division complaints filed in court. 

Note: The 11 individual cases may involve multiple protected classes and subjects. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section filed seven pattern or 

practice cases that alleged discrimination on the basis of race—four on 

behalf of African Americans, two on behalf of whites, and one on behalf of 

American Indians or Alaska Natives. One such case was filed in fiscal year 

2001, and alleged that the Delaware State Police Department was 

discriminating against African Americans in hiring for trooper positions. 

Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the police department’s use of written 

examinations to select entry-level state troopers disproportionately 

excluded African Americans from employment and was not job-related 

and consistent with business necessity, as required by federal law. 

Page 35 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The next pattern or practice case the Section filed on behalf of African 

Americans was filed in fiscal year 2006. This case also involved a protected 

class of national origin/ethnicity, specifically Hispanics or Latinos. 

In July 2005, the Section filed its first case involving an allegation of a 

pattern or practice of discrimination against white males. The lawsuit 

alleged that the City of Pontiac through the Pontiac Fire Department 

pursued and continued to pursue policies and practices that discriminated 

against applicants for employment and employees based on race and sex 

by explicitly creating and maintaining a dual system for hiring and 

promotion. A second pattern or practice on behalf of white males was filed 

in February 2006. 

Three of the 11 pattern or practice cases alleged discrimination on the 

basis of religion—two were filed in fiscal year 2004 and one was filed in 

fiscal year 2005. For example, in September 2004, the Section filed a 

lawsuit alleging that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

and the New York City Transit Authority selectively enforced uniform 

policies to target Muslim and Sikh employees whose religious beliefs and 

practices required that they wear head coverings. According to the 

lawsuit, Muslim, Sikh, and similarly situated employees suffered adverse 

employment actions. 

Three of the 11 pattern or practice cases included claims of sex 

discrimination—one related to females and two related to males.66 For 

example, in January 2004, the Division filed a suit alleging that the city of 

Erie, Pennsylvania, discriminated against females by, among other things, 

failing or refusing to hire women for the entry-level position of police 

officer on the same basis as men. (App. II contains additional information 

on each of the section 707 cases.) 

The Employment Litigation Section also initiated 16 USERRA cases from 

fiscal years 2005 through 2007, as shown in table 8, and charged about 6 

percent of its total time spent on cases to these cases.67 More than half of 

these cases (10 of 16) alleged violations of reemployment rights and/or 

 

66 The two cases alleging sex discrimination against males are the same two discrimination 

cases cited previously regarding white males. 

67 According to the Employment Litigation section, four USERRA referrals were settled but 

not filed in federal district court. 

Page 36 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

discharge under USERRA.68 For example, in March 2005, the Division filed 

a lawsuit alleging that an employer violated USERRA by denying the 

plaintiff reemployment rights upon his return from military service and by 

discharging him. In another lawsuit filed in September 2007, the Division 

alleged that the employer violated USERRA by demoting the plaintiff upon 

his return from military service and subsequently discharging him because 

of his membership, service, or obligation to perform service in the 

uniformed services. 

Table 8: USERRA Cases Initiated by Subject from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 

Subject FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

Assignment 0 0 1 1

Benefit 0 1 0 1

Discharge 4 1 5 10

Discipline 0 1 0 1

Discrimination in terms/conditions 1 2 1 4

Reemployment 4 2 4 10

Source: GAO analysis of Division complaints filed in court. 

Note: Individual cases can involve multiple subjects. 

The Employment Litigation Section also participated in 18 additional cases 

in the role of plaintiff intervenor (11),69 defendant (6), and amicus curiae 

(1). (App. II includes additional information on these cases as well as 

cases that were filed prior to fiscal year 2001 that the Section was still 

involved in, e.g., monitoring compliance, from fiscal years 2001 through 

2007.) 

 

68 The protected class for all USERRA cases is military. 

69 Three of these cases were related and alleged that the District of Columbia government 

discriminated against three pregnant females on the basis of their sex. 

Page 37 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section 

Initiated More Matters 

and Participated in 

More Cases Involving 

a Pattern or Practice 

of Discrimination 

under the Fair 

Housing Act Than Any 

Other Statute or Type 

of Matter or Case 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Housing and Civil Enforcement 

Section was primarily responsible for the enforcement of federal civil 

rights statutes related to discrimination in housing, credit transactions, 

and in certain places of public accommodation. During this time period, 

the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section initiated more matters (517 of 

947) and participated in more cases (257 of 277) under the FHA than any 

other statute or type of matter or case. Nearly 90 percent of the matters 

(456 of 517) were initiated under its pattern or practice authority under the 

FHA, primarily alleging discrimination on the basis of race or disability 

and involving land use/zoning/local government or rental issues. The 

majority (250 of 269) of cases that the Section filed in court as plaintiff 

involved a claim under the FHA—more than half (132 of 250) of which 

involved a pattern or practice of discrimination. Additionally, more than 

half (146 of 250) of the FHA cases involved rental issues and nearly half 

(115 of 250) were brought on behalf of persons with a disability. 

The Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section Had 

Various Statutory 

Responsibilities from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section is primarily responsible for 

the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes related to discrimination in 

housing, credit transactions, and in certain places of public 

accommodation, which have been long-standing responsibilities for the 

Section. From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section had 

responsibility for enforcing provisions of the FHA, the Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act (ECOA), and Title II. Additionally, in the spring of 2001, 

the Section received responsibility for enforcing the land use provisions of 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and, in 

July 2006, received responsibility for enforcing the Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act (SCRA). The Section has the discretion to investigate matters 

and bring cases under all of the statutes it enforces, with the exception of 

HUD “election cases,” which the Section is statutorily required to file. 

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. The Section, however, has discretion about whether to add a 

pattern or practice allegation to the HUD-referred election complaint, if 

supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the Section has the authority and 

discretion to independently file pattern or practice cases and to pursue 

Page 38 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

referrals other than HUD election cases.70 Table 9 presents the 

responsibilities of the Section, by statute. (App. III provides greater detail 

about each statute enforced by the Section.) 

Table 9: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Statutory provisionaDescription of responsibilities 

The Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 3601 et seq. 

The FHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, 

national origin, or disability in all types of housing transactions. The FHA allows 

individuals who believe they have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice to 

file complaints with HUD and DOJ to bring suit where there is reason to believe that a 

person or entity has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 

15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. 

ECOA prohibits creditors from discriminating against applicants in any aspect of a credit 

transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or 

age, because all or part of the applicant’s income derives from any public assistance 

program, or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the 

Consumer Credit Protection Act. 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(Title II), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to a–6 

Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in 

certain places of public accommodation, such as motels, restaurants, or movie theaters. 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc 

et seq. 

RLUIPA prohibits state and local governments from unjustifiably imposing a substantial 

burden on religious exercise or imposing land use regulations that discriminate against a 

religious assembly or institution. 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

(SCRA), 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501–96 

The SCRA provides protections for members of the military as they enter active duty, 

such as the suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings. 

Source: GAO review of federal statutes. 

a 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, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

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

relevant federally funded program. Additionally, the Section enforces Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, which prohibits discrimination in public facilities. 

More Than Half of the 

Matters the Section 

Initiated Involved an 

Allegation under the FHA 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section initiated 947 matters from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to Section officials, the Section 

initiated matters based on referrals from HUD and bank regulatory 

agencies; allegations of discrimination received from Members of 

Congress, citizens, private attorneys, advocacy or non-profit groups, and 

 

70 In addition to the HUD election cases, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section also 

receives other referrals from HUD involving allegations of a pattern or practice of 

discrimination or allegations of discriminatory land use and zoning practices, as well as 

matters involving the enforcement of a HUD order, decision, or conciliation agreement. 

The Section receives pattern or practice referrals involving alleged violations of ECOA 

from bank regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the 

Federal Reserve Board. 

Page 39 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

federal and state agencies; and the Section’s review of media sources and 

written materials, such as policies stated in advertisements or other 

printed documentation.71 The Division’s budget submission for fiscal year 

2007 states that the pattern or practice cases in the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section remained a high priority because of their broad 

impact. As shown in table 10, more than half (517 of 947) of the matters 

initiated involved an allegation under the FHA,72 of which about 90 percent 

(456 of 517) included an allegation of a pattern or practice of 

discrimination.73 Furthermore, according to time data for the 7-year 

period, of the total time Section staff charged to matters, most of the time 

(about 79 percent) was charged to matters involving allegations under the

FHA (either solely or in combination with other statutes). , 

nd 

 

74 After the FHA

the Section initiated the next largest number of matters (252 of 947) a

devoted about 19 percent of its time to ECOA matters (either solely or in 

combination with other statutes). (App. III includes additional information 

on the matters initiated by the Section, the time charged to matters during 

the 7-year period, and the reasons the Section identified for closing 

matters.75) Table 10 shows the numbers of matters the Section initiated, by 

statute. 

71 According to Housing and Civil Enforcement Section officials, referrals from other 

agencies are automatically included in ICM as a matter and assigned an official DOJ 

tracking number; self-initiated work becomes a matter after 2 hours of work. 

72 This includes FHA either solely or in combination with ECOA and RLUIPA. 

73 The remaining 10 percent of the FHA matters involved the following. Eighteen of these 

instances involved nondiscretionary referrals (election investigations). In 1 instance, the 

Section was a defendant in impending litigation. In 9 instances, the Section was preparing 

to act as amicus curiae. In 9 instances, the Section indicated that the matter was related to 

research. In 14 FHA investigations, the Section was involved in an enforcement role, 

ensuring that a HUD order, decision, or conciliation agreement was implemented. In 10 

matters, the Section was preparing to take prompt judicial action to involve the court in 

preventing the enforcement of or forcing compliance with a decision of the court. 

74 Time data include all matters initiated and ongoing from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Additionally, the data include time charged by all section professional staff, including the 

section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, legal support staff, legal assistants, law 

clerks, and any staff unique to a section. 

75 We derived information on the reasons why the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

closed matters through interviews with Section officials and a review of a nongeneralizable 

sample of 60 closed matter files. However, the Division does not capture data in ICM or 

other Section-level information systems on the reasons why matters were closed. 

Therefore, we could not systematically identify the Section’s reasons for closing matters, 

including the number of instances in which the Section recommended to proceed with a 

case and Division management did not approve the Section’s recommendation. 

Page 40 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 10: Matters the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Initiated by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Statutes Statute combinations FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

FHA 94 75 80 60 59 63 49 480

FHA and section 504 1 1

FHA 

Total 95 75 80 60 59 63 49 481

ECOA 18 17 31 54 36 42 20 218

ECOA and FHA 8 1 2 4 4 8 6 33

ECOA and Title III 1 1

ECOA 

Total 26 18 33 58 41 50 26 252

RLUIPA 1 4 30 25 32 23 16 131

RLUIPA and FHA 1 2 3

RLUIPA 

Total 1 4 31 25 32 23 18 134

TITLE II 13 10 8 7 7 3 2 50

SCRA 8 8

Othera 2 2 0 7 4 4 3 22

Grand Total 137 109 152 157 143 143 106 947

Source: Division ICM Aggregate Data. 

a

Other includes Title III, Title VI, section 504, and Criminal Interference with Housing Rights. Matters 

involving these statutes are described in appendix III. 

The Section initiated the fewest number of total matters, 106, in fiscal year 

2007. Section officials attributed the decrease, in part, to a decline in the 

number of referrals from HUD, as shown in figure 1, and the bank 

regulatory agencies. In addition, Section officials stated that the number of 

matters initiated can fluctuate each year depending on the extent to which 

the Section’s resources are focused on the litigation of large cases. 

According to Section officials, the general decrease in HUD election 

referrals over time resulted in part from more complaints of housing 

discrimination being handled by state and local fair housing agencies 

instead of HUD. According to Section officials, since the passage of the 

amendments of the FHA, more state and local fair housing agencies have 

been certified to receive complaints of discriminatory housing practices.76

Such certification is granted if the Secretary of HUD determines that a 

state or local agency affords substantially equivalent rights and regulations 

 

76 GAO, Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of 

the Enforcement Process, GAO-04-463 (Washington, D.C., Apr. 21, 2004), and Fair 

Housing: HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and Investigation Processes Are 

Consistently Thorough, GAO-06-79 (Washington, D.C. Oct. 31, 2005). 

Page 41 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

to those provided in the FHA. Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

officials stated that as a result, HUD handles a third to a fourth fewer 

complaints than in the 1990s. Further, over the 7-year period, ICM data 

show a general decline of election matters—nondiscretionary matters 

involving an allegation under the FHA—which are derived from HUD 

referrals. 

Figure 1: HUD Referrals from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

HUD referrals

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Number of referrals

Source: Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Report on HUD Referrals.

Fiscal year

97

62

44 46 50

39

33

Page 42 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The largest proportions of the FHA matters the Section initiated involved 

allegations of discrimination based on race, disability, or both.77 About 44 

percent (228 of 517) of the FHA matters initiated involved allegations of 

racial discrimination—of which almost all (207 of 228) involved allegations 

of discrimination against African Americans. Further, 99 of the 517 FHA 

matters (about 19 percent) involved at least 1 allegation of discrimination 

on the basis of national origin/ethnicity, 79 of which involved allegations 

of discrimination against Hispanics or Latinos. Approximately 40 percent 

(206 of 517) of the matters the Section initiated under the FHA from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007 involved at least 1 allegation of discrimination 

based on disability, as shown in table 11.78

The FHA Matters Primarily 

Involved Allegations of 

Discrimination on the Basis of 

Race or Disability and Issues 

Involving Land 

Use/Zoning/Local Government 

or Rental 

Table 11: Bases of Allegations for the FHA Matters Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Protected class FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

Disability 44 33 29 27 25 25 23 206

Family 14 11 4 7 3 6 3 48

National Origin/Ethnicity 17 13 17 12 9 12 19 99

Race 45 36 36 22 29 34 26 228

Othera 6 4 5 11 3 12 4 45

Source: GAO analysis of ICM aggregate matter data. 

Note: Table includes all matters with an allegation under the FHA. If a single complaint alleged 

multiple bases, it was counted under each basis alleged. Since one matter can involve multiple 

protected classes, the numbers of allegations is greater than the 517 matters. 

a

Other includes age, color, homeless, marital status, religion, sex, and source of income. 

As shown in table 12, about 35 percent (181 of 517) of the FHA matters the 

Section initiated involved the subject, or issue, of land use/zoning/local 

government, which is used for allegations of discriminatory actions taken 

by a local zoning board or governing body. According to Section officials, 

the large number of land use/zoning/local government matters it initiated 

was due to the Section regularly receiving referrals from HUD as well as 

 

77 The Fair Housing Act defines a disability, or handicap, as a mental or physical 

impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of such 

impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. The term mental or physical 

impairment may include conditions such as blindness, hearing impairment, mobility 

impairment, HIV infection, mental retardation, alcoholism, drug addiction (other than 

current illegal use of a controlled substance), chronic fatigue, learning disability, head 

injury, and mental illness. 

78 Each matter can involve multiple protected classes; therefore, percentages do not total 

100. 

Page 43 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

complaints from other entities involving these issues. Division officials 

identified that a Section priority from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 was 

to ensure that zoning and other regulations concerning land use were not 

used to hinder the residential choices of individuals with disabilities. 

Another priority was ensuring that newly constructed multifamily housing 

is built in accordance with the FHA’s accessibility requirements.79 

Table 12: Issues in the FHA Matters Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Subject (Issue)a

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

Group Homes 21 19 12 14 7 8 6 87

Harassment 1 2 3 4 5 5 0 20

Land Use/Zoning/Local Government 40 31 32 28 20 16 14 181

Lending 8 6 3 4 7 9 6 43

New Construction 11 1 4 6 10 5 7 44

Other Housing Subject Matterb9 4 18 8 11 10 5 65

Rental 29 27 23 15 16 24 13 147

Retaliation 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 12

Sales 9 7 3 3 1 3 3 29

Otherc2 3 1 2 0 1 1 10

Source: GAO analysis of ICM aggregate matter data.

Note: Includes all matters with an allegation filed under the FHA. 

a

If a single complaint alleged multiple issues, it was counted under each issue alleged. 

b

Other Housing Subject Matter covers items that relate to a housing complaint but do not involve the 

denial of housing––such as the denial of utilities or repairs. 

c

Other includes insurance, other nonhousing subject matter, and public accommodations. 

Rental matters were also among the most common matters the Section 

initiated (147 of 517), followed by group home matters (87 of 517). Rental 

matters involve discrimination in property that is listed for a fee, and can 

involve issues such as eviction, the discriminatory provision of services 

and facilities occupancy restrictions, and the assessment of rental fees 

based on the number of occupants. For example, the Section investigated 

a matter in which a landlord of an apartment complex allegedly turned 

 

79 The FHA requires that certain multifamily dwellings constructed for initial occupancy 

after March 1991 be accessible for persons with disabilities. The FHA accessibility 

requirements generally include: (1) accessible building entrance on an accessible route, (2) 

accessible and usable public and common use areas, (3) usable doors, (4) accessible route 

into and through the covered dwelling unit, and (5) light switches, electrical outlets, 

thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations. 

Page 44 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

away families with children or assigned them to a particular floor. 

According to Section officials, the number of rental-related issues is 

reflective of larger national trends in that discrimination in rental housing 

may be more frequently reported or easier to detect than in home sales. 

Additionally, matters involving allegations of discrimination in group 

homes were among the largest number of the FHA matters the Section 

initiated. In 2001, the President announced the New Freedom Initiative 

and issued Executive Order 13217, which addressed the implementation of 

existing laws in light of the Olmstead decision, where the Supreme Court 

held that under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, states are 

required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental 

disabilities, where appropriate.80 According to the Division, in response, 

the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section increased its focus on 

discrimination against group homes for individuals with disabilities, and 

housing providers employing policies designed to bar individuals with 

disabilities.81 For example, the Section opened an investigation in fiscal 

year 2003 on behalf of complainants who had been denied a conditional 

use permit for a residential group home, which would have allowed them 

to build the home on their property despite certain zoning restrictions. The 

complainants alleged the city had acted in a discriminatory manner against 

the disabled and group homes for the disabled by denying the permit. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section initiated 252 matters with 

at least one allegation under ECOA involving a lending issue. As shown in 

table 13, about 70 percent (177 of 252) of these matters included 

allegations of discrimination based on age, marital status, or both. Section 

officials stated that due to the high number of bank and regulatory agency 

referrals from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 that involved allegations of 

discrimination based on marital status or age, the majority of matters 

initiated during the 7-year period also involved these bases of 

discrimination. For example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

(FDIC) alleged a bank committed a discriminatory pattern or practice in 

violation of ECOA by requiring the spouses of the guarantors to sign 

commercial guarantees (business agreements). Allegedly, the guarantees 

were required only because of a spousal relationship with the guarantor 

Over a Quarter of Housing and 

Civil Enforcement Section 

Matters Initiated Involved 

Lending Issues under ECOA 

 

80 Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999). 

81 The Assistant Attorney General began the multifamily housing access forum in 2005 to 

provide information to those who might be defendants in cases on how to design and 

construct facilities so that they do not conflict with the law. 

Page 45 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

and not because of any business relationship. Additionally, according to 

Section officials and DOJ’s annual ECOA reports to Congress, all but a 

small number of the referrals based on age and marital status are of the 

type that are generally returned for administrative resolution because the 

unlawful practice has discontinued and there is little chance that it will be 

repeated.82 Section officials also stated that matters that involved 

allegations of discrimination based on race or national origin/ethnicity 

generally involve more complicated issues and may not be as easily 

corrected by administrative enforcement action the bank regulatory 

agencies can take. Additionally, according to Section officials, issues of 

potential lending discrimination based on race or national origin have long 

been priorities for the Division. Thus, a larger proportion of race and 

national origin discrimination matters are retained and investigated by 

DOJ and may eventually become cases. 

Table 13: Basis of Allegations for ECOA Matters from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

ECOA 26 18 33 58 41 50 26 252

Age 6 2 9 21 11 13 3 65

Marital Status 4 11 15 28 22 18 14 112

National Origin/Ethnicity 6 3 6 3 3 5 4 30

Race 17 0 9 6 10 10 8 60

Unfair Documentary Practicesa3 0 0 0 0 7 0 10

Otherb 4 5 3 1 2 4 2 21

Source: GAO analysis of ICM aggregate matter data. 

Notes: Includes all matters with an allegation filed under ECOA. 

If a single complaint alleged multiple bases, it was counted under each basis alleged. 

a

“Unfair documentary practices” is used to describe unfair requirements for materials to determine 

income, national origin, and creditworthiness, or inappropriate use of fraud of active duty alerts on 

credit reports. 

b

Other includes disability, source of income, sex, family, and religion. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, about a third (90 of 252) of matters 

initiated with at least one allegation under ECOA involved the protected 

classes of race, national origin/ethnicity, or both, as shown in table 13. 

Based on ICM data kept by the Section, 51 of these 90 matters (about 56 

 

82 Each year the section provides information to Congress on referrals through a document, 

entitled The Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress Pursuant to the Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act Amendments of 1976.

Page 46 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

percent) involved racial discrimination against African Americans and 20 

(about 22 percent) involved national origin discrimination against 

Hispanics or Latinos. For example, the Section initiated an investigation to 

determine if the defendant, a car dealership, engaged in discrimination 

against African Americans in setting finance terms for car loans. The 

Section initiated the investigation after a Section attorney read a 

newspaper article in which a former employee made admissions 

concerning the discriminatory actions of his former employer. 

As shown in table 13, the number of matters initiated under ECOA varied 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section officials, the variance was in part due to the number 

and type of ECOA matters referred to the Section. For example, new 

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act83 regulations promulgated by the Federal 

Reserve Board, effective in 2004, changed the type and amount of 

information lenders were required to report on home loans under this act, 

including some data on loan pricing by race and gender.84 As a result, the 

Section received an increased number of race and national origin referrals, 

even as the total number of bank agency referrals decreased, and reported 

devoting more time to reviewing the race and national origin referrals and 

developing cases from them.85 Consequently, Section officials stated that 

as a result, they initiated fewer matters on their own. In addition, with 

respect to type of referral, Section officials explained that investigations 

involving national origin and race take a greater amount of resources to 

review than cases involving other protected classes. According to these 

officials, because the Section conducted more of these investigations in 

 

83 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-200, 89 Stat. 1124 (codified as 

amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801-10). 

84 12 C.F.R. pt. 203 (commonly known as Regulation C). 

85 Housing and Civil Enforcement Section officials also reported that the Section had 

developed three redlining cases since 2004 using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. 

Redlining is the refusal of lenders to make mortgage loans on an equal basis in certain 

geographic areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of the neighborhood. According 

to Section officials, these are complex cases, requiring significant resources. 

Page 47 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

fiscal year 2007, and these types of investigations are complex, the overall 

number of matters initiated in fiscal year 2007 declined.86

After the FHA and ECOA matters, the Housing and Civil Enforcement 

Section initiated the highest numbers of matters under RLUIPA and Title II 

of the Civil Rights Act. Of the 947 matters initiated by the Section, 134 

(about 14 percent) included at least one allegation under RLUIPA, of 

which nearly all involved allegations of religious discrimination and the 

subject of land use/zoning/local government. For example, a religious 

society alleged the county violated RLUIPA by not granting a special 

exception permit to a zoning code that restricts the height of structures in 

residential zones for the construction of a mosque, where the zoning code 

had an exception for Christian structures. Fifty (about 5 percent) of the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section matters were initiated under Title 

II, of which about 36 matters (about 72 percent) involved allegations of 

discrimination based on race in places of public accommodation. (App. III 

provides information on the numbers of matters the Section initiated 

under other statutory provisions, including Title III, Title VI, and the 

SCRA.) 

The Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section Initiated 

Matters under RLUIPA, Title II, 

and Other Statutes 

 

86 According to the Attorney General’s 2007 Annual Report to Congress Pursuant to ECOA, 

nine of the bank agency referrals the Section continued to investigate at the end of 

calendar year 2007 involved race or national origin discrimination—one of which involved 

allegations that a mortgage company engaged in redlining on the basis of race. Additionally, 

those nine referrals included seven that involved lender discrimination on the basis of race 

in the pricing of mortgage loans. 

Page 48 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed 269 cases as plaintiff 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 87 Additionally, the Section 

participated in seven cases as amicus, and served as intervenor on behalf 

of the plaintiffs in one case.88 According to Section officials, the Section 

considers legal merit when deciding whether to pursue a matter as a case 

as well as (1) whether it appears the matter will be resolved without 

Section intervention, such as by the local jurisdiction, (2) whether 

litigation would resolve a significant statutory issue, such as the 

interpretation of a provision of law the Section enforces; and (3) whether 

the plaintiff has the resources to proceed on his or her own should the 

Section choose not to get involved. Section officials stated that the Section 

examines evidence of disparate impact—practices that are not intended to 

discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on 

minorities—when relevant to individual or pattern or practice cases, 

although the Section had never filed a case based solely on disparate 

impact evidence. The Section’s decision to pursue particular kinds of 

cases may also be influenced by other priorities, such as those of the 

Assistant Attorney General. The Section may litigate cases solely or share 

litigation responsibility with a U.S. Attorney’s Office.89

Most of the Cases Filed by 

the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section 

Included a Claim under the 

FHA and Involved Rental 

Issues Regarding 

Discrimination on the 

Basis of Disability or Race 

 

87 According to data maintained in ICM, from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the section 

also participated in 150 lawsuits that were filed prior to fiscal years 2001. (App. III provides 

additional information on prefiscal year 2001 cases). 

88 Of the seven cases the Section participated in as amicus, six involved FHA and one 

involved RLUIPA. The case for which the Section served as intervenor on behalf of the 

plaintiffs involved the FHA. 

89 Of the 277 cases in which the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section participated, 73 

were litigated primarily by a U.S. Attorney’s Office, 204 primarily by the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section. When an election case complaint is referred to DOJ, the Section is to 

review the referral to determine whether it should be handled by the section, or if it should 

be handled by the local U.S. Attorney’s Office. According to Section officials, they usually 

keep a complaint if it seems as though they will be able to add to it a pattern or practice 

claim. If the complaint is novel or involves a difficult legal issue, the section might handle it 

even if it is not a pattern or practice case. Another factor considered by the Housing and 

Civil Enforcement Section is the experience of a U.S. Attorney’s Office in handling housing 

cases, as some attorneys have more experience than others. All election complaints and 

settlements, including those handled by a U.S. Attorney’s Office, are to be approved by the 

Assistant Attorney General (AAG). A Housing and Civil Enforcement Section reviewer is 

involved in guiding the U.S. Attorney’s Office through the approval process. 

Page 49 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

As shown in table 14, the Section participated in 277 cases from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007. 90 Of the 277 cases, 140 were HUD-referred 

election cases—35 of which included an additional allegation of a pattern 

or practice of discrimination. Additionally, about 90 percent (257 of 277) of 

the cases included a claim under the FHA and 250 of these FHA cases 

were filed as plaintiff. 

About 90 Percent of the 

Section’s Cases Included a 

Claim under the FHA and More 

than Half of These Cases 

Involved Rental Issues 

Table 14: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases by Statute and Fiscal Year Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Statutes 

Statute 

combinations FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 Total

Section 504 1 1

FHA 49 45 26 31 40 28 29 248

3613 (E)a1 1 2

FHA 

Total 49 46 26 33 40 28 29 251

ECOA 1 3 4

ECOA and FHA 1 2 1 1 5

ECOA 

Total 1 1 2 1 4 9

RLUIPA 1 1 1 1 4

RLUIPA and FHA 1 1

RLUIPA 

Total 1 2 1 1 5

TITLE II 4 2 1 3 1 1 12

TITLE II Total 4 2 1 3 1 1 12

Total 53 49 29 38 42 31 35 277

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

a

42 U.S.C. § 3613(e) allows the Attorney General to intervene in cases that involve discriminatory 

housing practices where the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. 

ICM data show that the number of cases filed by the Housing Section 

generally decreased from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to 

Section officials, the decline can be attributed to fewer election cases 

being referred from HUD. Overall, almost 70 percent (185 of 277) of the 

cases the Housing Section participated in from fiscal years 2001 through 

2007 originally derived from a HUD referral. Such cases declined from 75 

percent (40 of 53) of cases filed in fiscal year 2001 to 63 percent (24 of 38) 

of cases filed in fiscal year 2004. Such cases increased in fiscal year 2005, 

but again declined in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to around 50 percent (17 

 

90 This includes cases filed either solely under the FHA or in combination with RLUIPA, 

ECOA, or section 504. 

Page 50 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

of 35) of cases filed in fiscal year 2007. Among HUD-referred cases are 

election cases, which the Section is statutorily required to file. As shown 

in table 15, the Section filed the largest number of election cases (31) in 

fiscal year 2001 and the lowest number (12) in fiscal year 2003.91 Section 

officials reported that the number of cases with an allegation of pattern or 

practice varied slightly over the 7-year period and the Section has more 

control over these kinds of cases because it can initiate them without a 

referral. However, Section officials also said that the number of pattern or 

practice cases filed may fluctuate each year depending on the extent to 

which the Section’s resources are focused on the litigation of large cases. 

Additionally, in some years, the Section may file more consent orders 

resolving ongoing cases, while in other years the Section may file more 

new cases. According to time data maintained by the Division, the Section 

spent at least three-quarters of its time on pattern or practice cases each 

year from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. (App. III includes information on 

the percentage of time Section staff charged by case type for the 7-year 

period.) 

Table 15: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Case Types for Cases Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Case type FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 Total

Pattern or Practice 18 20 14 17 16 14 17 116

Election Case 25 22 6 11 17 10 14 105

Pattern or Practice Election 6 5 6 5 6 5 2 35

Enforcement 1 3 4 3 2 13

Amicus Participation 3 1 1 2 7

Amicus Participation 

Pattern or Practice 1 1

Total 53 49 29 38 42 31 35 277

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

For cases the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed as plaintiff 

involving at least one allegation under the FHA, the Section asserted more 

claims related to rental issues (146 of 250) than any other subject, as 

 

91 The 31 election cases that the Section filed in fiscal year 2001 and the 12 such cases filed 

in fiscal year 2003 include election cases with an additional allegation of a pattern or 

practice of discrimination. 

Page 51 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

shown in table 16.92 In one rental case, the defendant allegedly violated the 

FHA when he discriminated against African American tenants at two 

apartment complexes that he owned and managed by evicting African 

American tenants, while not evicting similarly situated non-African 

American tenants. Specifically, the defendant allegedly required African 

American tenants to vacate their apartments permanently while not 

requiring non-African American tenants to do so, and failed to provide 

necessary and requested maintenance to African American tenants while 

providing such maintenance to non-African American tenants. 

Table 16: Issues in the FHA Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Subject (Issue)a

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Total 

Occurrences

Rental 27 27 14 14 22 19 23 146

New Construction 15 7 6 8 6 3 6 51

Retaliation 4 5 0 3 2 6 6 26

Harassment 2 4 1 4 6 6 2 25

Testing Program 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 18

Land Use/Zoning/Local 

Government 

2 2 3 3 4 2 1 17

Sales 0 3 3 4 1 4 1 16

Group Homesb1 1 2 2 2 3 1 12

Other Housing Subject Matter 2 4 0 2 3 0 0 11

Otherc0 0 1 4 3 1 1 10

Source: Division ICM data. 

Note: Includes all claims with an allegation filed under the FHA. 

a

If a single complaint alleged multiple issues, it was counted under each issue alleged. 

b

Group home cases are usually a subset of land use/zoning/local government cases. 

c

Other includes lending, insurance, and other non-housing subject matter. 

Additionally, the Section asserted more claims on behalf of persons with a 

disability (115 of 250) than any other protected class, as shown in table 17. 

For example, one of the complaints we reviewed was filed on behalf of a 

 

92 The relatively large number of allegations of disability and rental discrimination also 

appears in the type of complaints received by HUD and Fair Housing Assistance Program 

(FHAP) agencies. According to HUD’s Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report on Fair Housing, 

the most common basis of complaints received by HUD and FHAP agencies was disability 

and the most common allegation was discrimination in the terms and conditions of the 

rental or sale of housing. 

Page 52 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

man with a disability who had filed a complaint with HUD against the 

property manager and owner of his apartment complex, alleging the 

defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his physical 

impairments when they unreasonably prolonged meeting his request for a 

ground floor apartment and did not provide the reasonable 

accommodation of handicapped parking spaces. 

Table 17: Bases of Claims for the FHA Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Protected class (Basis) FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Total

occurrences

Disability 20 17 13 18 18 13 16 115

Family 13 10 7 6 6 4 5 51

National Origin/Ethnicity 4 4 3 2 5 2 3 23

Hispanic or Latino 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 14

Othera4 2 1 0 2 1 1 11

Race 15 16 8 7 11 8 5 70

African American 12 15 8 7 11 8 5 66

Asian 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 5

Otherb1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3

Sex 2 4 4 3 5 6 1 25

Female 2 3 4 3 4 5 1 22

Male 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3

Otherc 2 3 0 0 2 1 1 9

Source: Division ICM data. 

Notes: Includes all claims with an allegation filed under the FHA. 

If a single complaint alleged multiple bases, it was counted under each basis alleged. 

a

For National Origin cases, the category other includes American Indian or Alaskan Native, Arab, 

Indian, Not Hispanic or Latino, and Other. 

b

For race cases, the category other includes American-Indian or Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and white. 

c

Other includes color and religion. 

Furthermore, 70 of the 250 FHA cases that the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section filed as plaintiff involved at least one claim of racial 

discrimination, primarily related to rental issues (about 50 of 70). Of those 

70 cases, which include HUD election cases that the Section is statutorily 

required to file, about 66 were described as concerning racial 

discrimination against African Americans. As shown in table 17, the 

number of cases with a claim of racial discrimination generally declined 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. According to Section officials, since 

the Section has discretion to initiate the FHA pattern or practice cases it 

Page 53 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

files, not the HUD election cases, it is more meaningful to look at the trend 

in the filing of those cases. Our review of the FHA pattern or practice 

cases identified that of the 132 pattern or practice cases the Section filed 

as plaintiff from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, 30 included at least one 

claim of racial discrimination. From fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the 

number of such cases filed ranged from 6 to 7. The Section filed 3 such 

cases each year from fiscal years 2004 through 2006, and 2 cases in fiscal 

year 2007. 

The Section filed 20 cases derived from over 1,600 tests conducted as part 

of its Fair Housing Testing Program from fiscal years 2001 through 2007.93

In 1991, the Section created the Fair Housing Testing Program to help 

enforce the FHA. 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. The purpose of this testing is to allow the Section to identify 

potential patterns or practices of housing discrimination that may go 

undetected.94 According to Section officials, in fiscal year 2005, DOJ set 

the goal of doubling the number of tests conducted by fiscal year 2007. As 

shown in figure 2, DOJ exceeded this goal. 

The Section Conducted over 

1,600 Housing Tests and Filed 

20 Housing Testing Cases over 

the 7-Year Period 

 

93 Nineteen (17 FHA and 2 Title II) testing cases were litigated by the Section and 1 FHA 

testing case was litigated by a U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

94 Even when an individual test reveals what appears to be unlawful discrimination, that 

alone may not be sufficient to support a lawsuit by DOJ. Absent a referral from HUD 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o), based upon a complaint and investigation, the Attorney 

General has jurisdiction to commence a lawsuit to enforce the Fair Housing Act in federal 

court only when there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a “pattern or 

practice” of discrimination or a denial of rights to a group of persons that raises a matter of 

general public importance. See 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). The Supreme Court has held that to 

establish a “pattern or practice” of discrimination, the government must show “by a 

preponderance of the evidence that racial discrimination was the company’s standard 

operating procedure—the regular rather than the unusual practice.” Int’l Bhd of Teamsters 

v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 (1977). Proof of one instance of unlawful discriminatory 

conduct, standing alone, is often not sufficient to prevail in a pattern or practice case. See 

id. at 336 n.16. And in the context of fair housing testing, multiple tests may be necessary to 

show a pattern or practice or denial of rights to a group of persons. See, e.g., United States 

v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 930 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 812 (1993); United 

States v. Garden Homes Mgmt. Corp., 156 F. Supp. 2d 413, 422 (D.N.J. 2001). 

Page 54 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Figure 2: Housing Testing Conducted from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Tests

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Number of tests

Source: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section data on housing testing.

Fiscal year

237

110

135

162

205

283

502

Nine of the Section’s 20 testing cases involved allegations of 

discrimination on the basis of disability in new construction, rentals, or 

both; 7 involved race discrimination against African Americans in rentals 

or public accommodations; 5 involved familial status discrimination in 

rentals, of which 2 additionally involved discrimination against African 

Americans; and 1 involved discrimination on the basis of national 

origin/ethnicity in rentals.95 As shown in table 18, the Section filed 9 of the 

20 cases, including 4 of the 5 new construction cases, from fiscal years 

2001 to 2002, filed 1 to 2 cases per year from fiscal years 2003 through 

2006, and 4 cases in fiscal year 2007. 

 

95 A single test can involve multiple issues and bases of discrimination. 

Page 55 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 18: Bases of Claims and Issues for Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Testing Program Cases Filed from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 

Statue Issue 

Basis of 

discrimination FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total

New Construction 

Rental 

Disability 3 1 4

New Construction 

Sales 

Disability 1 1

Disability 1 1 2 4

Family 1 1 1 3

Family and Race - 

African American 

2 2

National Origin/ 

Ethnicity – Other 

 1 1

FHA 

Rental 

Race - African 

American 

1 1 1 3

Title II Public 

Accommodations 

Race - African 

American 

1 1 2

Total 5 4 2 2 1 2 4 20

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

According to the Division’s fiscal year 2005 budget submission, the 

Section’s ability to identify patterns and practices of discrimination against 

persons with disabilities through testing had been reduced during fiscal 

year 2003 when the Immigration and Naturalization Service was 

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, as many experienced 

and trained DOJ testers were Immigration and Naturalization Service 

employees. In 2006, the Attorney General initiated Operation Home Sweet 

Home to ensure equal access to housing by expanding and targeting the 

Division’s fair housing testing program.96 Housing Section officials stated 

that Operation Home Sweet Home has resulted in an increase in the 

quantity and quality of testing. 

 

96 According to Housing and Civil Enforcement Section officials, the Section offered 

contracts to local groups to do the testing, creating local scenarios that are more credible 

and enabling access to hard-to-reach areas in the community. Section officials stated that 

under Home Sweet Home they may target a particular area based on need; for example, 

Section officials noted that they had targeted testing efforts in areas affected by Hurricane 

Katrina where displaced persons may be looking for housing. 

Page 56 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed a total of 26 cases 

pursuant to ECOA, RLUIPA and Title II. All 9 ECOA complaints, 5 of which 

were in combination with the FHA, involved lending issues. Seven of the 9 

complaints included at least one allegation of racial discrimination and 4 

included at least one allegation of discrimination on the basis of national 

origin/ethnicity.97 For example, in October 2006, the Section filed a 

complaint alleging that a bank was in violation of ECOA and the FHA for 

discriminating on the basis of race and national origin by, among other 

things, placing branch offices and providing banking and lending services 

to meet the banking and credit needs in majority white areas, but not areas 

where minorities comprised the majority of the population. The Section 

filed 5 complaints pursuant to RLUIPA, 1 in combination with the FHA. All 

of the RLUIPA complaints involved discrimination based on religion and 

the issue of land use/zoning/local government. The Section also filed 12 

public accommodation complaints under Title II, all of which involved at 

least 1 allegation of racial discrimination, national origin/ethnicity 

discrimination, or both. 

The Section Filed Cases under 

ECOA, RLUIPA, and Title II 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section was responsible 

for enforcing federal statutes that protect the voting rights of racial and 

language minorities, disabled and illiterate persons, and overseas and 

military personnel. During the 7-year period, the Section initiated more 

matters (367 of 442) and cases (39 of 56) under the Voting Rights Act than 

the other statutes it enforced, and primarily on behalf of language minority 

groups (246 of 367 matters and 30 of 56 cases). According to aggregate 

time data for the 7-year period, the Voting Section spent the greatest total 

percentage of time (52 percent) on administrative reviews of proposed 

changes in the voting practices and procedures of certain jurisdictions 

covered under section 5 of the VRA, such as a proposed redistricting plan–

–which would make changes to the geographic boundaries of voting 

districts––or the relocation of a polling place, as compared with cases (33 

percent) or matters (14 percent). 

The Voting Section 

Initiated Matters and 

Filed Cases Primarily 

under the Voting 

Rights Act on Behalf 

of Language Minority 

Groups, and Devoted 

the Greatest 

Proportion of Its Time 

to Reviews of 

Changes in Voting 

Practices and 

Procedures 

 

97 Four of the 9 complaints included allegations of discrimination both on the basis of race 

and national origin. 

Page 57 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

The Voting Section Had 

Various Statutory 

Responsibilities from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

The Voting Section has responsibility for the enforcement of federal voting 

rights statutes, including provisions designed to safeguard the right to vote 

of racial and language minorities, disabled and illiterate persons, and 

overseas and military personnel. The Section undertook its statutory 

responsibilities on behalf of specific protected classes, for example, 

ensuring that certain jurisdictions provide voting materials in the 

languages of certain language minority groups as well as in English. In 

addition, the Section enforced provisions that are to protect voters in 

general, such as the requirement that states provide provisional ballots to 

voters in federal elections who claim to be eligible and registered to vote, 

but whose names do not appear on the polling place register. From fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007, the Section enforced the Voting Rights Act 

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

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); and beginning in fiscal 

year 2002, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Table 19 presents 

responsibilities of the Voting Section by statute and provision. Appendix 

IV provides additional information about each statute enforced by the 

Voting Section. 

Table 19: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Statutory provision Description of responsibilities 

Section 2 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits discriminatory procedures or practices that

result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, color, or 

membership in a language minority group. Section 2 prohibits not only voting practices 

and procedures that are intended to discriminate against these protected classes, but 

also those practices and procedures that have a discriminatory impact. 

Sections 203, 4(f)(4) and 4(e), of the VRA, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1973aa-1a, 1973b(f)(4), 

1973b(e) 

Collectively known as the “language minority provisions” of the Voting Rights Act, 

sections 203 and 4(f)(4) are to enable members of applicable language minority groups 

to participate effectively in the electoral process; thus, covered jurisdictions must 

provide registration and voting materials in the language of the applicable minority 

group, in addition to English, or, in certain instances, provide oral instructions. Section 

4(e) prohibits states from denying the right to vote on the basis of English proficiency to 

those who were educated in public or accredited private schools in which the 

predominant classroom language was other than English. 

Section 208 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1973aa-6 

Section 208 allows any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, 

disability, or inability to read or write to be given assistance generally by a person of the 

voter’s choice. 

Section 5 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c Under section 5, state and local jurisdictions in certain parts of the country may not 

change their election practices or procedures, which include moving a polling place or 

changing district lines in the county, until they obtain federal “preclearance” that the 

change has neither the purpose nor the effect of discriminating against protected 

minorities in exercising their voting rights. Preclearance may be obtained either from the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General. 

Page 58 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Statutory provision Description of responsibilities 

Section 4 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1973b Section 4 of the VRA provides for jurisdictions to terminate or “bailout” from the 

requirements of section 5, if determined by a three-judge panel of the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia to meet certain statutory standards. The 

Attorney General may consent to an entry of judgment granting the bailout. 

Section 11(b) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1973i(b) 

Section 11(b) prohibits persons, whether or not they are acting on behalf of the 

government, from intimidating, threatening, or coercing, or attempting to do so, any 

person for voting or attempting to vote. It further prohibits intimidation, threats, or 

coercion of persons aiding others in voting or exercising certain powers or duties under 

the VRA. 

Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 15301-545 

HAVA established requirements related to voting system standards, provisional voting 

and voting information, and computerized statewide voter registration lists to be 

enforced by the Attorney General. 

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 

(NVRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg–1973gg-10 

The NVRA requires states to adopt certain federal voter registration procedures and 

contains detailed requirements regarding state removal of names from federal 

registration rolls. The NVRA requires states to have a program to remove ineligible 

voters from voter rolls, but also requires that such list maintenance programs 

incorporate specific safeguards. 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act (UOCAVA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff–

1973ff-6 

UOCAVA requires states and territories to allow absent uniformed services voters and 

their spouses or dependents, as well as overseas voters, to register and vote absentee 

in federal elections. 

Source: GAO summary of federal statutes. 

The Voting Section has the discretion to initiate a matter or pursue a case 

under all of its statutes, with the exception of the review of changes in 

voting practices or procedures, which it is statutorily required to conduct 

under section 5 of the VRA.98, 99 According to Section officials, the Section 

 

98 According to Voting Section officials, the Section initiated a matter when an inquiry or 

fact finding involved either travel or more than 4 hours of attorney time. Once a matter was 

open, it received a DJ number and remained in the Voting Section as a matter until such 

time as the Section went forward to the Division with a justification memorandum 

recommending the filing a complaint to initiate a lawsuit or closed the matter. However, 

not all the work of the Section becomes a matter. 

Page 59 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

identifies possible violations of the statutes it enforces from allegations of 

discriminatory practices that it receives from citizens, as well as advocacy 

and community organizations, members of Congress, and U.S. Attorney’s 

Offices; by staff reviewing news articles; and through the Section’s 

election monitoring efforts.100 They noted that during the 7-year period, as 

compared to prior years, the Section had received complaints from a 

broader range of racial and ethnic groups and a consortium of civil rights 

organizations that monitor polling places during elections. Section and 

Division officials identified shifts in the Section’s priorities beginning in 

2002. In October 2007, the Section Chief who served from 2005 through 

late 2007 told us that the Voting Section was focused on enforcing all of 

the statutes for which it was responsible, rather than any provision in 

particular. He further stated that while at-large election systems that 

discriminated against African Americans remained a priority of the 

Section, not many of these systems continued to discriminate, and new 

tensions over immigration had emerged; therefore, the Section had been 

pursuing cases of voting discrimination against citizens of other minority 

 

99 According to Section officials, the process for opening an investigation has changed since 

the period of our review. In December 2007, the Division’s Front Office implemented an 

Investigatory Memorandum (I-memo) requirement. Under this new procedure, if the initial 

review indicated that the allegation was reasonably likely to result in an investigation, it 

became a matter upon the approval of a reviewer with the Section. Before proceeding with 

an investigation by contacting state or local officials, the Section was to prepare a short 

memorandum to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and receive authorization from the 

Division’s Front Office. Officials said this process was intended to avoid the situation in 

which the Division learned of such an investigation from the media. In August 2009, this 

process changed again. While Section officials are required to receive authorization from 

the Division’s Front Office before contacting local officials, the reviewing Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General advised the section that a formal I-memo was not necessary and that 

authorization could be obtained by an email outlining the information on which the Section 

based the recommendation to proceed with an investigation. Section officials stated that 

this change was intended to make it easier for the section to initiate investigations. 

However, if an allegation is quickly resolved, no DJ number is assigned and the allegation 

does not become a matter. 

100 The Section engages in election monitoring, which refers to the assigning of (1) federal 

observers by the Office of Personnel Management, upon notification of the need by the 

Attorney General, to monitor polling place activities in counties that the Attorney General 

has certified under VRA and counties authorized by federal courts and (2) Justice 

Department attorneys and professional staff to monitor election-day activities in local 

jurisdictions throughout the United States, whether or not the locations have been certified 

under VRA, to investigate possible voting rights violations. Election monitoring information 

is not kept in ICM, but in a separate database. Sections 3 and 8 of the VRA provide 

authority to the federal courts and the Attorney General, respectively, to authorize federal 

observers to be assigned to political jurisdictions to monitor the voting process. 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1973a,1973f. 

Page 60 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

groups.101 However, in September 2009, Voting Section officials stated that 

while many at-large election systems that diluted minority voting strength 

have been successfully challenged, the Section continued to identify such 

systems that discriminate against African American, Hispanic, and Native 

American residents in jurisdictions throughout the country and that taking 

action against at-large election systems remained a high priority for the 

Section. They also stated that the Section had as a priority the 

enforcement of all the statutes for which it was responsible throughout the 

period of our review. In July 2007, the Assistant Attorney General stated 

that since 2002, the Section had increased its enforcement of the minority 

language provisions of the VRA and in 2002 had instituted the most 

vigorous outreach efforts to jurisdictions covered by the minority language 

provisions of the Act. Additionally, the Acting Assistant Attorney General 

reported in September 2008 that the Division had brought more cases 

under the VRA’s minority language provisions during the past 7 years than 

in all other years combined since 1975. 

The Voting Section 

Initiated More Matters 

under the VRA Than Other 

Statutes and Primarily on 

Behalf of Language 

Minority Groups 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 442 

matters, over 80 percent (367 of 442) of which involved allegations under 

the VRA.102 Although the number of matters initiated each fiscal year 

fluctuated, the largest number of matters initiated consistently involved 

the enforcement of VRA provisions, increasing in fiscal year 2003 to its 

highest level (136 of 367) and then generally declining. Section officials 

explained that, generally, fluctuation from year to year in terms of the 

number of matters initiated under any of the statutes enforced by the 

Section is a normal occurrence; however, certain occurrences and 

initiatives of the Section, described as applicable below, may affect the 

distribution of cases over time. Table 20 shows the number of matters 

initiated by the Voting Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

 

101 An at-large election system is one in which a public official is selected from the whole of 

a political unit or election district rather than from a subdivision of the larger unit. 

102 Matters may be initiated under more than one statute. 

Page 61 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 20: Matters Initiated by the Voting Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Statute 

Fiscal year statute 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

VRA 52 69 136 38 19 18 29 361

HAVA 6 19 25

HAVA/NVRA 1 1

HAVA/VRA 1 2 3

NVRA 5 2 2 4 3 3 1 20

NVRA/VRA 1 1 1 3

UOCAVA 1 3 3 3 9 5 24

Othera 4 1 5

Total 62 72 141 47 32 51 37 442

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

a

Other includes one matter involving a challenge to the constitutionality of UOCAVA; a project to post 

on the Section’s Web site information on the rules for restoring the rights for ex-felons; and matters 

pursuant to the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1973ee to 1973ee-6, which, with certain exceptions, requires that for federal elections polling 

places and registration facilities be accessible to handicapped and elderly voters and states make 

available registration and voting aids for handicapped and elderly individuals. 

As shown in figure 3, over half (246 of 442) of all matters initiated during 

the 7-year period were on behalf of language minority groups.103 The 

Section initiated the largest number of these matters in fiscal years 2002 

and 2003 (52 and 117, respectively), which constituted almost 70 percent 

(169 of 246) of all matters initiated on behalf of language minority groups. 

Section officials explained that while the Section’s work is for the most 

part driven by information received from various sources, the likely 

explanation for the increased number of matters on behalf of language 

minority groups was, in part, due to increased Section activity following 

the renewed 2002 determinations of the Director of the Census regarding 

 

103 These matters were initiated under sections 2, 4(e), 4(f)(4), 11(b), 203 and 208 of the 

VRA. Seven of these matters also involved allegations of racial discrimination. 

Page 62 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

jurisdictions covered by section 203 of the VRA.104 Following the coverage 

determinations, the Section, in the latter part of 2002 and in 2003, initiated 

investigations of newly covered jurisdictions to ensure compliance with 

the law’s requirements. In addition, around the same time period, the 

Section had an initiative to investigate at-large elections in numerous 

jurisdictions, particularly in California, many of which had experienced 

significant minority population growth. 

 

104 Coverage under section 203 is determined by a coverage formula contained in that 

section. There are three ways that a jurisdiction may be covered: (1) more than 5 percent of 

the voting age citizens of a state or political subdivision are members of a single language 

minority group and are limited-English proficient; (2) more than 10,000 of the voting age 

citizens of a political subdivision are members of a single language minority group and are 

limited-English proficient; or (3) a political subdivision is covered if there is located within 

its borders all or any part of an Indian reservation, in which more than 5 percent of the 

voting age American Indian or Alaska Native citizens are members of a single language 

minority group and are limited-English proficient. In all three cases, it is additionally 

required that the illiteracy rate of the language minority citizens is higher than the national 

illiteracy rate. 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a; see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.6. The requirements of section 

203 take effect upon publication in the Federal Register of the requisite determinations of 

the Director of the Census. Such determinations are not reviewable in any court. 

28 C.F.R. § 55.4. 

Page 63 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Figure 3: Language Minority Matters Compared with All Matters Initiated by the 

Voting Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Number of matters

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data.

Fiscal year

All matters

Language minority

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 total

62

13

72

52

141

117

47

24 32

13

51

12

37

15

442

246

Over 80 percent (203 of 246) of the language minority matters involved 

Spanish speakers; approximately 16 percent involved Native Americans or 

Alaska Natives (39 of 246); and about 9 percent involved Asian language 

speakers (21 of 246).105 As shown in table 21, about half of the matters 

involving Spanish and Native Americans voters were initiated in fiscal year 

2003, which officials explained was, in part, as a result of the post-Census 

initiative described above. 

The Majority of Matters 

Initiated on Behalf of Language 

Minority Groups Involved 

Spanish Speakers 

 

105 Eighteen of these matters were initiated on behalf of more than one language minority 

group. 

Page 64 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 21: Matters Initiated On Behalf 0f Language Minorities from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Fiscal year Protected class 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Chinese 1 1 2

Chinese / other Asian 1 1

Chinese / Spanish 1 2 2 1 6

Chinese / other Asian / Spanish / Vietnamese 1 1

Native American 3 5 20 1 2 1 1 33

Native American / Spanish 1 2 3 6

Other Asian 1 2 1 2 6

Other Asian / Spanish 3 1 4

Spanish 6 46 84 17 10 7 9 179

Spanish / Race–African American 2 1 3

Spanish / Race–Hispanic 1 1 2

Spanish / Race–Asian 2 2

Vietnamese / Race–African American 1 1

Total 13 52 117 24 13 12 15 246

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Almost 70 percent (171 of 246) of the matters initiated on behalf of 

language minorities were under the VRA’s language minority provisions 

that require covered jurisdictions to provide bilingual written materials 

and other assistance for elections (e.g., ballots) in the language of the 

applicable minority group or oral instructions in the case of Alaska Natives 

or American Indians.106 For example, in one matter, the Section requested 

and received from the official responsible for administering elections 

 

106 According to Voting Section officials, the reference “203” was used in ICM to designate 

matters initiated pursuant to sections 203 and 4(f)(4), as well as section 4(e) of the VRA; 

therefore, we were unable to distinguish under which of these provisions a matter was 

initiated. Coverage under section 203 is determined by a coverage formula contained in 

that section that takes into account factors such as the percentage of voting age citizens of 

a state or political subdivision who are members of a single language minority group and 

are limited-English proficient, as well as illiteracy rates of such citizens, among other 

factors. 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a; see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.6. The coverage determination under 

section 4(f)(4) is related to the formula for determining jurisdictions subject to the 

preclearance requirements of section 5 of the VRA, which are those evidencing 

discriminatory voting practices, based upon a triggering formula as defined in section 4 of 

the VRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(4); see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.5. During this time, the Section also 

did not have a separate ICM subject value for matters initiated under section 208 on behalf 

of voters who were blind, disabled, or unable to read or write. Section officials stated that 

issues related to Section 208 would ordinarily be added to matters initiated under the 

minority language provisions. 

Page 65 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

copies of bilingual materials for a general election to determine whether a 

jurisdiction was in compliance with section 203. Matters initiated on 

behalf of language minorities also involved claims under other VRA 

provisions––about 80 matters under section 2 of the VRA107 and 8 alleging 

intimidation.108

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section initiated 162 

matters under section 2 of the VRA––about 80 involving a language 

minority group and 88 involving a racial minority group.109 As shown in 

table 22, the majority (71 of 80) of the section 2 language minority matters 

were initiated on behalf of Spanish speakers. The largest number (71 of 

88) of matters initiated on behalf of racial minorities involved African 

American voters. Table 22 shows the number of matters that the Voting 

Section initiated under section 2 of the VRA from fiscal years 2001 through 

2007, by protected class. 

About Half of the Matters 

Initiated under Section 2 of the 

VRA Involved Language 

Minority Groups and About 

Half Involved Racial Minority 

Groups 

 

107 Two of these matters were also initiated pursuant to an allegation of intimidation and 8 

were with allegations under section 203, one of which also involved an NVRA-related 

allegation. 

108 Two of these matters were in combination with section 2. 

109 Seven matters involved both a language minority and a racial group. For purposes of 

describing cases and matters under the VRA, cases and matters involving Hispanics are 

included with the protected class of race. 

Page 66 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 22: Section 2 Matters Initiated from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by 

Protected Class 

Protected class Total

Language minority 

Spanish 64

Native American 6

Native American/Spanish 1

Asian 2

Total 73

Race 

African American 64

Asian 6

Hispanic 4

American Indian/Alaska Native 1

African American/Hispanic 3

African American/white 1

Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 2

Total 81

Language minority and race 

Language Minority–Spanish/Race–Hispanic 2

Language Minority–Spanish/Race–African American 2

Language Minority–Spanish/Race–Asian 2

Language Minority–Vietnamese Race–African American 1

Total 7

Votersa1

Grand Total 162

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

a

Specific protected class was not identified. 

Most of the section 2 matters were initiated in fiscal years 2001 through 

2003 (121 of 162). Section officials reported that the larger number of 

section 2 matters in 2001 can likely be attributed to a highly contested and 

controversial Presidential election occurring in November 2000, which 

gave rise to an abnormally high number of election-related complaints to 

DOJ. In addition, as noted above, Section officials reported that the 

Section had developed a section 2 initiative in the latter part of fiscal year 

2002 and in 2003 to investigate at-large elections in numerous jurisdictions 

where African American or Hispanic population growth had occurred. 

Page 67 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Figure 4 shows the number of section 2 matters initiated in each of fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007. 

Figure 4: Number of VRA Section 2 Matters Filed by the Voting Section for Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 

Matters

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data.

Fiscal year 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

13

71

9 9 7

16

162

37

As shown in table 23, the 162 matters initiated under section 2 involved 

three issues––at-large methods of election (103 of 162), “other dilution” 

(12 of 162), and other practices prohibited under section 2 (47 of 162), 

which are described below. The relative proportion of matters involving 

language minority groups as compared with racial minority groups varied 

by issue. 

Page 68 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 23: Matters Initiated by the Voting Section under VRA Section 2 from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 by Subject 

VRA provision Protected glass Total 

Section 2–At Largea Language minority 60

Race 39

Language minority and race 4

Section 2–At Large total 103

Section 2–other dilution Race 7

Language minority 3

Language minority and race 2

Section 2–other dilution total 12

Section 2–other Race 35

Language minority 10

Language minority and race 1

Voters 1

Section 2–other total 47

Grand Total 162

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

a

Section officials, noted, however, that most of the matters opened for investigations of at-large 

elections involving Hispanic voters were designated under the protected class of “language minority – 

Spanish,” whereas now, the Section uses the racial category of Hispanic in order to distinguish these 

matters from the bilingual minority language matters. 

About 64 percent (103 of 162) of the section 2 matters involved at-large 

methods of election.110 About 62 percent (64 of 103) of these at-large 

matters were initiated on behalf of language minorities and about 42 

percent (43 of 103) were initiated on behalf of racial minorities, including 4 

matters involving both racial and language minorities. For example, in one 

matter, the Section initiated an investigation to determine whether there 

 

110 An at-large election system is one in which a public official is selected from the whole of 

a political unit or election district rather than from a subdivision of the larger unit. This 

type of election can dilute the strength of minority voters. For example, when all the of the 

voters within a jurisdiction vote on all members of the city council, with the result that 

racial minorities who live in a particular part of the city, and might be able to elect one or 

more representatives if the city council members were individually elected from smaller 

districts, are regularly outvoted by the white majority. In analyzing claims that at-large 

systems violate section 2 by giving minorities less opportunity to elect representatives of 

their choice, courts engage in an intensive analysis of the effects of the election system and 

of the racial history of the area in question, and have been guided by a list of factors 

identified in the legislative history of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act and 

articulated by the Supreme Court. 

Page 69 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

was cause to believe that the at-large method of election for a city council 

diluted Hispanic voting strength in violation of section 2. Matters that the 

Section characterizes as “section 2—other dilution” are similar to the atlarge matters in that they involve allegations that the method of election or 

election plan—other than an at-large election system—denies members of 

the protected class an opportunity to participate in the political process 

and elect representatives of their choice equal to other members of the 

electorate. For example, according to Section officials, such matters may 

involve a challenge to a jurisdiction’s redistricting plan. The Section 

initiated 12 of these matters––7 on behalf of racial groups, 3 on behalf of 

language minorities, and 2 involving both racial and language minorities. 

Section officials reported that they would expect to see the large majority 

of their section 2 work involving voting practices such as at-large and 

other dilutive methods of election. 

In addition, the Voting Section initiated 47 (of 162) section 2 matters 

challenging practices other than a method of election, such as voting 

qualifications that deny or abridge the rights of protected groups, 

discriminatory voting registration procedures, or election-day practices 

that have a “disparate impact” (i.e., a greater impact on one group of 

voters than other groups). For example, one matter involved allegations 

that African American students at a college and a university faced 

discriminatory treatment in the registration process for the 2000 

presidential election. A second matter involved allegations from a citizen 

that city officials had discriminated against a Hispanic candidate for city 

council by invalidating her filing forms while accepting similar forms from 

another candidate and had instructed voters during an election not to vote 

for “the Mexican.” Thirty-five of these (47) matters were initiated on behalf 

of racial minority groups of which 31 involved African Americans, 10 were 

on behalf of language minority groups, and 1 included both language 

minority and racial groups.111 Section officials told us that these types of 

claims often grow out of section 203 language minority investigations, and 

are not always reflected in ICM data. 

The Section also initiated 27 matters, referred to as intimidation matters, 

under the provision of the VRA that prohibits persons, whether or not they 

are acting on behalf of the government, from, among other things, 

intimidating or threatening anyone for voting or anyone who is aiding 

The Section Initiated Matters 

under VRA’s Intimidation 

Provision, as Well as under 

HAVA, the NVRA, and UOCAVA 

 

111 One matter did not identify a particular protected class, but referred to voters. 

Page 70 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

others in voting.112 These matters primarily involved the intimidation of 

persons who belong to racial groups—African Americans (16), whites (2), 

and Hispanics (1). Eight involved language minorities.113

In addition to the VRA, the Voting Section initiated 76 matters under 

HAVA, NVRA, and UOCAVA on behalf of voters. The Section initiated 29 

matters involving HAVA provisions in fiscal years 2005 through 2007.114

About two-thirds of the HAVA matters (19 of 29) involved issues related to 

HAVA’s voter list requirements, which refers to the computerized 

statewide voter registration list required by section 303(a) of HAVA. For 

example, the Section initiated one HAVA matter when several 

organizations brought a lawsuit alleging that a state had violated HAVA 

and other federal laws in the operation of its computerized voter 

registration database. The state filed a motion in court seeking to add the 

United States as a defendant, which the Section successfully opposed in 

court because the United States was not a necessary party. Section 

officials explained that the largest number (20 of 29) of HAVA matters was 

initiated in fiscal year 2006 because the HAVA voting systems standards 

requirements went into effect on January 1, 2006, and the computerized 

statewide voter registration list requirements became effective for most 

states that had applied for a waiver on January 1, 2006, as well. Section 

officials told us that for a time prior to and following the January 1, 2006, 

deadline, the Section was engaged in extensive investigation efforts to 

determine states’ compliance with the law. Section officials reported that 

most of the issues that arose with the states with regard to compliance 

were resolved cooperatively without resort to litigation. 

The Section also initiated 24 matters under the NVRA. These matters 

either involved issues related to the requirement to remove voters from 

registration lists under specified conditions—known as “purge” cases 

(11)—or issues related to the registration of voters (6).115,116 For example, 

 

112 Section 11(b) of the VRA. 

113 One matter involved both a language minority and racial minority group and one matter 

involved two racial groups, thus accounting for 25 of the 27 matters. ICM data did not 

identify the specific protected class of two of these matters. 

114 One matter involved both provisions of HAVA and the NVRA and three matters involved 

HAVA and the VRA. 

115 One matter involved both provisions of HAVA and the NVRA and three matters involved 

both the NVRA and the VRA. 

Page 71 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

in one NVRA matter, the Section investigated a citizen’s allegations that 

newspaper had improperly published about 50,000 names of inactive 

voters and had reported that these voters were subject to removal from 

the registration list unless action was taken. 

a 

 

In addition, the Voting Section initiated 24 matters under UOCAVA. For 

example, in one matter, the State Supreme Court had issued an order 

staying the distribution of ballots to overseas voters pending the outcome 

of litigation regarding the appearance of certain candidates on the ballot. 

The Section wrote a letter to the State Attorney General expressing 

concerns regarding potential violations of UOCAVA’s mailing 

requirements. Because UOCAVA only applies to federal elections, Section 

officials explained that, typically, more matters are initiated during federal 

election years; however, special elections to fill vacancies in congressional 

seats occasionally arise in odd-numbered years as well, which have 

resulted in UOCAVA matters. According to Section officials, the number of 

UOCAVA matters initiated was the highest in fiscal year 2006 (9 of 24) 

because after a UOCAVA case involving run-off elections in Georgia, they 

sought to identify other states where the statutory timetables for primary 

run-off elections did not permit enough time for overseas balloting. (App. 

IV provides information on the reasons why the Voting Section closed 

matters.117) 

Similar to Matters, the 

Voting Section Filed More 

Cases under the VRA Than 

Other Statutes and 

Primarily on Behalf of 

Language Minority Groups 

During the 7-year period, the Voting Section filed 56 cases, primarily under 

the VRA and on behalf of language minority groups. The Section also 

participated in 33 cases as plaintiff intervenor (1), amicus (2), or defendant 

(30); handled 19 Immigration and Nationality Act appeals for DOJ’s Office 

of Immigration Litigation in fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and continued to 

participate in approximately 25 cases in which the complaint or brief had 

been filed prior to 2001, but remained open for at least part of the 7-year 

period. Appendix IV provides information on these cases. According to 

Section officials, the Section typically pursued cases that addressed 

systemic problems, similar to pattern or practice cases in the Employment 

116 We could not determine the subject for six of these matters because the information was 

not contained in ICM. 

117 We derived information on the reasons why the Voting Section closed matters through 

interviews with Section officials and a review of a nongeneralizable sample of 51 closed 

matter files. However, the Division does not capture data in ICM or other Section-level 

information systems on the reasons why matters were closed. Therefore, we could not 

systematically identify the Section’s reasons for closing matters, including the number of 

instances in which the Section recommended to proceed with a case and Division 

management did not approve the Section’s recommendation. 

Page 72 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Litigation and Housing and Civil Enforcement sections, involving larger 

and more complex issues than a single act of discrimination. They said 

that an at-large method of election is the most systemic type of method the 

Section might attempt to change, but other practices may also have a 

systemic effect. For example, the use of racial slurs by poll workers, if not 

an isolated instance, may create a hostile environment for minority voters 

in a polling place. Section officials further stated that the failure of local 

officials to take corrective actions can also tend to make a practice more 

systemic. The Section Chief from 2005 through 2007 told us that when 

deciding whether to pursue a case, the Section considered legal merit, 

available Section resources, timing, whether the issue was a priority of the 

Attorney General, and whether the Section could win the case.118 

As shown in table 24, approximately two-thirds (39) of the 56 plaintiff 

cases filed by the Voting Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 

included a claim under the VRA. Almost half (27 of 56) of these cases were 

filed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

Table 24: Voting Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Statute 

Fiscal year Statutes 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

VRA 2 4 2 4 7 6 8 33

HAVA 2 2

HAVA/NVRA 1 1 2

HAVA/NVRA/VRA 2 2

HAVA/VRA 1 1 1 1 4

NVRA 2 2 2 6

UOCAVA 2 2 3 7

Total 2 8 2 9 8 15 12 56

Source GAO analysis of ICM data. 

The majority of cases (30 of 56) filed were brought on behalf of language 

minorities. Twenty-seven of these cases involved claims on behalf of 

Spanish speakers. Six cases involved claims on behalf of other language 

minority groups, including Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Creole, and 

The Majority of Cases Filed on 

Behalf of Language Minority 

Groups Involved Spanish 

Speakers 

 

118 Timing may be relevant where, for example, a new census is occurring that would allow 

for the redrawing of districts. For example, in one matter, the section received a letter 

regarding efforts to obtain single member districts for a city council, to which the section 

responded it would revisit the issue after census data was released 4 months later. 

Page 73 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Tagalog speakers and Native Americans.119 While cases involving language 

minority groups were filed under various provisions of the VRA, the 

largest number of cases (24 of 30) involved claims under section 203 of the 

VRA alleging that the covered jurisdiction had failed to provide votingrelated materials or information relating to the electoral process in the 

language of the applicable minority group. For example, in one section 203 

case, the Section alleged that, in conducting elections, a city, where over 

46 percent of the total citizen voting age population was Hispanic, had 

failed to translate fully into Spanish written election-day materials and 

information, such as the official ballot, forms for voters with disabilities, 

and signs identifying a polling place’s location, among others. 

Other provisions under which the Section filed cases on behalf of language 

minorities included section 4(f)(4) of the VRA (3 of 30)—which contains 

the same requirements for covered jurisdictions to provide voting-related 

materials and information in languages other than English—and section 

208 of the VRA (9 of 30)—which entitles voters who are blind, disabled, or 

unable to read or write to be assisted in voting by a person of their 

choosing. All of the cases the Section filed under section 208 were on 

behalf of language minorities. Section officials explained that when the 

Section monitored elections to determine if jurisdictions were providing 

effective language assistance, monitors often discovered that in addition to 

inadequate bilingual assistance, the jurisdiction was also not permitting 

voting assistance to limited English proficient voters by a family member 

or other person of the voter’s choosing. 

The Section filed five cases involving language minority groups pursuant 

to section 2.120 Four of these cases involved the denial or abridgment of the 

right to vote of Spanish speakers, one of which also involved Chinese and 

Vietnamese speakers. For example, one section 2 claim alleged that in 

conducting elections, city officials had treated limited English proficient 

Hispanic and Asian American voters disrespectfully by, among other 

things, improperly influencing, coercing, or ignoring their ballot choices 

and by refusing or failing to provide them provisional ballots. The fifth 

section 2 language minority case was filed on behalf of Native 

 

119 Four cases involving Spanish-speakers involved one or more other language minority. 

120 All five of these cases were filed in conjunction with other statutes or other provisions of 

the VRA. Two of these cases also alleged claims of the denial or abridgement of the right to 

vote on account of race, on behalf of Hispanic voters. 

Page 74 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Americans.121 In September 2008, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for 

Civil Rights explained that, in many cases, violations of section 203 were 

accompanied by such overt discrimination by poll workers that section 2 

claims could have been brought as well. However, the Section had been 

able to obtain complete and comprehensive relief through its litigation and 

remedies under section 203 without the added expense and delay of a 

section 2 claim. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section filed 13 cases that 

involved a claim under section 2 of the VRA, as shown in table 25.122 Five 

cases were on behalf of language minority groups, as previously discussed, 

and 10 were on behalf of racial minority groups (two cases involved both 

racial and language minority groups).123 Section officials reported that 

their litigation was driven by the facts developed during investigations. 

They also stated that they were not aware of any specific reason

distribution of section 2 cases filed by the Section among the various 

groups. 

Cases Filed under VRA Section 

2 Primarily Involved Racial 

Minority Groups 

s for 

Table 25: VRA Section 2 Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by 

Protected Class 

Protected class Number of cases

Language minority–Spanish 1

Language minority–Spanish/Race–Hispanic 2

Language minority–Spanish–Chinese–Vietnamese 1

Language minority–Native American 1

Race–Hispanic 4

Race–African American 3

Race–white 1

Total 13

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data and complaints filed. 

 

121 This case was originally filed in 1993, but an amended complaint realleging claims under 

sections 203 and 2, as well as new claims pursuant to HAVA and the NVRA, was filed in 

2007. 

122 Six cases were in combination with other statutes and/or in combination with other 

provisions of the VRA, including sections 4(e), 11(b), 203, and 208 of the VRA, and HAVA 

and the NVRA. 

123 As described previously, for purposes describing cases and matters under the VRA, 

cases and matters involving Hispanics are included with the protected class of race. 

Page 75 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Of the 10 cases filed on behalf of racial minorities, six were on behalf of 

Hispanic citizens.124 In three of these six cases, the Section challenged atlarge methods of election, because the methods resulted in Hispanic 

citizens having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to 

participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their 

choice. In the remaining three cases, the Section alleged that other voting 

practices—such as hostile acts directed at Hispanic voters or requiring 

Hispanic voters to prove their citizenship without credible evidence calling 

into question their citizenship—were in violation of section 2. 

The Voting Section also brought three section 2 cases on behalf of African 

Americans; two were filed in fiscal year 2001 and one was filed in fiscal 

year 2006. All three cases challenged methods of election, alleging that the 

methods diluted the voting power of African American voters thus 

resulting in the denial of an opportunity equal to that afforded to other 

members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect 

representatives of their choice. For example, in the 2006 case, the Section 

claimed that the method of electing the City Council, whereby the five 

members were elected at-large and four were elected by ward (i.e., from 

particular districts), diluted the voting strength of African American 

citizens. According to the complaint filed in court, although African 

Americans comprised nearly 30 percent of the city’s electorate, African 

American candidates preferred by African American voters had been 

defeated since 1995. The complaint also alleged that the city could have 

used another method to divide the districts that would result in African 

American citizens constituting a majority of the total population and 

voting age population in two districts. 

During the 7-year period, the Section filed one intimidation case on behalf 

of white voters in fiscal year 2005. According to Section officials, the case 

was initially investigated under section 2 of the VRA, but later included 

intimidation claims under section 11(b) of VRA. The complaint alleged, 

among other things, that the defendants had: 

The Section Also Filed One 

Intimidation Case on Behalf of 

White Voters 

• excluded whites from participating in Democratic Executive 

Committee affairs by excluding them from Committee meetings 

relating to primary election matters and Democratic caucuses, 

• manipulated the voter registration rolls in an unlawful manner, by 

moving voters from one district to another in order to affect the racial 

 

124 Two cases involved both race and membership in a language minority, as noted above. 

Page 76 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

percentages of voters in particular districts and in an attempt to alter 

the outcome in certain elections where African American and white 

candidates opposed each other, and 

• systematically misapplied state absentee ballot procedures in a 

manner that had disproportionately burdened white voters and 

candidates. 

In June 21, 2007, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the 

Assistant Attorney General stated that this case was unusual in that it was 

the most extreme case of racial exclusion seen by the Section in decades, 

the racial discrimination was directed against white citizens, and the 

Section was not aware of any other case in which the Section had to move 

for a protective order to prevent the intimidation of witnesses. 

Subsequent to HAVA’s enactment in 2002, the Section filed 10 cases 

involving its provisions from fiscal years 2004 through 2007.125 Specifically, 

these 10 cases involved allegations in five areas relating to statutory 

requirements under the law, including the failure to: 

The Voting Section Filed Cases 

under HAVA, the NVRA and 

UOCAVA 

(1) provide provisional ballots to voters in federal elections who claim 

to be eligible and registered to vote, but whose names do not 

appear on the polling place register; 

(2) comply with voter registration application-related requirements; 

(3) comply with requirements making voting more accessible, 

including the posting of voter information and the provision of 

voting systems that are accessible to individuals with disabilities 

and in alternative languages; 

(4) implement identification requirements for first-time voters who 

 register by mail; and 

(5) establish an official, computerized, statewide voter registration list. 

Most cases (7 of 10) involved issues related to making voting more 

accessible. Section officials explained that such cases were frequently 

filed against localities and were often based on evidence obtained during 

election day monitoring or other localized investigative activities. For 

example, election observation in a locality for minority language voting 

system requirement purposes might indicate that, at certain polling places, 

there were no voting machines accessible to persons with disabilities or 

provisional voting was not implemented in accordance with HAVA. In one 

 

125 Eight of these cases were filed in conjunction with claims under other statues, such as 

the VRA and the NVRA. 

Page 77 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

case filed by the Section, for example, the Section alleged that in the 2004 

primary and general elections, defendant county officials had failed to post 

in each polling place all of the voting information required by HAVA, 

including information regarding the date of the election, federal and state 

voting laws, and requirements applicable to first-time voters who 

registered by mail. According to Section officials, they had sent officials in 

50 states a letter explaining how to comply with HAVA and offered 

guidance on the law’s requirements. 

During the 7-year period, the Section filed 10 cases involving allegations 

under provisions of the NVRA.126 From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the 

Section filed 8 cases involving a purge-related claim and 3 cases involving 

the issue of voter registration.127 Purge cases may involve allegations that 

the state did not have a program to remove ineligible voters from voter 

rolls (i.e., a program of list maintenance, which is to ensure accurate and 

current voter registration rolls for elections). For example, in 1 case, the 

Section alleged that the state’s failure to identify and remove ineligible 

voters from the registration list and ensure that local election jurisdictions 

had done so as well had resulted in counties with excessively high 

registration totals as compared to the voting age population in each 

county. Purge cases may also involve allegations that in conducting this 

required program of removing ineligible voters from the rolls, the state did 

not incorporate certain safeguards, thus unlawfully removing eligible 

voters from registration lists. In one instance, the Section filed a case 

alleging that a city’s procedures with respect to its voter lists had placed 

so high a burden on certain voters that, for all practical purposes, they 

were prevented from voting on election day and effectively removed from 

the voter registration rolls in violation of the NVRA. Of the 8 NVRA cases 

with purge-related claims, which the Voting Section filed during the period 

of our review, 4 cases involved claims that the jurisdiction had failed to 

conduct a program to remove ineligible voters from voter rolls, 2 involved 

claims that the jurisdiction unlawfully removed voters from the voter rolls, 

and 2 cases involved both types of claims. Section officials reported that 

during the time period of our review, the Assistant Attorney General had 

as a priority identifying list maintenance—i.e., purge—cases under the 

NVRA. They explained that the focus was on both ensuring states had a list 

maintenance program and that such programs incorporated required 

 

126 Four of these cases also included claims under other statutes, such as HAVA and the 

VRA. 

127 Two cases involved both kinds of claims. 

Page 78 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

safeguards. However, investigations may focus on one or more aspects of 

the NVRA, depending on the information received by the Section leading 

to the initiation of the investigation and the facts developed during the 

investigation. 

The Section also filed seven cases involving allegations under UOCAVA on 

behalf of overseas voters. In 2007, the Assistant Attorney General reported 

that UOCAVA remained a priority of the Section and stated that in 

calendar year 2006, the Voting Section had filed the largest number of 

cases under UOCAVA in any year since 1992. Section officials explained 

that the incidence of UOCAVA cases in 2006 was the result of the Section’s 

nationwide review of states with primary run-off elections, as described 

above. 

The Voting Section 

Engaged in Activities 

under Section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act 

The Section also carried out its responsibilities under section 5 of VRA, 

which requires certain jurisdictions covered under the act to “preclear” 

changes to voting practices and procedures with DOJ or the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia to determine that the change 

has neither the purpose nor the effect of discriminating against protected 

minorities in exercising their voting rights. As shown in table 26, from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section received for 

administrative review 37,677 submissions—containing 119,459 proposed 

changes—from jurisdictions required to preclear changes in voting 

practices and procedures under section 5 of the VRA. According to Voting 

Section officials, the Section analyzed and reviewed each submission, 

which, on average, included 4.5 changes. They said that proposed changes 

varied in complexity. For example, moving a single voting place or adding 

registration sites were simple changes, but statewide redistricting changes 

were highly complex and required more time than other types of proposed 

changes. As shown in table 26, the number of section 5 submissions and 

the number of proposed changes received by the Section fluctuated during 

the 7-year period. The total number of submissions peaked in fiscal year 

2006 at 7,294, containing a total of 20,434 proposed changes, although the 

number of changes involving redistricting peaked (1,617) in fiscal year 

2002 and subsequently declined. Voting Section officials explained that 

most of the covered jurisdictions conduct their state and local elections as 

well as federal elections in even-numbered years (e.g., 2002, 2004, and 

2006). Accordingly, as these jurisdictions prepare to conduct the elections, 

they seek to implement a greater number of changes affecting voting than 

in years when they are not conducting elections, which accounts for the 

higher number of proposed changes in those years. Officials also 

explained that the number of redistricting plans submitted for review had 

Page 79 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

increased early in the decade (2001 through 2003), following the release of 

the 2000 Census, as has occurred after each census. They reported that the 

Division usually provided additional staff to meet the increased work 

demands. Officials said that they expected a similar increase in the 

number of submissions following the 2010 census and hoped that they 

would receive additional staff; however, at the time of our review, they did 

not know whether such resources would be forthcoming.128 

Table 26: Number of Section 5 Submissions and Changes Received by the Voting Section during Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

Fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Number of submissions received 3,949 5,967 4,616 5,506 4,456 7,294 5,889 37,677

Number of changes 12,458 20,145 15,166 18,279 13,210 20,434 19,767 119,459

Source: GAO analysis of Submission Tracking and Processing System (STAPS) data. 

The Section reported that it made 42 objections to proposed changes; 

however, some objections addressed more than one proposed change. As 

shown in table 27, almost 70 percent of the objections (29 of 42) involved 

changes to redistricting plans. However, the proposed changes to 

redistricting plans accounted for less than 3 percent (2,990 of 119,459) of 

the overall changes submitted to the Section during the 7-year period. 

 

128 The Voting Section has an entire system—Submission Tracking and Processing System, 

referred to as STAPS—to track preclearance requests, including the origin of the request 

and the outcome. The system is independent of all other Voting Section computer 

programs and databases. When the Section receives a section 5 submission from a 

jurisdiction, the submission is assigned a unique submission number. Information that the 

Voting Section maintains for each submission is: state, county or subjurisdiction, as 

applicable; staff assignments; date of submission, Section response due date; pertinent 

census data; list of related submissions (if any); type and description of change; state or 

local act or ordinance number, as applicable; and Section action taken and dates of action. 

All documents related to each submission are scanned into a database. Such documents 

would include the submission from the jurisdiction, public comment (if any), internal 

Section analysis and memoranda, memoranda of telephone communications, and 

correspondence to and from the jurisdiction. 

Page 80 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 27: Number of Objections to Section 5 Changes Proposed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Fiscal year Type of change 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Includes redistricting 1 17 5 4 1 0 1 29

Other 1 4 3 2 0 2 1 13

Total 2 21 8 6 1 2 2 42

Source: GAO analysis of data from Voting Section Web site. 

Note: Some objections may involve multiple changes. 

The Voting Section also initiated about 24 matters involving section 5 of 

the VRA.129 Sixteen matters involved the enforcement of the preclearance 

requirement. For example, according to Section officials, the Section 

might initiate a matter to investigate a voting change that was not 

precleared or consider intervening in a private right of action seeking an 

injunction for a voting change that was not precleared. For 15 of these 16 

matters, ICM data included information about the group or groups affected 

by the enforcement action––11 involved African Americans, 4 involved the 

language minority group of Spanish speakers, 1 involved the racial 

minority group of Hispanics, and 1 involved white voters. An additional 4 

matters involved issues related to the administrative section 5 

preclearance process and were initiated on behalf of African Americans, 

one in conjunction with Hispanics. The Section officials explained that the 

Section would initiate this type of matter if an issue related to section 5 

arose, but was not a formal section 5 submission or litigation to which the 

Section was a party. For example, prior to an expected statewide 

redistricting submission under section 5, which the Section anticipated to 

be complicated and resource and time-intensive, the Section might open a 

matter to prepare for the submission. An additional 3 matters involved 

issues related to jurisdictions that were required to preclear voting 

changes under section 5 and were seeking to obtain a judgment from the 

district court to be removed from coverage, referred to as a “bailout.” 

Information on the affected groups was available for two of these matters--

one involved the language minority group of Spanish speakers as well as 

Hispanics, and the other involved African Americans. 

In addition, the Voting Section filed one case to enforce the provisions of 

section 5 of the VRA. In that case, filed in fiscal year 2006, the Section 

alleged that the jurisdiction had failed to obtain preclearance of a change 

 

129 One matter did not specify the type of section 5 matter or a specific protected class. 

Page 81 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

to a practice or procedure affecting voting. The Voting Section identified 

the minority voters potentially affected by the voting change as African 

American and Hispanic voters. 

The Voting Section 

Devoted the Greatest 

Proportion of Its Time to 

Reviews of Changes in 

Voting Practices and 

Procedures 

As shown in table 28, from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Voting 

Section reported spending the greatest total percentage of time (52 

percent) on administratively reviewing Section 5 preclearance 

submissions, as compared with cases (33 percent) or matters (14 percent). 

Table 28: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Cases, Matters, and 

Section 5 Reviews from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Activity type Percentage of total time

Cases 33

Matter 14

Section 5 52

Total 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Note:Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including 

section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any 

staff unique to a section. 

The proportion of the total time spent on the administrative reviews of 

voting changes generally decreased over the 7-year period. As shown in 

table 29, 40 percent of the total time was spent in fiscal years 2001 and 

2002; 70 percent was spent from fiscal years 2001 through 2004; and only 8 

percent was spent in fiscal year 2007. As previously discussed, in the years 

immediately following a census, the number of submissions for 

preclearing complex redistricting plans increases and then decreases over 

the 10-year period between each census. The fluctuation in the number of 

such submissions over time corresponds with the changes in the time data. 

Appendix IV provides additional information on the time spent by the 

Section on cases and matters during the 7-year period. 

Page 82 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 29: Percentage of Time Reported Spent on Section 5 Reviews from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Section 5 reviews 18 22 15 15 12 11 8 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section had 

four areas of statutory responsibility––institutional conditions, the 

conduct of law enforcement agencies, access to reproductive health 

facilities and places of worship, and the exercise of religious freedom of 

institutionalized persons––and initiated 693 matters and participated in 33 

cases under federal statutes corresponding to these areas. Of the closed 

matters (544 of 693) initiated by the Section during the 7-year period, 

about 373 involved institutional conditions and 129 involved the conduct 

of law enforcement agencies, specifically allegations of police 

misconduct.130 During the 7-year period, the Section participated in 33 

cases, the majority (27 of 33) of which involved institutional conditions. 

According to aggregate data on the time spent on matters and cases from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section reported devoting the greatest 

percentage of time to matters and cases involving institutional conditions, 

as compared with its other areas of responsibility. 

The Special Litigation 

Section Primarily 

Investigated Matters 

and Participated in 

Cases Involving 

Institutional 

Conditions and 

Devoted the Greatest 

Percentage of Time to 

these Matters and 

Cases, as Compared 

with Its Other Areas 

of Responsibility 

The Special Litigation 

Section Had Various 

Statutory Responsibilities 

from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section was 

responsible for the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes in four 

areas––institutional conditions, the conduct of law enforcement agencies, 

access to reproductive health facilities and places of religious worship, 

and the exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons. 

According to Special Litigation Section officials, the Section did not 

 

130 The 544 matters, initiated from fiscal year 2001 through 2007, were closed as of August 8, 

2008, the date on which the Division provided the data to us. 

Page 83 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

experience significant changes in its statutory responsibilities during the 7-

year period. The primary statutes enforced by the Section were the Civil 

Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), Violent Crime Control 

and Law Enforcement Act (14141), Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances 

Act (FACE), and the provisions of the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) protecting the rights of free 

exercise of religion for institutionalized persons.131 A matter or a case 

might be pursued under more than one statute. For example, a matter 

concerning a prison or jail might involve allegations of egregious 

conditions, such as lack of medical care, and practices affecting the 

exercise of inmates’ religious freedom in violation of CRIPA and RLUIPA, 

respectively. While Special Litigation Section officials reported that the 

Section had not undertaken any special initiatives during the 7-year period, 

they noted that institutional conditions in juvenile correctional facilities 

had been a priority of the Assistant Attorney General who headed the 

Division from August 2003 through June 2005. Table 30 shows these 

responsibilities according to the statutory provisions and how they apply 

to various forms of discrimination and types of institutions. 

 

131 Just prior to the start of this period, on September 22, 2000, the President signed into law 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Justice 

Department delegated responsibility for enforcing provisions protecting the rights of free 

exercise of religion for institutionalized persons to the Special Litigation Section. However, 

Section officials said that its RLUIPA responsibilities were not new because the Section 

had previously been involved in enforcing similar provisions of the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act of 1993 before the act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme 

Court. Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993), invalidated by City of Boerne v. Flores, 

521 U.S. 507 (1997). 

Page 84 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 30: Statutory Provisions Enforced by the Special Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Area of responsibility Statutory provision Description of responsibilities 

Institutional conditions Civil Rights Of Institutionalized 

Persons Act 

(CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j 

Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act (14141), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 14141 

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. § 2000b 

CRIPA protects the constitutional and federal statutory rights of 

persons confined in certain institutions operated by, or on behalf of, 

state or local governments (e.g., facilities for persons with 

developmental disabilities, nursing homes, juvenile correctional 

facilities, and adult jails and prisons)a

 by providing the Attorney 

General with the authority to bring lawsuits where there is a pattern 

or practice of egregious and flagrant conditions that deprive 

institutionalized persons of their federal or constitutional rights. 

14141 authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit when juvenile 

justice system administrators engage in a pattern or practice 

violating confined juveniles’ constitutional or federal rights. 

Title III prohibits discrimination in public facilities on the basis of race, 

color, religion, or national origin. 

Conduct of law 

enforcement agencies 

Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act (14141) 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d, and 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

14141 authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit where law 

enforcement agencies have engaged in a pattern or practice of 

conduct that violates federal law. 

Both statutes contain prohibitions on discrimination based on race, 

color, religion, national origin, or gender by law enforcement 

agencies receiving federal financial assistance. 

Access to reproductive 

health facilities and 

places of religious 

worship 

Freedom of Access to Clinic 

Entrances Act (FACE), 

18 U.S.C. § 248 

FACE prohibits the use or threats of force and physical obstruction 

that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain 

or provide reproductive health services or to exercise the First 

Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.

Exercise of religious 

freedom of 

institutionalized 

persons 

Religious Land Use & Institutionalized 

Persons Act (RLUIPA), 

 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 

Section 3 of RLUIPA protects the rights of free exercise of religion 

for institutionalized persons, by prohibiting a state or local 

government from imposing a substantial burden on the religious 

exercise of an institutionalized person, unless the government can 

demonstrate that the imposition furthers a compelling interest and is 

the least restrictive means available to further that interest. 

Source: GAO review of federal laws. 

a

With respect to prisons, jails, and correctional facilities, under CRIPA, the Section is authorized to 

seek relief for constitutional violations only. 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a). 

The Special Litigation Section considered all of its work to be self-initiated 

because it had discretion under all the statutes it enforced to pursue or not 

to pursue an investigation or case. The Section could bring cases involving 

the exercise of religious freedom under RLUIPA and access to 

reproductive health facilities under FACE on behalf of individuals. 

However, it was statutorily required to file only claims alleging a pattern or 

practice involving institutional conditions under CRIPA and 14141 and 

claims alleging police misconduct under 14141. According to Special 

Page 85 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Litigation Section officials, the Section received allegations of unlawful 

conditions and discrimination or misconduct by law enforcement from a 

variety of sources, including incarcerated persons, family members of 

institutionalized persons, members of Congress, advocacy groups, other 

federal agencies, states, and localities.132 Section attorneys also developed 

cases from information gathered from newspaper accounts or talking with 

representatives of advocacy groups, among other things. 

Unlike the other sections, the Special Litigation Section always conducted 

a pre-investigation (also referred to as preliminary inquiry) prior to an 

investigation, which required the Assistant Attorney General’s approval to 

proceed.133 Staff were to open a matter after spending more than 2 hours 

looking into an allegation, which demonstrated the Section’s interest in 

pursuing the matter. Section officials said that these pre-investigations 

could be time-consuming to complete, especially those involving CRIPA or 

14141, which require the Section to report on system allegations that 

suggest that egregious and flagrant conditions that deprive 

institutionalized persons of their constitutional or federal statutory rights 

or systemic problems (e.g., a departmentwide practice of police officers 

using excessive force, not just an individual officer) might exist. They 

further explained that many pre-investigations did not progress to an 

investigation because the Special Litigation Section could not gather 

sufficient evidence to show a pattern or practice of unlawful conditions or 

conduct. According to Section officials, the Section expected its attorneys 

and investigators to conduct preliminary inquiries regularly to find new 

matters to investigate. However, when attorneys and investigators were 

involved in contested litigation, they primarily worked on the litigation and 

perhaps one or two ongoing cases or matters and were not expected to, 

nor did they typically, open new matters. Consequently, the Section 

opened fewer preliminary inquiries when it was engaged in active 

litigation. Officials also said that the Section experienced slight variations 

in the types of matters and cases it investigated in the normal course of 

business. Appendix V provides additional information on the statutes 

enforced by the Special Litigation Section. 

 

132 According to Special Litigation Section officials, the Section maintained a phone log and 

had phone tree duty. For example, they estimated that in 2006 that they had received about 

700 phone calls. 

133 A matter was considered a “pre-investigation,” and not an “investigation,” until the 

Assistant Attorney General approved the justification memorandum for an investigation 

(S10) submitted by the Section. 

Page 86 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

As shown in table 31, the Special Litigation Section initiated 693 matters 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 under the statutes corresponding to its 

four areas of responsibility. Over 70 percent of all matters initiated (504 of 

693) and the largest number of matters initiated each fiscal year involved 

institutional conditions. These matters most frequently alleged violations 

of CRIPA affecting institutionalized persons in a variety of types of 

facilities. Matters concerning prisons and jails could involve alleged 

violations of 14141 or RLUIPA, sometimes in conjunction with alleged 

CRIPA violations. Matters concerning the administration of juvenile justice 

systems always involved allegations of violations of 14141. Over 20 percent 

of the matters initiated (158 of 693) concerned the conduct of law 

enforcement agencies and alleged police misconduct in violation of 14141. 

The total number of matters initiated by the Section was highest in fiscal 

years 2002 and 2003, and then generally declined.134 According to Section 

officials, during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Section was not involved in 

active litigation, but in the ensuing years it experienced increased case 

demands, possibly explaining the decline in the number of matters 

initiated.135 In addition, Section officials stated that fewer staff and 

resources were available in the later years, as the number of onboard 

Special Litigation staff––attorneys, professional, and clerical––decreased 

in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, from higher staff numbers in fiscal 

years 2003 and 2004.136 

The Special Litigation 

Section Primarily Initiated 

Matters Involving 

Institutional Conditions 

and Conduct of Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

 

134 According to agency officials, matters initiated includes both preliminary inquiries 

(preinvestigations) and “actual investigations.” Before 2003, preliminary inquiries were 

opened with minimum standards. After 2003, further management controls were 

introduced so that preliminary inquiries were only opened after a staff person spent 

2 hours on the particular matter and the matter was actively supervised. Thus, the number 

of preliminary inquiries declined after 2003; this resulted in a corresponding decline in the 

total number of matters initiated. 

135 Aggregate data on the time spent by the Section on cases and matters show that in each 

fiscal year during the 7-year period the Section spent a greater percentage of time on cases 

than matters. However, in fiscal years 2001, 2005, and 2006, the Section reported spending a 

lower percentage of time on matters relative to cases than in other fiscal years. Appendix V 

includes additional information on the time the Section reported spending on matters and 

cases. 

136 The Section reported the following on-board staff numbers at the end of each of the 

5 fiscal years: 2003––70, 2004––73, 2005––61, 2006––57, and 2007––60. According to the 

Division, in fiscal year 2005, the Division was granted Voluntary Early Retirement Authority 

along with a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment of $25,000. Appendix V includes 

additional information on the Sections staff resources from fiscal year 2001 through 2007. 

Page 87 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 31: Matters Initiated by the Special Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Statute 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Institutional conditions 

CRIPAa 54 102 77 52 48 73 58 464

CRIPA and 14141b 9 4 4 3 20

CRIPA and ADAc2 4 5 11

14141d1 6 2 9

Total 57 106 86 67 52 76 60 504

Conduct of law enforcement agencies 

14141 18 29 31 37 20 11 11 157

14141 and Omnibus Crime Control Act 1 1

Total 18 29 31 38 20 11 11 158

Access to reproductive health facilities and places of religious worship 

FACE 1 1

Total 1 1

Exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons 

RLUIPA 3 17 1 2 6 29

RLUIPA and CRIPAe 1 1

Total 3 17 1 3 6 30

Grand Total 75 139 134 106 75 87 77 693

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

a

Includes matters involving juvenile correctional facilities and juvenile justice administration, for which 

complaints, if filed, would be filed under 14141 rather than CRIPA. 

b

Includes matters involving juvenile correctional facilities and the administration of juvenile justice 

systems. 

c

Includes some, but not all matters, involving institutional conditions in facilities for persons with 

developmental disabilities and nursing homes. These matters involved the integration mandate 

provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), also known as the Olmstead Initiative, after the 

Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which upheld the most integrated 

setting requirement of the ADA. That is, individuals are required to be moved out of unnecessary 

institutionalization into community-based living arrangements, where appropriate. 

d

These nine matters involved the administration of juvenile correctional systems within a state, not 

individual facilities. 

e

Because protected class was identified as religion, similar to other RLUIPA matters, and not 

institutionalized persons, this matter was categorized under religious worship rather than institutional 

conditions. 

Page 88 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Because the work of the Special Litigation Section primarily involved 

enforcing statutes that protected the constitutional rights of persons 

confined in certain institutional facilities and prohibited misconduct by 

law enforcement agencies, analyzing the matter data in terms of the types 

of facility under investigation helped to describe the work of the Section 

during the 7-year period. Accordingly, we analyzed disaggregated and 

more detailed information about 544 of the 693 matters initiated during the 

7-year period and that the Section had closed as of August 8, 2008. 137,138,139

The closed matter data included 521 pre-investigations and 23 authorized 

investigations. As presented in figure 5, our analysis showed that the 

largest number of closed matters (approximately 373 of the 544) for any of 

the Section’s four areas of responsibility involved institutional conditions. 

Conduct by law enforcement agencies, specifically issues of police 

misconduct, comprised the second largest group of matters and the most 

frequently mentioned facility type––law enforcement agency (129 of 

544).140 Twenty four matters involved issues related to the exercise of 

religious freedom of institutionalized persons (e.g., denial of a special diet 

required for religious reasons) in prisons (18), jails (2), and jail-prisons 

(4).141,142 One matter involving access to reproductive health facilities was a 

pre-investigation of allegations of obstructive activities and property 

damage at a clinic. According to Section officials, during the 7-year period, 

The Largest Number of Closed 

Matters Involved Institutional 

Conditions in Various Types of 

Facilities and the Conduct of 

Law Enforcement Agencies 

 

137 The remaining 149 matters were still open at the time of our review, and given sensitivity 

concerns, we did not review certain types of information related to these matters. 

138 Seventeen of the 544 closed matters were identified as other. These matters are not 

included in the overall counts for each area of responsibility. For 6 of the 17 matters there 

was sufficient information to be able to categorize them and they are reported in footnotes 

to the appropriate text. 

139 The Division also provided information on 169 matters that the Section initiated prior to 

fiscal year 2001, but remained open and were then closed during the 7-year period. Division 

officials said, and our review of the data confirmed, that these data were not always 

complete. Accordingly, we did not include an analysis of these data in our review. 

140 The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies includes one facility 

type in ICM––law enforcement agency. Therefore, numbers reported for the area of 

responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the 

facility type law enforcement agency. 

141 Special Litigation Section officials said that prisons and jails do not constitute the 

universe of its RLUIPA work. We identified one additional RLUIPA matter for which the 

facility was identified as other; therefore, we could not determine the facility type. One of 

the 18 RLUIPA prison matters also involved CRIPA, but is only counted in the RLUIPA 

total. 

142 A single adult correctional facility may include both jail and prison facilities. 

Page 89 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

the Section received few allegations of issues involving access to 

reproductive health care facilities––clinics––in violation of FACE. 

Figure 5: Matters Initiated and Closed by the Special Litigation Section from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 by Area of Responsibility 

Number

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Institutional

conditions

Conduct of law 

enforcement agencies

Access to reproductive 

health facilities

Other a

Exercise of religious

freedom of institutionalized 

persons

373

129

24

1

17

Note: The data analyzed included 544 matters initiated by the Special Litigation Section from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007 and closed as of August 8, 2008. 

a

Analyzing additional ICM fields, the 17 matters in the column––“other” included: 5 involving access to 

court for juveniles; 1 involving religious freedom, but the type of facility was not identified; 1 involving 

a nursing home; and 10 did identify the type of facility. 

The approximately 373 (of 544) closed matters involving institutional 

conditions included pre-investigations and investigations of diverse 

categories and different types of institutional facilities within each 

category––adult corrections (e.g., jails and prisons), health and social 

welfare (e.g., nursing homes, mental health facilities, facilities for persons 

with developmental disabilities, and group foster homes), and juvenile 

corrections (juvenile correctional facilities or entire juvenile correctional 

systems). According to Section officials, the Section usually investigated 

Closed matters involving 

institutional conditions 

Page 90 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

these matters under its CRIPA authority, but matters involving juvenile 

correctional facilities or systems and some matters involving prisons and 

jails were investigated under 14141. Officials further explained that in 

protecting the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons under the 

CRIPA statute, its mandate was to try to resolve problems, not necessarily 

to file a lawsuit.143 Consequently, the Section might resolve allegations of 

CRIPA violations through settlements or other agreements not filed in 

court, which then continued to be identified as a matter in ICM. Officials 

said that the Section also settled the vast majority of its jail, prison, and 

juvenile justice cases rather than going to court because of a provision in 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act enacted in 1996.144 This provision, which 

required a state to admit liability before a court could enter into a consent 

decree, made it difficult to file such cases since very few jurisdictions 

agreed to admit liability.145 When the Section did not file an agreement in 

court, the matter did not become a case and the Section’s monitoring of 

compliance under the settlement agreement continued to be tracked in 

ICM as a matter. Table 32 shows the number of matters that the Section 

initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, which involved institutional 

conditions by category and facility type. 

 

143 Under CRIPA, the Attorney General must notify, in writing, the appropriate state 

officials of the intention to commence an investigation and, during that time, the Attorney 

General is required to make efforts to consult with the jurisdiction about assistance from 

the United States to correct the unlawful conditions and encourage the appropriate 

officials to take corrective actions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b. 

144 Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 802, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-66 (1996). 

145 In addition to other provisions, in particular, the act provides that a federal court shall 

not order prospective relief in a prison conditions lawsuit unless the court makes written 

findings that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct 

the violation of the federal right, and that it is the least intrusive means necessary to 

correct the violation. These requirements also apply to consent decrees, but not private 

settlements. As such, federal courts cannot sanction consent decrees in which the parties 

agree to remedies beyond the constitutional minimum. Moreover, in support of the consent 

decree, state officials must agree that the relief addresses a violation of a federal right, 

which means that they must admit that there has been a violation. The act was in effect for 

the entire period of our review; however, according to Section officials, of four cases that 

remained open during the review period, three were filed with consent decrees before the 

enactment of the act and one was filed after its enactment, together with a memorandum of 

agreement that was not filed in court. (See app. V.) 

Page 91 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 32: Number of Matters Initiated Involving Institutional Conditions from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Category and 

Facility Type 

Category Facility type Number of closed mattersa

Jail 102

Prison 80

Jail/prison 1

Adult corrections 

Total 183

Nursing home 86

Mental health facility 35

Developmental disabilities facility 28

Group foster home 1

Health and social welfare 

Total 150

Juvenile correctional facility 37

Administration of justice system 3

Juvenile corrections 

Total 40

Grand Total 373

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

a

The data analyzed included 373 matters initiated by the Special Litigation Section from fiscal years 

2001 through 2007 and closed as of August 8, 2008. 

Nearly one-half (183 of 373) of the closed matters concerning institutional 

conditions involved adult correctional facilities––jails (102), prisons (80), 

and jail-prisons (1). Special Litigation Section officials said prisoners, 

more than any of the other populations that the Section serves, contacted 

the Section through letters and phone calls to advocate on behalf of 

conditions. In response to these communications, the Section would open 

a matter to pursue a pre-investigation, but if it could not find evidence of a 

pattern or practice, would subsequently close the matter. The Section 

investigated these matters under CRIPA (jails (98), prisons (78),146 jailprison (1)), 14141 (jails (2), prison (1)), or both statutes (jails (2), prison 

(1)). The allegations in these matters included 

• inadequate medical care or diet and nutrition services for residents, 

• use of isolation or physical restraints, 

• coercive sexual misconduct by staff or peers perpetrated on detainees 

or inmates without consent, 

 

146 The 78 matters involving conditions in prisons under CRIPA do not include 1 matter 

initiated under CRIPA and RLUIPA. This matter is included in the RLUIPA matters. 

Page 92 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

• inadequate protection of inmates or detainees from harm due to 

insufficient correctional staffing on cellblocks, 

• a systemic level of violence as a result of inmate-on-inmate fights, and 

• overcrowding in the facility. 

The 80 closed prison matters included 75 pre-investigations and 5 

investigations. In 3 of the investigations, the parties agreed to a 

memorandum of understanding, which the Section monitored for 

compliance for several years before the matter was closed.147 The Section 

closed 2 investigations without further action. 

In addition, 150 closed matters (of 373) involved alleged violations of the 

civil rights of residents of health and social welfare facilities, including 

nursing homes (86), mental health facilities (35), facilities for persons with 

developmental disabilities (28), and group foster homes (1).148 The 

allegations that the Section investigated in these matters under its CRIPA 

authority included failure to provide adequate medical, mental health, and 

nursing care services to residents; staff’s physical abuse of residents; and 

failure to properly supervise or care for a resident. Section officials 

estimated that approximately 90 percent of these matters involved the 

investigation of whether the jurisdiction was serving the residents in the 

most integrated setting appropriate to an individual resident’s needs, as 

required by the Olmstead decision.149 Also related to the Section’s 

Olmstead work were three (of 28) matters that involved inquiries about 

facilities for persons with developmental disabilities located in the 

community, which the Section initiated in fiscal year 2004 to identify 

private lawsuits involving Olmstead-related issues in which the Section 

might join as an amicus curiae. Of the 150 closed matters, 143 were pre-

 

147 Section officials provided additional information on the number of current matters 

involving jails and prisons. They reported that as of July 2, 2009, the Section had 25 open 

matters involving jails and 3 involving prisons––2 of which where being investigated and 

one was settled with a memorandum of agreement. 

148 According to Section officials, group foster homes usually have 8 beds or less and, 

therefore, it is usually not fiscally justified for the Special Litigation Section to investigate a 

group foster home unless the situation is very bad. 

149 These matters involved the integration mandate provision under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, also known as the Olmstead Initiative, after the Supreme Court case, 

Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), which held that individuals with mental disabilities are 

required to be moved out of unnecessary institutionalization into community-based living 

arrangements, where appropriate. Executive Order 13217 required the Attorney General, 

among other agency heads, to ensure that the Olmstead decision was implemented in a 

timely manner. 

Page 93 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

investigations and 7 were authorized investigations––6 of nursing homes 

and 1 of a facility for persons with developmental disabilities. In two of the 

nursing home investigations, the parties reached an agreement that the 

Section monitored for compliance for a period before it closed the 

matter.150

Additionally, 40 closed matters (of 373) involved juvenile corrections––

conditions in juvenile correctional facilities (37) or the administration of 

juvenile justice systems (3).151 The Section initiated over half of these 

matters from fiscal years 2003 through 2005, when a priority of the 

Assistant Attorney General was conditions in juvenile facilities. According 

to Section officials, although CRIPA and 14141 statutorily provided 

essentially the same protections for juveniles in correctional facilities, the 

Section filed complaints involving a juvenile correctional facility under its 

14141 authority. They explained that filing a case under CRIPA required 

the approval of the Attorney General, but doing so under 14141 did not. 

Nevertheless, the Section included these matters in its annual CRIPA 

report to Congress, as the Section considered them to be part of its CRIPA 

work, and recorded them in ICM under CRIPA to distinguish them from 

14141 law enforcement matters. These matters included allegations such 

as failure to adequately provide services to residents (e.g., medical, 

psychological, psychiatric, substance abuse treatment, and special 

education), properly care for or supervise residents, or adequately protect 

residents with suicidal or self-harming behaviors. They also included 

allegations of physical abuse of residents, improper placement of residents 

in a locked room for a long period of time without access to adequate 

services, overcrowding, and insufficient numbers of professional staff to 

provide the services legally required in these facilities. Thirty-three of 

these 37 matters were pre-investigations and 4 were investigations. In 1 of 

the investigations, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding, 

which the Section monitored for compliance for a period of time before 

closing the matter; 1 investigation was dismissed by the court at the 

request of the Special Litigation Section when the facility closed; and the 

Section closed 2 matters. In addition, under its 14141 authority, the 

 

150 The Section reported in ICM that the case was dismissed from court pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),which allows a complaint to be dismissed by the court at 

the plaintiff’s request. 

151 As part of the Section’s focus on juveniles, the Section initiated and closed an additional 

5 matters involving access to counsel in juvenile court (identified under other), under its 

14141 authority. 

Page 94 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Section initiated 3 matters involving the administration of juvenile justice 

in jurisdictions to determine whether there was a pattern or practice of 

violating the federal rights of incarcerated juveniles. These matters were 

not linked to a specific facility, but concerned systemwide issues across a 

jurisdiction (e.g., a state juvenile corrections system). Two of these 

matters were pre-investigations, which were closed, and 1 matter was an 

investigation that was resolved by the parties agreeing to a memorandum 

of understanding. 

Matters involving law enforcement agencies comprised the second largest 

group and the most frequently reported facility type for closed matters 

(129 of 544). These closed matters included 123 pre-investigations and 6 

investigations. For its police misconduct work, the Section identified in 

ICM specific police-related subjects for investigations, including police use 

of excessive force (i.e., more than necessary to subdue a citizen), policefalse arrest of citizens for pretextual reasons that have no basis in fact, 

searching and seizing of property by police officers in ways that violate the 

law, and other forms of discriminatory policing unlawful under 14141. 

(App. V includes additional information on these subjects.) 

Closed matters involving the 

conduct of law enforcement 

agencies 

According to the Section, the Division considered an investigation 

resolved when the Section secured a settlement agreement that addressed 

the concerns uncovered during the investigation. Once the Section 

secured a settlement, the matter remained open for ongoing monitoring 

and compliance until the jurisdiction successfully satisfied the terms of the 

settlement. At that time, the Division officially closed the matter. The six 

investigations identified in the closed matter data were initiated in fiscal 

years 2001 (2), 2002 (3), and 2003 (1).152 Two of the investigations were 

resolved by the parties agreeing to a memorandum of agreement, 

monitored for compliance for a period, and then closed. Section officials 

provided additional information on police department investigations that 

were initiated during our review period, but remained open after the end 

of fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2004, investigations of three police 

departments were authorized and the Section resolved five investigations 

 

152 In a letter to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 

Liberties, Committee on the Judiciary, dated July 30, 2007, DOJ reported having 

successfully resolved 14 pattern or practice police misconduct investigations involving 11 

police departments from 2001 to 2006. According to the Special Litigation Section, 9 of 

these investigations were initiated or opened prior to 2001. 

Page 95 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

with settlement agreements. (App. V provides information on the reasons 

why the Section closed matters.153) 

The Special Litigation 

Section Participated in 33 

Cases, the Majority 

Involved Institutional 

Conditions 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section 

participated in 33 cases, filing complaints as plaintiff in 31 cases and 

participating in 1 case as defendant and 1 case as defendant intervenor. 

The Section also handled 25 Immigration and Nationality Act appeals for 

DOJ in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In addition, the Section continued to 

participate in 66 cases in which the complaint or brief had been filed prior 

to 2001 and remained open for at least part of the 7-year period. These 

cases are described in appendix V. The 31 plaintiff cases involved three of 

the Section’s four areas of responsibility—institutional conditions, the 

conduct of law enforcement agencies, and access to reproductive health 

facilities and places of religious worship. According to Special Litigation 

Section officials, the Section sought to ensure that the work of the Section 

reflected geographic diversity. Our analysis of the 31 plaintiff cases 

showed that the Section had filed cases in 21 states and the District of 

Columbia.154 The Section filed more than one case involving different types 

of facilities in 7 states; for example, 1 case within a state might involve 

juvenile facilities and another case in the same state might involve a 

facility for persons with developmental disabilities. 

For cases brought under CRIPA, the Special Litigation Section is 

authorized to file claims alleging a pattern or practice of egregious and 

flagrant conditions that deprive institutionalized persons of their 

constitutional or federal statutory rights. Under 14141, the Section is 

authorized to file claims alleging a pattern or practice of conduct by law 

enforcement or conduct of officials responsible for the administration of 

juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles, which deprived persons 

of their constitutional or federal statutory rights. According to Special 

 

153 We derived information on the reasons why the Special Litigation Section closed matters 

through interviews with Section officials and a review of a nongeneralizable sample of 51 

closed matter files. However, the Division does not capture data in ICM or other Sectionlevel information systems on the reasons why matters were closed. Therefore, we could 

not systematically identify the Section’s reasons for closing matters, including the number 

of instances in which the Section recommended to proceed with a case and Division 

management did not approve the Section’s recommendation. 

154 The 21 states were Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming. 

Page 96 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Litigation Section officials, in deciding whether or not to pursue a case, 

they considered the conditions in a particular facility or misconduct of a 

particular police department and whether the system (e.g., state 

correctional or juvenile justice system) or department alleged to have 

violated the statute had taken corrective action or had accepted the 

behavior in question as its way of doing business. However, they said that 

even if the system or department were taking corrective action, the Special 

Litigation Section might pursue a case depending on the severity of the 

situation (e.g., sexual abuse) or if Section officials believed that the facility 

or local entity were incapable of addressing the problem. As in the other 

sections, when recommending litigation, the Special Litigation Section 

sent a justification package to the Division. According to Section officials, 

the justification package that the Special Litigation Section sent to the 

Division for approval usually contained an explanation of what occurred 

in negotiations among the parties and why the Special Litigation Section 

was unable to reach a settlement, and the Section’s plans for going 

forward, in addition to the investigative findings and relevant 

supplemental information. 

As shown in table 33, most of the cases (27 of 31) that the Section filed 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 involved institutional conditions. The 

Section filed three cases involving the conduct of law enforcement 

agencies. In addition, in August 2007 the Section filed one case involving 

access to a reproductive health clinic in which the complaint alleged 

threats of death and injury to a physician working at a reproductive health 

care clinic. The court issued a permanent injunction in November 2007, 

prohibiting the defendant from publishing information about reproductive 

health care physicians, staff, or patients with the intent of threatening 

them with physical bodily harm or death to prevent them from providing 

reproductive health services. During the 7-year period, the Section did not 

file any cases involving violations of the exercise of religious freedom of 

institutionalized persons––RLUIPA. Section officials stated that there was 

a time when the Section’s enforcement of RLUIPA was directed to be a 

lower priority than its enforcement of other statutes. However, in April 

2009, these officials told us that the Section was reviewing a number of 

preliminary inquires under RLUIPA, but had not yet filed any complaints 

because it was still investigating these matters. 

Page 97 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 33: Cases Filed by Special Litigation Section from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Area of Responsibility 

Fiscal year 

Fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007a

2001-2007

Total

Area of responsibility 

Institutional conditions 2 3 1 6 5 6 4 27

Conduct of law enforcement agenciesb1 1 1 3

Access to reproductive health facilities and 

places of religious worship 1 1

Total 3 3 2 7 5 6 5 31

Source: GAO analysis of complaints filed for cases identified in ICM data. 

a

In fiscal year 2007, the Section filed an amended complaint in a case filed and settled in fiscal year 

2005. Since the amendment was part of the same case, the amendment was not counted as a 

separate case in fiscal year 2007. 

b

The area of responsibility––conduct of law enforcement agencies––includes one facility type in ICM–

–law enforcement agency. Therefore, numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of law 

enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility type law enforcement agency. 

As shown in table 34, from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special 

Litigation Section pursued 27 cases involving institutional conditions in 

three categories––health and social welfare (13), juvenile corrections (7), 

and adult corrections (7). The number of cases filed varied by facility type. 

Additionally, a single case might involve more than one facility; for 

example, 1 case initially involved 4 mental health facilities and 3 more 

were added by an amended complaint. 

Cases involving institutional 

conditions 

Page 98 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 34: Cases Involving Institutional Conditions by Category, Facility Type, and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Category Facility type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2001-2007

Total

Developmental disabilities 

facility 1 2 1 2 6

Mental health facility 2 1 3

Nursing home 1 2 1 4

Health and social 

welfare 

Total 13

Juvenile corrections Juvenile correctional facility 1 2 1 2 1a 7

Jail 1 2 1 1 1 6

Prison 1 1

Adult corrections 

Total 7

Grand Total 2 3 1 6 5 6 4 27

Source: GAO analysis of complaints filed for cases identified in ICM data. 

a

In fiscal year 2007, the Section filed an amended complaint in a case filed and settled in fiscal year 

2005. Since the amendment was part of the same case, the amendment was not counted as a 

separate case in fiscal year 2007 

Under its CRIPA authority, the Section filed 13 (of 27) cases alleging 

violations of the civil rights of residents of health and social welfare 

facilities, including facilities for persons with developmental disabilities 

(6), mental health facilities (3), and nursing homes (4). It filed 12 of the 13 

cases from fiscal years 2004 through 2007. Among the violations alleged in 

these cases were failure to provide adequate services (e.g., medical 

treatment planning, psychiatric, psychological, nursing, rehabilitation 

therapy, nutritional, pharmacy, and medical and dental care) and sufficient 

numbers of trained professional staff as legally required. The allegations 

usually included a failure to assess facility residents to ascertain whether 

they were receiving adequate treatment in the most integrated setting, as 

required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.155 The Section resolved 

the 13 cases through different legal means, including six cases by consent 

decree (nursing home (2), developmental disabilities (2), and mental 

health (2) facilities) and seven cases by out of court settlements 

(developmental disability (4), nursing home (2) and mental health (1) 

facilities). The Section was monitoring 11 of these cases for compliance 

and closed 2 cases (1 nursing home and 1 facility for persons with 

developmental disabilities) during our review period. 

 

155 See 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 

Page 99 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Seven (of 27) cases involved institutional conditions in juvenile 

correctional facilities, the most frequently reported facility type, from 

fiscal years 2003 through 2007. All cases involving juvenile correctional 

facilities were recorded as part of the Section’s CRIPA work in the 

Division’s annual CRIPA report to Congress, although, as previously 

discussed, all complaints against juvenile correctional facilities had been 

filed under 14141 since 1997, while cases involving allegations against an 

entire juvenile justice system were filed under both statutes. The 7 cases 

involved one or more facilities located in 7 states––Arkansas, Arizona, 

Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The allegations 

included a pattern or practice of failing to protect inmates from undue risk 

from harm, including risk of suicide and abuse from staff; failing to 

provide adequate services of various types (e.g., mental health, special 

education, rehabilitation therapy, or psychiatric); and using isolation or 

physical restraints, among others. According to Special Litigation Section 

officials, 2 cases were filed because the respective jurisdiction refused to 

cooperate with the Section and settle the case. In other situations, because 

Section officials believed conditions in the juvenile facilities to be so 

egregious, they determined that filing a case was the proper avenue to 

monitor remedial efforts by the jurisdiction. During the time of our review, 

the Special Litigation Section resolved 5 of the juvenile justice cases by the 

Section requesting that the court dismiss the case (3), the parties entering 

into a consent decree (1), and the parties reaching an out of court 

settlement (1). The Section continued to monitor the jurisdictions for 

compliance in 4 of the 5 cases and closed the fifth case. The Section 

resolved the sixth case through a settlement in 2005 and monitored the 

jurisdiction for compliance until 2007, when the Section filed an amended 

complaint, replacing the original complaint, and amended the settlement 

to add another facility. The seventh case was still in litigation as of July 31, 

2008. 

In addition, during the 7-year period, the Section filed seven cases 

involving institutional conditions in adult correctional facilities––jails (6) 

and prisons (1). The six jail cases were filed under CRIPA (5) and 14141 

(1). The alleged violations included a pattern or practice of failing to 

protect inmates from harm and failure to adequately classify and supervise 

inmates. The allegations also included failure to provide sufficient access 

to the courts, adequate medical and mental health care, sufficient exercise 

opportunities, a healthy environment, and sanitary living conditions (e.g., 

insufficient ventilation, which can cause medical issues, or the presence of 

Page 100 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

vermin or human waste). Five of the jail cases were resolved by the parties 

reaching an out of court settlement (4) or entering into a consent decree 

(1). The Section then monitored jurisdictions for compliance.156 One case 

was still in litigation as of July 31, 2008. Additionally, the Section filed one 

case involving conditions in prison under its CRIPA authority. In this case, 

the allegations included failure to provide adequate supervision and 

inmate classification, adequate medical and mental health care, and a 

healthy environment. The parties agreed to a settlement in 2002, and the 

court dismissed the case in 2006. 

During the 7-year period, to carry out its responsibility to enforce laws 

involving the conduct of law enforcement agencies, the Special Litigation 

Section filed three cases alleging police misconduct. These cases were 

filed under 14141 and were brought against police departments in two 

cities and one county, in fiscal years 2001, 2003, and 2004, respectively. 

According to Section officials, the Section decided whether or not to 

pursue a case involving a law enforcement agency on a department-bydepartment basis, as determined by the Section’s assessment of the kind of 

misconduct uncovered and its estimation of the jurisdiction’s ability to 

address the misconduct with or without the involvement of the court and 

upon the approval by the Division’s Front Office. The complaints in the 

three cases included allegations of police use of excessive force. The two 

cases involving city police departments also included allegations of 

improper searches and seizures, arrests made without a warrant, and 

issues related to the receipt and adjudication of civilian complaints. The 

parties in each of the cases entered into a consent decree. By the end of 

fiscal year 2007, the Section had closed the case involving the county 

police department and was monitoring for compliance the consent decrees 

with the two city departments. 

Cases involving the conduct of 

law enforcement agencies 

The Section also participated as a defendant and a defendant intervenor in 

two cases involving law enforcement agencies. In the case in which DOJ 

was a defendant, the Fraternal Order of Police sought to prevent DOJ from 

enforcing 14141 on the grounds that the act exceeded congressional 

authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, was 

unconstitutional. In the case in which DOJ was a defendant intervenor, the 

Section intervened in support of the state’s hiring practices, as they 

 

156 In one case in which a settlement was reached, the case had been previously dismissed 

by the court at the request of the section, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(2). 

Page 101 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

applied to the selection of the chief of police. The plaintiff––a candidate 

for police chief—sought to have the city follow state law and promote its 

new police chief from within the ranks the police department. DOJ 

intervened because it believed that the court might order the city to take 

actions that conflicted with an ongoing consent decree between DOJ and 

the city. The Section closed the former case in fiscal year 2001 and the 

latter in fiscal year 2002. 

The Special Litigation 

Section Devoted the 

Greatest Proportion of 

Time to Matters and Cases 

Involving Institutional 

Conditions 

Aggregate data on time spent by Special Litigation staff on matters and 

cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 showed that overall the Section 

spent the greatest percentage of time on those matters and cases involving 

institutional conditions.157 However, the proportion of time spent in any 

fiscal year on matters and cases involving institutional conditions varied in 

relation to the time spent enforcing laws related to the conduct of law 

enforcement agencies. 

As shown in table 35, during the 7-year period, the Section reported 

spending the greatest percentage of time on matters involving institutional 

conditions in all facility types (62 percent). The Section spent the 

remaining 39 percent of the time on matters involving the conduct of law 

enforcement agencies. The percentage of time spent on matters involving 

institutional conditions each fiscal year generally increased during the 

7 years, while the percentage of time spent on conduct of law enforcement 

generally decreased. 

 

157 The aggregate time data included time reported spent for all matters on which the 

Special Litigation Section staff worked from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, including 

matters initiated during the 7-year period and matters initiated prior to fiscal year 2001 that 

were still open during the 7-year period. (App. V includes additional information on these 

matters.) 

Page 102 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 35: Percentage of Hours Reported for Matters by Facility Type and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Area of responsibility 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2001-2007

Institutional conditions 53 51 54 61 63 69 75 62

Conduct of law enforcementa 46 47 43 39 37 31 24 39

Total 99 98 97 100 100 100 99 101

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: The table does not include time reported for facility group home (CRIPA); jail/prison (RLUIPA 

matters); and clinic (FACE) matters where hours were less than .05 percent. The table also does not 

include the category “other,” for which the facility type was not identified and the combination of hours 

was less than 1 percent in any fiscal year. Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number.

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

Hours that provided the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. 

a

The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies includes one facility type in ICM––

law enforcement agency. Therefore, the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of 

law enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility type law enforcement 

agency. 

As shown in table 36, of the total reported time spent on cases for the 7-

year period, the Section spent the greatest percentage of time (81 percent) 

on cases involving institutional conditions. In addition, the Section spent 

17 percent of the time on cases involving the conduct of law enforcement 

agencies.158 However, the percentage of time spent on each of these two 

areas of responsibility varied during the time period. 

 

158 The aggregate time data included time reported spent for cases on which the Special 

Litigation Section staff worked from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007, including 

cases in which the Section filed complaints during the period, cases in which the Section 

was a defendant or defendant intervener, and cases that remained open during the 7-year 

period. (App. V includes additional information on these cases.) 

Page 103 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

Table 36: Percentage of Hours Reported for Cases by Area of Responsibility and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Area of Responsibility 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2001-2007

Total

Institutional conditions 58 72 83 84 90 88 92 81

Conduct of law enforcement agenciesb 40 26 15 15 10 9 7 17

Access to reproductive health 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1

Immigration Appeals 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1

Totala98 99 100 99 100 100 101 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Note: Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including 

section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any 

staff unique to a section. 

a

Total percentages may be less than 100 percent due to exclusion of the facility type mental 

retardation and mental health where hours were less than .05 percent or rounding. 

b

The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies includes one facility type in ICM––

law enforcement agency. Therefore, the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of 

law enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility type law enforcement 

agency. 

The percentage of time spent on cases involving institutional conditions 

increased to over 90 percent in fiscal year 2007. Section officials explained 

that in that year, the Section had been involved in contested litigation 

related to juvenile justice practices in two states and in regular contempt 

proceedings in another case, which accounted for 44 (of 92) percent of the 

time spent that year on cases involving institutional conditions. In 

contrast, the Section reported spending a larger percentage of time on 

cases involving the conduct of law enforcement in fiscal years 2001(40 

percent) and 2002 (26 percent). According to Section officials, during 

these 2 years the Section was engaged in highly contested litigation that 

involved racial profiling claims and required intensive document analysis. 

They explained that since this was the first contested police department 

litigation under the Section’s police misconduct authority, each issue that 

arose presented an issue of law that had not previously been decided by 

any court. Consequently, this case required significant attorney time, thus 

explaining the high percentage of time spent on police conduct cases for 

those 2 years. Appendix V provides additional information on time 

reported spent on matters and cases. 

Page 104 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
 

We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and 

comment. DOJ provided technical comments, which we incorporated into 

the report as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date of this 

report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested 

congressional committees and the Attorney General, and other interested 

parties. In addition, this report will be available at no cost on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777, or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Other GAO contacts and key contributors to this 

Eileen Regen Larence 

report are listed in appendix VI. 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 

Page 105 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 106 GAO-10-75 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To describe the enforcement efforts of the Civil Rights Division’s 

Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and 

Special Litigation sections from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, this report 

discusses the activities that the four sections undertook to implement their 

respective enforcement responsibilities during the 7-year period. 

To determine the types of activities undertaken, we analyzed electronic 

data for closed matters––matters that were concluded––and cases from 

the Division’s Interactive Case Management System (ICM) for each of the 

four sections.1

 We included matters initiated and closed during fiscal years 

2001 through 2007 or initiated in prior years and closed during these years. 

We included cases pursued during these 7 fiscal years. As part of this 

analysis, we took actions to assess the reliability of the ICM data to ensure 

that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of these objectives. 

Initially, we obtained ICM data in spreadsheet form for closed matters and 

cases for each of the four sections.2

 We electronically tested the data for 

obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, including examining the 

consistency of entries among related data fields. In addition, we manually 

reviewed matter and case data for each of the four sections, identifying 

missing values and assessing consistency across fields, to help assess the 

completeness and accuracy of the spreadsheets in order to determine 

which fields were sufficiently reliable, accurate, and complete for 

purposes of our review. Since we found the data for matters initiated prior 

to 2001 to have substantial missing values in certain fields, we focused our 

analysis on closed matters initiated from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal 

year 2007.3

 As appropriate, we asked the sections to provide additional 

information so that we could complete the entries for a field or correct 

errors for matter and case data. From July through August 2008, the 

 

1

 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 in court. 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 in court––for example, the investigation of 

a complaint or an allegation of discrimination referred by another federal agency. The 

complaint outlines the facts and legal claims for relief from damages caused, or wrongful 

conduct engaged in, by the defendant. An indictment or information is the formal charge 

made by a prosecutor to initiate a criminal proceeding against the accused. 

2

 We obtained the spreadsheets, by section, from December 2007 through March 2008. 

3

 According to the Division, case management data kept prior to 2001 were tracked in a 

number of other auxiliary systems and field formats did not conform to the current ICM 

database structure. 

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Division provided us with revised spreadsheets for matters and cases with 

additional information and the identified data errors corrected. 

As part of our assessment of the ICM data, we also analyzed Division 

documents that provided guidance on the actions that Division and section 

staffs were to take to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of 

ICM data. These documents included internal memoranda from Division 

managers and the ICM user’s guide and data dictionary, which described 

the purpose and contents of ICM. We also interviewed Division 

Information Technology (IT) officials, who are the Division officials 

responsible for managing and maintaining ICM, and section chiefs, deputy 

chiefs, and other section staff to obtain information on actions taken by 

the Division and sections to take to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and 

completeness of these data from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

To supplement our analysis of the ICM matter data and further assess the 

reliability of these data, we compared ICM data with documents (e.g., 

memoranda and correspondence) in matter files for a nongeneralizable 

sample of closed matters for each of the four sections.4

 In determining our 

samples, we randomly selected matters investigated under each of the 

statutes enforced by the respective section and took into consideration the 

government role (e.g., plaintiff or defendant) and type of subject 

investigated (e.g., the nature of the alleged discrimination or violation) to 

ensure that the sample reflected the breadth of the work and practices of 

the respective section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Once the 

matters for each section were organized into categories, we randomly 

ordered the matters for selection. We initially decided to review about 200 

matter files (about 50 for each section), which was similar to the number 

of matters reviewed in the prior GAO report on the Civil Rights Division.5

Additionally, given the audit’s time constraints and the intended purpose 

of the information—to provide anecdotal information on the sections’ 

reasons for closing matters—we concluded that reviewing this number of 

matter files would provide insight into the sections’ enforcement efforts. 

 

4

 A nongeneralizable sample may be either a nonprobability sample where observations are 

selected in a manner that is not completely random, or a probability sample where random 

sampling is used, but the sample size is too small to allow the results to be generalized to 

the broader population. 

5

 GAO, Civil Rights Division: Selection of Cases and Reasons Matters were Closed, 

GAO/GGD-00-192 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2000). 

Page 107 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Using the randomized list of matters, we selected the matter files to be 

reviewed. 

Specifically, we reviewed about 210 of 5,400 matters, including 

• 49 of about 3,300 closed matters for the Employment Litigation 

Section, 

• 60 of about 1,070 closed matters for the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section, 

• 51 of about 345 closed matters for the Voting Section, and 

• 51 of about 714 closed matters for the Special Litigation Section. 

Because our samples were not representative, we were unable to 

generalize the results to all closed matters investigated by these sections 

during the period of our review. Nevertheless, our file reviews provided 

examples of how the matter data in ICM compared to the same 

information in the matter files, how the sections investigated matters, and 

why the sections closed them.6

From our analysis of the ICM closed matter data, we determined which 

data fields were sufficiently reliable for presenting overall trends in the 

sections’ enforcement efforts from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, with 

respect to matters. However, the results of analysis for each of the four 

sections and, therefore, the fields on which we reported, varied for each 

section. For example, for the Employment Litigation Section, the subject 

field—the field that provides information on the nature of the allegation, 

e.g., hiring, recruitment, and reemployment—was incomplete in ICM for 

about 85 percent of the matters and the protected class field was 

incomplete for about 83 percent of the matters; therefore, we could not 

determine the characteristics of the majority of the matters closed from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2007.7

 In contrast, for the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section, we determined the data for these fields to be 

sufficiently accurate, reliable, and complete for our purposes. 

 

6

 The Division does not capture data in ICM or other Section-level information systems on 

the reasons why matters were closed. Therefore, we could not systematically identify the 

Sections’ reasons for closing matters, including the number of instances in which the 

Sections recommended to proceed with a case and Division management did not approve 

the Sections’ recommendation. 

7

 While ICM includes fields for collecting these data, the Division has not required sections 

to do this because, according to Division officials, when planning for ICM’s implementation 

with section officials, the Division did not consider requiring sections to provide these data. 

Page 108 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Additionally, to supplement our analysis of the ICM case data for each 

section, as well as our assessment of the reliability of these data, we 

analyzed complaints for a comparable number of cases that each section 

filed in court as plaintiff. Specifically, we analyzed all complaints filed 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by the Employment Litigation (60), 

Voting (56), and Special Litigation (31) sections. For each of the three 

sections, we compared the information in the complaints to data 

contained in ICM (e.g., the statutes under which the complaints were filed) 

to identify possible data entry errors. We provided the results of our 

analyses to officials in each of the sections and based on their respective 

responses made changes to the case data for each section, as appropriate. 

Our analysis of the cases for the three sections allowed us to report on the 

type of litigation pursued by each of these sections during the 7-year 

period. 

Given the large number (277) of complaints filed by the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section during the 7-year period, we analyzed documents for 

a nongeneralizable sample of 33 cases identified in the ICM data.8

 In 

selecting the sample of cases to review, we randomly chose cases that 

involved each of the statutes enforced by the Section, and considered 

other case characteristics, such as the fiscal year in which the case was 

filed in court. Once the cases were organized into categories, we randomly 

ordered them within each category and selected cases from each category 

for a total of 33 cases (31 plaintiff complaints and 2 amicus briefs). As with 

the other three sections, we compared the information in the sample of 

complaints to data contained in ICM (e.g., the statutes under which the 

complaints were filed) to identify possible data entry errors. Although the 

information we obtained cannot be generalized to all cases filed by the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section during the period of our review, it 

provided us with information on how the case data in ICM compared to 

the same information in the case files and examples of the types of cases 

pursued by this Section. In addition, we reviewed the complaints for all 20 

(including the 2 that had been randomly selected) cases filed that the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section derived from over 1,600 tests 

conducted as part of the Section’s Fair Housing Testing Program from 

 

8

 One of the cases the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed was as plaintiff 

intervenor against multiple defendants. When the Section entered into a consent decree 

with some of the defendants, it created an additional Department of Justice (DJ) number so 

it could track both the settlement and the remaining ongoing litigation; however, the 

Section treats this as one case, as there was one complaint. 

Page 109 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

2001 through 2007, which it established in 1991 to help enforce the FHA.9

We provided the results of our analyses of 51 cases, which included the 

randomly selected and testing cases, to agency officials. After their review, 

we made changes to the case data, as appropriate. This analysis allowed us 

to report on all of the “testing” cases as well as examples of other cases 

pursued by Housing and Civil Enforcement Section during the 7-year 

period. 

In addition to the closed matter data, we also analyzed aggregate matter 

data for matters initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by each of 

the four sections in our review. Because these data included open 

matters––ongoing investigations—the Division provided the information 

aggregated by fiscal year for selected fields, for example, statute. We 

received hard copies of this information for each section, which we then 

entered into spreadsheets. We verified our data entry, and then analyzed 

the spreadsheets. From our assessment of the accuracy and reliability of 

the closed matter data and discussions with agency officials about the 

aggregate matter data provided for each section, we were able to 

determine potential data issues and make necessary corrections in the 

aggregate matter data. For example, in the Voting Section aggregate matter 

data, we identified potential discrepancies in about 40 of the 442 matters, 

when we compared the data in the statute, subject, or protected class 

fields; for example, a protected class was paired with a statutory provision 

for which it was not relevant. We asked each section to review our 

observations and provide corrections. Changes were made to the data for 

each section, as appropriate. 

The Division also provided aggregate data for the time each of the four 

sections reported spending on matters and cases from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007. These data included the time reported spent by all section 

staff, including the section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, 

support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff unique to a section. 

Because these data included open matters––ongoing investigations—the 

Division provided the information aggregated by fiscal year for selected 

fields, for example, statute. We received hard copies of this information 

for each section, which we then entered into spreadsheets. We verified our 

data entry, and then analyzed the spreadsheets. From our assessment of 

the accuracy and reliability of the closed matter data and discussions with 

 

9

 Nineteen (17 FHA and 2 Title II) testing cases were filed by the Section and 1 FHA testing 

case was litigated by a U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

Page 110 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

agency officials about the aggregate time data provided for each section, 

we were able to determine potential data issues and make necessary 

corrections. However, although the time data system is linked to ICM, the 

information is entered into the system by the individual staff person and 

not subject to the same review process as the ICM data; therefore, the time 

data may not be precise. Accordingly, after discussions with Division 

officials about these limitations, we decided to report time information as 

percentages and generally in broad categories (e.g., time reported spent on 

cases and matters by a section). This information provided additional 

trend information and context for our analysis of the enforcement efforts 

of each of the four sections from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

On the basis of our data assessment efforts for all of the matter, case, and 

time data, we determined that the data presented in the report were 

sufficiently reliable for presenting overall trends in the sections’ 

enforcement efforts. Limitations in the data that we identified for each of 

the sections are noted in the report as needed. 

We used the ICM matter and case data in conjunction with other sources, 

including matter and case file documents, agency documents, and 

interviews with agency officials. In addition to the materials obtained from 

agency files, we also analyzed DOJ documents, such as annual reports to 

Congress, congressional hearing statements by agency officials, and 

budget documents, which described the Division’s enforcement efforts 

(including special initiatives and areas of focus) from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007. We analyzed Division documents such as internal 

memoranda from Division managers, Division reports to Congress on the 

four sections’ enforcement endeavors, transcripts of congressional 

oversight hearings, and federal budget submissions, to determine how 

Division and section officials used ICM data to report information to 

congressional committees on the four sections’ enforcement efforts.10 We 

interviewed senior officials in DOJ’s Justice Management Division, which 

is the management arm of DOJ; the Acting Assistant Attorney Generals for 

the Division;11 and officials, including section chiefs, deputy section chiefs, 

 

10 We reviewed two reports that the Division was required to submit to Congress, including 

a report on DOJ’s activities under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, which 

DOJ submits annually to Congress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997f, for each year 2001 through 

2007, and DOJ’s annual report to Congress on the administration of its functions under the 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1691f. 

11 We met with the individuals serving in the position of Acting Assistant Attorney General 

for the Division in August 2008 and March 2009. 

Page 111 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

and other staff in the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil 

Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation sections to obtain information 

on each of the four sections’ enforcement efforts during the 7-year period. 

Finally, to identify issues and gain additional perspective on the sections’ 

litigation efforts, we interviewed representatives of three 

nongovernmental civil rights organizations and five experts on the four 

civil rights areas covered in our review. We identified these individuals in 

part through our review of the transcripts from oversight hearings in 

which these individuals had testified. Although the information we 

obtained is not generalizable beyond the individuals we interviewed, these 

interviews helped enhance our analysis of the litigation efforts and other 

activities of the four sections during the period of our review. 

We conducted our work from June 2007 through October 2009 in 

accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 

were relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in 

this report. 

Page 112 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: A

Emplo

dditional Information on the

yment Litigation Section 

Page 113 GAO-10-75 

Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

The Employment Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing against 

state and local governments provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, as amended (Title VII). Title VII1

 prohibits discrimination in 

employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 

Unlawful practices may include recruitment, hiring, assignment, 

promotion, benefits, testing, firing and harassment, among others. Title VII 

also prohibits retaliation against a person for filing a charge of 

discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing 

discriminatory practices. The Employment Litigation Section initiates Title 

VII litigation in two ways—(1) under section 706 or (2) under section 707. 

Statutes Enforced by the 

Employment Litigation 

Section from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 

Title VII 

Section 7062

 allows the Attorney General to file a suit based upon an 

individual charge of discrimination that has been referred to DOJ by the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Individuals who 

believe that they were unlawfully discriminated against by an employer—

including a state or local government—may file a charge with the EEOC. 

Once a charge is filed with the EEOC, the EEOC is then obligated to 

investigate. The EEOC may either dismiss the charge if there is not 

reasonable cause to believe that it is true or, alternatively, if the EEOC 

decides that there is reasonable cause, it must attempt to eliminate the 

alleged unlawful employment practices by other methods, such as 

mediation. If after investigation the EEOC determines that a charge made 

against a state or local government has merit and efforts to obtain 

voluntary compliance are unsuccessful, the EEOC must refer it to DOJ to 

bring an enforcement action. DOJ has the authority to determine whether 

to bring such an action. If the Section decides not to initiate litigation, then 

it will issue a right-to-sue letter notifying the charging party of his or her 

right to file a private lawsuit.3

 Section 706 also grants the Attorney General 

 

1

 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 

2

 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. 

3

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

private lawsuit. 

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

the authority to intervene in private cases against a public employer that 

are of general public importance. 

Under section 707 of Title VII,4

 the Attorney General has authority to bring 

lawsuits against state and local governments where there is reason to 

believe that there has been a pattern or practice of employment 

discrimination. Pattern or practice cases seek to alter employment and 

selection practices—such as recruitment, hiring, assignment, tests, and 

promotions—which have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the 

basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Employers are liable 

for employment practices that are intentionally discriminatory, as well as 

those that have the effect of being discriminatory, for instance, a physical 

fitness test that eliminates more female than male candidates. The 

Employment Litigation Section has discretion to initiate these cases. Its 

authority is not dependent upon a referral from the EEOC. 

The Employment Litigation Section also enforces the provisions of the 

Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(USERRA),5

 which prohibit employers from discriminating or retaliating 

against an employee or applicant for employment on the basis of that 

person’s military service. Servicemembers who meet certain conditions in 

USERRA are entitled to reemployment rights and benefits including, for 

example, prompt reinstatement to the positions they would have held if 

they had never left their employment, health coverage for designated 

periods, and training, as needed, to requalify for their jobs. The 

Department of Labor (DOL) investigates USERRA complaints, makes a 

determination as to whether the complaint has merit, and attempts to 

resolve voluntarily those complaints that are deemed meritorious. If DOL 

is unable to resolve a complaint, at the request of the servicemember, DOL 

will refer the complaint to DOJ. According to Employment Litigation 

Section officials, most USERRA matters are resolved by DOL. The 

Employment Litigation Section reviews DOL’s investigative file 

accompanying the complaint and makes a determination as to whether the 

complainant is entitled to the rights or benefits. After making such a 

determination, the Section has the authority to bring a case on behalf of 

the claimant. At the end of fiscal year 2004, the Attorney General 

transferred responsibility for the enforcement of USERRA to the Civil 

Rights Division from the Civil Division. The Assistant Attorney General for 

USERRA 

 

4

 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. 

5

 38 U.S.C. § 4301-35. 

Page 114 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

Civil Rights delegated USERRA enforcement authority to the Employment 

Litigation Section. 

Right-to-Sue Letters Most of the more than 3,200 matters (about 90 percent) that the 

Employment Litigation Section initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 

2007 resulted from section 706 referrals, referred to as charge referrals, 

from the EEOC. The Section considers all EEOC charge referrals as 

matters even if an investigation is not opened. However, the Section does 

not consider requests for right-to-sue letters as matters. While a charging 

party is required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, 

according to a Section Deputy Chief, some charging parties may prefer to 

initiate litigation on their own. In such instances, the charging parties will 

request that DOJ provide a right-to-sue letter as a precondition to filing a 

Title VII claim in federal court. According to a Section Deputy Chief, the 

Section honors such requests and, as shown in table 37, issued 14,608 such 

letters from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Table 37: Number of Right-to-Sue Letters Issued by the Employment Litigation 

Section 

Fiscal year

Number of right-to-sue letters issued

(charging party requested right to sue letter)

2001 2,796

2002 2,441

2003 2,125

2004 1,989

2005 1,765

2006 1,643

2007 1,849

Total 14,608

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Page 115 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

Pattern or practice cases seek to alter employment and selection 

practices—such as recruitment, hiring, assignment, tests, and 

promotions—that have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis 

of race, sex, religion, or national origin.6

 According to Section officials, 

pattern or practice cases, which are complex and resource-intensive, have 

consistently been a priority of the Section because they have the greatest 

impact on remedying discrimination practices. The Section filed 11 pattern 

or practice cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. As described in 

table 38, most of these cases involved claims of discrimination in hiring 

and the most common protected class was race. 

Pattern or Practice Cases 

from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 

Table 38: Summary of Section 707 Cases Filed from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 

Date filed Name of case Summary of case 

January 10, 2001 U.S. v. the State of Delaware; the Delaware 

Department of Public Safety; and the 

Delaware Division of State Police 

The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Delaware 

Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police used 

written examinations for the entry-level trooper positions that 

have disproportionately excluded African Americans from 

employment, but have not been shown to be job related and 

consistent with business necessity, as required by federal 

law. 

January 8, 2004 U.S. v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of Erie, 

Pennsylvania, pursued practices that discriminated against 

women and deprived or tended to deprive women of 

employment opportunities because of their sex. According to 

the lawsuit, the city of Erie implemented these policies and 

practices by, among other ways, failing or refusing to hire 

women for the entry-level position of police officer on the 

same basis as men, and using selection procedures and 

physical agility standards for entry-level positions of police 

officer that have an adverse impact on women, and that are 

not job-related. 

September 16, 2004 U.S. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transit Authority 

The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Los Angeles 

County Metropolitan Transit Authority pursued policies and 

practices that discriminated against employees and 

applicants for employment on the basis of religion by, among 

other ways, failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate 

employees and applicants for employment who, in 

accordance with their religious observances, practices, or 

beliefs, needed religious accommodation because they are 

unable to comply with the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s 

requirement that employees in the Operations Division be 

available to work weekends, on any shift, at any location. 

 

6

 Employers are liable for employment practices that are intentionally discriminatory, as 

well as those that have the effect of being discriminatory, for instance, a physical fitness 

test that eliminates more female than male candidates. 

Page 116 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

September 29, 2004 U.S. v. City of Gallup The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of Gallup, 

New Mexico, implemented discriminatory recruitment and 

hiring procedures by, among other ways, failing or refusing to 

recruit and hire American Indians on the same basis as 

whites and Hispanics. 

September 30, 2004 U.S. v. New York Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority, and the New York 

City Transit Authority 

The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the New York 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the New York City 

Transit Authority selectively enforced uniform policies to 

target Muslim and Sikh employees whose religious beliefs 

and practices require that they wear head coverings. 

July 26, 2005 U.S. v. City of Pontiac, Michigan and Local 

#376 Fire Fighters Union, International 

Association of Fire Fighters 

The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of Pontiac, 

through the Pontiac Fire Department, has pursued policies 

and practices that discriminate against non-minority 

applicants for employment and employees based on race and 

sex by explicitly creating and maintaining a dual system for 

hire and promotion requiring that one of every three hires or 

promotions be given to a minority, which includes women. 

August 26, 2005 U.S. v. State of Ohio, et. al. The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the state of Ohio, 

among others, pursued policies and practices that 

discriminated against employees on the basis of religion by 

failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate the religious 

observances, practices, and beliefs of those state employees 

who hold religious objections to associating with and 

financially supporting employee organizations, but who are 

not members of religions that historically have held 

conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting 

organizations. The lawsuit further alleged that the state of 

Ohio, among others, subjected state employees to disparate 

treatment on the basis of religion by allowing employees who 

are members of religions that historically have held 

conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting 

employee organizations to redirect their fair share fees to 

nonreligious charities, but denying the same accommodation 

to employees who are not members of such religions, even if 

they hold religious objections to associating with and 

financially supporting employee organizations. 

Page 117 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

February 8, 2006 U.S. v. The Board of Trustees of Southern 

Illinois University 

The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the Board of Trustees 

of Southern Illinois University maintained programs open only 

to undergraduate, prospective graduate and doctoral students 

who were either of a specified race and/or national origin or 

who are female. Specifically, the Proactive Recruitment of 

Multicultural Professionals for Tomorrow (PROMPT) 

fellowship had been open only to members of “traditional 

underrepresented groups,” including African Americans, 

Latino/Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and Native 

Americans. Of the approximately 78 fellowship recipients 

from 2000 to the time the lawsuit was filed, none of the 

recipients were white or a member of a minority group other 

than one of the PROMPT-specified minority groups. The 

Bridge to the Doctorate fellowship had been open only to 

members of “underrepresented minority groups,” including 

Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, Alaskan 

Natives, and Pacific Islanders. Of the approximately 27 

Bridge fellowship recipients during the 2 years it had been in 

effect, none were white or a member of a minority group other 

than one of the specified minority groups. Additionally, the 

Graduate Dean’s fellowship had been open to women and 

“traditionally underrepresented students” who had overcome 

social, cultural, or economic conditions that adversely 

affected their educational process, including African 

Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and 

Native Americans. Of the 27 Graduate Dean fellowship 

recipients, none were white males. 

April 3, 2006 U.S. v. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of Virginia 

Beach pursued policies and practices that discriminated 

against African American and Hispanic applicants and that 

deprived or tended to deprive African Americans and 

Hispanics of employment opportunities because of their race 

and national origin, by, among other ways, failing or refusing 

to hire African American and Hispanic applicants for the 

position of entry-level police officer on the same basis as 

white applicants; and by using a mathematics test (National 

Police Officer Selection Test) with a cutoff score of 70 percent 

as a pass/fail screening device that had an adverse impact on 

African American and Hispanic applicants for the position of 

entry-level officer and that was not job related for the position 

consistent with business necessity. 

July 24, 2006 U.S. v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of 

Chesapeake’s use of the National Police Officer Selection 

Test had an adverse impact on African American and 

Hispanic applicants for the position of entry-level police 

officer, and was not job related for the position consistent with 

business necessity. 

Page 118 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

May 21, 2007 U.S. v. City of New York The Section filed a lawsuit alleging that the city of New York 

pursued policies and practices that discriminated against 

African Americans and Hispanics and deprived these groups 

of individuals of employment opportunities because of their 

race and/or national origin by, among other ways, (1) failing 

or refusing to appoint, through its open competitive 

examination process, African Americans and Hispanics to the 

rank of entry-level firefighter on the same basis as whites; 

and (2) using written examinations that resulted in disparate 

impact upon African Americans and Hispanics and were not 

job related or consistent with business necessity. 

Source: GAO analysis of section 707 complaints filed by the Section from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Additional Information on 

Cases in Which the 

Employment Litigation 

Section Participated from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

In addition to its work representing plaintiffs in employment 

discrimination cases, the Employment Litigation Section participated in 

lawsuits in several other ways, including as (1) an amicus curiae, or 

“friend of the court,” in which the Section filed a brief in an action in 

which it was not a party because the Division had a strong interest in the 

subject matter; (2) a plaintiff or defendant intervenor, in which the Section 

intervened as a party in a case—either on the side of the plaintiff or the 

defendant—because the constitutionality of a federal statute had been 

questioned or it had another interest in the outcome of the case; and (3) a 

defendant, in which the Section represented the United States in lawsuits 

brought by plaintiffs against federal agencies challenging the enforcement 

of federal laws. From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section 

participated in 18 cases as a plaintiff intervenor, amicus curiae, or 

defendant. Specifically, the Section intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs in 

11 cases during the seven year period. Three of these cases were related 

and alleged that the District of Columbia government discriminated 

against three pregnant females on the basis of sex in violation of section 

706 of Title VII. 

The Section participated in one case as amicus curiae during the 7-year 

period. In this case, which was filed in court on February 24, 2004, the 

Section appeared as amicus in support of the Salvation Army and state and 

local government defendants. Plaintiffs, current and former employees of 

the Salvation Army, brought an action seeking relief from the Salvation 

Army’s efforts to enforce compliance with its religious mission among its 

staff; plaintiffs claimed to have been subjected to unlawful religious 

discrimination and brought suit against the Salvation Army, as well as 

against the City of New York and the commissioners of several state and 

local government entities that contracted with the Salvation Army for the 

provision of social services. The brief filed on behalf of the United States 

as amicus noted concern with the plaintiffs’ claims that the Salvation 

Page 119 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

Army’s social service contracts with the state and local government 

defendants had turned it into a state actor, therefore subjecting its 

employment policies and practices to challenge as violating the federal 

Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as the claim that the 

Salvation Army’s employment practices, in light of these contracts, created 

an Establishment Clause violation. As of September 21, 2009, the case was 

still pending. 

During the 7-year period of our review, the Employment Litigation Section 

participated in six cases as defendant. For example, in Colwell v. United 

States Department of Health and Human Services, the Section 

represented the Department of Health and Human Services in a suit where 

the plaintiffs had challenged guidance issued by that agency that would 

have required medical service providers and others to provide translation 

services to limited English proficient persons in order to implement the 

nondiscrimination principle of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.7

 The 

plaintiffs asserted that the guidance exceeded that agency’s authority and 

the agency had violated other federal and constitutional law. In 

ProEnglish, et al. v. George W. Bush, et al., the Section defended an 

action brought by plaintiffs’ against federal defendants, including the 

Department of Heath and Human Services. The plaintiffs challenged 

Executive Order 13,166, which directed federal agencies, after consulting 

with appropriate program and activity stakeholders, to develop guidance 

that will help ensure that persons with limited English proficiency have 

meaningful access to federally funded services, as well as other related 

agency policy guidance documents. 

The Section was also involved in 116 cases from fiscal years 2001 through 

2007 that were filed prior to fiscal year 2001. These 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 order. More than half (67 of 116) of these cases 

involved pattern or practice claims under section 707. According to 

Section officials, these cases typically result in consent orders that Section 

staff monitor over many years, as specified in the orders. On the basis of 

 

7

 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “[n]o person in the United States shall, 

on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity 

receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Title VI requires each federal 

grant agency to implement this principle of nondiscrimination “by issuing rules, 

regulations, or orders of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. 

Page 120 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

the Division’s ICM data, the Section monitored compliance for 39 of the 

section 707 (pattern or practice) plaintiff cases that were closed at some 

point during the 7-year period for, on average, about 15 years.8

 According 

to Section officials, as of October 2, 2009, the Section was continuing to 

monitor compliance in an additional 23 section 707 plaintiff cases. The 

Section had been monitoring compliance with these cases for, on average, 

about 28 years. About 22 percent (26) of the 116 cases involved section 706 

claims. According to the Division’s ICM data, the Section monitored 

compliance with the 24 section 706 plaintiff cases for, on average, about 4 

years. As shown in table 39, 22 of the remaining 23 cases were defensive 

cases. 

Table 39: Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 2001 That Were Still Open from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 

Statute Section’s role 

Number of

cases filed 

Plaintiff 63

Defendant intervenor 2

Defendant 1

Section 707 

Amicus 1

Total section 707a67

Plaintiff 24

Plaintiff intervenor 1

Section 706 

Amicus 1

Total section 706 26

Small Business Act Small Disadvantaged 

Business Goalsb

Defendant 7

Executive Order 11246 Defendant 4

Plaintiff 1

Total Executive Order 11246 5

Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century Defendant 4 a

Defendant Intervenor 1

Total Transportation Equity Act for 21st

Century 

5

Department of Defense Price Preference 

Programc

Defendant 2

 

8

 There was 1 section 707 plaintiff case for which the Section did not monitor compliance 

because the Section did not obtain a favorable outcome in that case. 

Page 121 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

Statute Section’s role 

Number of

cases filed 

False Statements Defendant 1

Small Business Act 8(a) Program Defendant 1

Fourteenth Amendment and Department 

of Defense Appropriations Act of 2000 

Defendant 1

Environmental Protection Act Defendant 1

Source: Civil Rights Division ICM data. 

a

Includes cases in combination with section 707—section 706, Crime Control Act, 14th Amendment, 

Revenue Sharing Act, and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2000. 

b

Includes one case in combination with Executive Order 11246. The Section has authority to 

prosecute enforcement actions upon referral by the Department of Labor of complaints arising under 

Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination in employment by federal contractors. 

c

Includes one case in combination with Small Business Act 8(a) Program. Under the Department of 

Defense Price Preference Program, minority firms, including female-owned firms, are given price 

preferences in competing for federal contracts. 

Time Spent on Matters, 

Cases, and Other Activities 

from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 

The Division’s time data show that from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 

about 20 percent of the Employment Litigation Section’s professional 

staff’s time was charged to matters,9

 47 percent to cases, and 33 percent to 

other activities, such as professional development and outreach.10 Of the 

total time charged to matters, about 65 percent of the time was charged to 

the section 706 matters, which comprised about 90 percent of the section’s 

matter workload over the seven year period. 

As shown in table 40, the percentage of time charged each year to matters 

involving sections 706 and 707 claims fluctuated over the 7-year period, 

whereas time charged to USERRA matters from fiscal years 2005 through 

2007 was relatively constant. 

 

9

 The time data include time Section staff spent working on cases that were filed in court 

prior to fiscal year 2001, but were still ongoing (e.g., monitoring compliance with consent 

orders) at some point during fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

10 Nearly 50 percent of the total time charged to other activities was charged to 

administrative matters during the period of our review. According to Section officials, the 

Section Chief, all six Deputy Chiefs, program analysts, and administrative staff all charge 

time to administrative matters, including time spent reviewing EEOC charge referrals and 

other information related to matters and cases. 

Page 122 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

Table 40: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation Section Matters by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

Statute FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Percentage 

of total 

time 

charged 

over the 7-

year period

Section 706 70 76 82 62 55 60 41 65

Section 707 26 19 15 38 25 16 20 23

USERRA n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 23 23 8

Othera4 5 3 .3 .2 1 16 4

Source: Division ICM time data. 

Notes: n/a—not applicable. 

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

a

Other primarily includes time charged to various Section initiatives, such as the Section’s ongoing 

initiative to target employers that may be engaged in a pattern or practice of employment 

discrimination, and the Section’s technical assistance to other DOJ components and other federal 

executive agencies with respect to the use of employment selection practices and devices in terms of 

compliance with Title VII. 

As shown in table 41, more than 50 percent of the total time charged to 

cases each year was charged to pattern or practice (section 707) cases; 

and of the total time charged to cases over the 7-year period, about 63 

percent of the time was charged to these cases. Section officials stated 

that pattern or practice cases are resource-intensive because they are 

complex and typically involve multiple complainants. 

Page 123 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

Table 41: Percentage of Time Charged to Employment Litigation Section Cases by Statute from Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

Statute FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Percentage 

of total 

time 

charged 

over the

7-year 

period 

706 24 26 14 22 15 13 21 19

707 51 60 71 67 72 61 61 63

USERRA 9 16 15 6

Transportation Equity Act of 

the 21st Century 15 4 6 4 0.4 0.6 0 4

Department of Defense 

Price Preference Program 0.6 3 4 4 3 4 2 3

Immigration and Nationality 

Acta

0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1

Other 8 7 5 3 1 .03 .08 4

Source: Division ICM data. 

Note:Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

a

During fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Section assisted DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation in 

handling Immigration and Nationality Act appeals. 

According to the time data, in fiscal year 2001, about 27 percent of the time 

spent on cases was devoted to cases in which the Section acted as 

defendant. The Section 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.11 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. 

According to the fiscal year 2001 budget submission, the demands placed 

 

11 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 governmental 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’s broad authority to 

enforce equal protection guarantees. 

Page 124 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

upon the Section by defensive litigation had resulted in personnel being 

diverted from investigating and litigating affirmative Title VII cases, which 

resulted in less effective enforcement of Title VII. The amount of time 

devoted to defensive cases, as reported in ICM, declined to about 13 

percent in fiscal year 2002, and generally declined slightly each following 

year to about 2 percent in fiscal year 2007. According to a Section Deputy 

Chief, the Section was involved in many defensive cases following the 

Adarand decision in 1995. However, the Section has not participated in any 

new defensive cases in recent years. Our review of complaints filed by the 

Division from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 identified that the 

Employment Litigation Section had not participated in any new defensive 

cases from fiscal years 2005 through 2007. 

Staff and Attrition Levels As shown in table 42, for the 7-year period in our review, the Section had 

its highest level of staff (61) in fiscal year 2001.12 

Table 42: Number of On-board Staff for the Employment Litigation Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Attorney 37 36 34 36 34 39 35

Professional 17 17 17 15 10 12 13

Clerical 7 6 7 7 5 7 5

Total 61 59 58 58 49 58 53

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

Note:Staff on-board reflects official numbers as of the last day of each fiscal year. 

The turnover rates among Section staff varied by position and fiscal year, 

as shown in table 43. In fiscal year 2005, the Division granted voluntary 

early retirement authority along with a voluntary separation incentive 

payment of $25,000. According to Division officials, the buyout offered in 

2005 resulted in an increased turnover rate among Section staff. 

 

12 Table 1 on page 11 of this report provides information on available permanent positions 

and salaries and expenses for the Employment Litigation Section from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007. 

Page 125 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix II: Additional Information on the 

Employment Litigation Section 

Table 43: Percentage of Attrition for the Employment Litigation Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Attorney 20 8 23 35 22 9 21

Professional 0 12 0 12 40 20 8

Clerical 29 14 0 0 29 20 29

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

Notes: The Section’s turnover rates include employees who have separated from the Division (i.e., 

resignation, transfer to another federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 

section within the Division. 

Numbers have been rounded to nearest whole number. 

Page 126 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additiona

Hous

l Information on the 

ing and Civil Enforcement Section 

Page 127 GAO-10-75 

Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section is responsible for enforcing 

federal civil rights statutes related to discrimination in housing, credit 

transactions, land use, and in certain places of public accommodation, as 

well as enforcing certain federal protections for active duty 

servicemembers. Statutes enforced by the Housing and Civil Enforcement 

Section include the Fair Housing Act, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the land use provisions of the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

The Fair Housing Act (FHA)1

 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability in all 

types of housing transactions. The FHA applies to direct providers of 

housing, such as landlords and real estate companies, as well as other 

entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions, and 

homeowners’ insurance companies. Unlawful discriminatory housing 

practices include, among others, refusing to sell, rent or finance housing; 

discriminating in the terms or conditions of a sale or rental; publishing 

notices or advertisements that indicate any preference, limitation or 

discrimination; falsely representing that a dwelling is not available; 

inducing or attempting to induce any person to sell or rent by making 

representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the 

neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, 

sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin; and discriminatory zoning 

or land use regulations. In addition, the FHA makes it unlawful to 

discriminate on the basis of handicap by refusing to allow reasonable 

modifications to housing premises or to make reasonable 

accommodations to rules, policies, practices, and services. The statute 

also requires that multifamily dwellings be constructed in ways that are 

accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. 

Statutes Enforced by the 

Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

Fair Housing Act 

The Section is involved in the enforcement of the FHA through a variety of 

mechanisms. The FHA allows DOJ to bring suit where there is reason to 

believe that a person or entity has engaged in a pattern or practice of 

discrimination, or where a denial of rights to a group of persons raises an 

issue of general public importance. DOJ may sue for preventive relief, 

monetary damages to the aggrieved persons, and civil penalties. The 

Section may also be involved in individual claims of discrimination. 

Individuals who believe they have been injured by a discriminatory 

 

1

 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et. seq.

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

housing practice may file complaints with the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), which is to investigate each complaint. If the 

complaint cannot be conciliated, HUD is required to determine whether 

reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice 

has occurred. If HUD determines that reasonable cause exists, it must 

issue a charge of discrimination; otherwise, the complaint is dismissed. An 

administrative hearing on the charge will be held, unless either the 

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

Where either party has made such an election, DOJ is required to bring a 

civil lawsuit on behalf of the aggrieved person in federal district court; 

these are known as “election” cases. 

In addition to pattern or practice cases and election cases, the Section is 

involved in cases under the FHA in several other ways. The FHA requires 

HUD to refer any matter involving a state or local zoning or land use law 

or ordinance to DOJ, rather than issuing a charge of discrimination, as 

well as to refer matters that may be the basis of a pattern or practice case. 

Additionally, DOJ may bring an action to enforce a HUD order or a breach 

of a conciliation agreement, upon referral by HUD, and may bring suit to 

enforce a subpoena on behalf of HUD. The statute also requires DOJ to 

bring suit for relief pending the final disposition of a complaint that has 

been filed with HUD, where the Secretary of HUD determines that prompt 

judicial action is necessary. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 3613(e) states that the 

Attorney General “may intervene” when the Attorney General “certifies 

that the case is of general public importance.” 

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)2

 prohibits creditors from 

discriminating against applicants in any aspect of a credit transaction on 

the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, 

because all or part of the applicant’s income derives from any public 

assistance program, or because the applicant has in good faith exercised 

any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.3

 Compliance with the 

requirements of ECOA is enforced by federal bank regulatory agencies—

such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal 

Reserve Board—which have authority over certain types of lenders and 

creditors. Where the agency has been unable to obtain compliance with 

ECOA’s nondiscrimination requirement, ECOA authorizes the agency to 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

 

2

 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. 

3

 Pub. L. No. 90-321, 82 Stat. 146 (1968) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 

U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C.). 

Page 128 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

refer the matter to DOJ with a recommendation that a civil action be filed. 

Additionally, the bank regulatory agencies with enforcement authority 

under ECOA are required to refer matters to DOJ where the agency has 

reason to believe that one or more creditors has engaged in a 

discriminatory pattern or practice of discouraging or denying applications 

for credit in violation of ECOA. In turn, DOJ, through its Housing Civil 

Enforcement Section, may bring a civil action for relief—including actual 

and punitive damages—when a matter has been referred. DOJ may also 

bring suit whenever there is reason to believe that one or more creditors 

are engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination in violation 

of ECOA. 

The Section may also bring suit to enforce Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964,4

 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 

or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as 

motels, restaurants, or movie theaters. DOJ may bring suit where there is 

reasonable cause to believe that a pattern or practice of discrimination 

exists and may obtain injunctive—but not monetary—relief. 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 

The Section is also responsible for enforcing the land use provisions of the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).5

 RLUIPA 

prohibits state and local governments from unjustifiably imposing a 

substantial burden on religious exercise or imposing land use regulations 

that (1) discriminate against a religious assembly or institution by treating 

them on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution; 

(2) discriminate on the basis of religion or religious denomination; 

(3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) 

unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a 

jurisdiction. DOJ is authorized to bring a suit for injunctive or declaratory 

relief to enforce the provisions of RLUIPA. The Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section received jurisdiction to enforce land use provisions 

of RLUIPA in 2001. 

Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)6

 provides protections for 

members of the military as they enter active duty. It covers issues such as 

rental agreements, security deposits, eviction, installment contracts, credit 

The Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act 

 

4

 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to a-6. 

5

 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 

6

 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501–96. 

Page 129 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

card interest rates, mortgage foreclosure, civil judicial and administrative 

proceedings, motor vehicle leases, life insurance, health insurance, and 

income tax payments. SCRA complaints are forwarded to DOJ by a 

military legal assistance office when the office cannot resolve the 

complaint; the Section may then bring suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, 

which allows DOJ to attend to the interests of the United States in any 

pending suit.7

 In 2006, the Attorney General transferred authority for 

enforcing the SCRA to the Civil Rights Division; the Assistant Attorney 

General, in turn, delegated that responsibility to the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section. 

The Section Initiated 

Matters under Other 

Statutes in Addition to the 

FHA, ECOA, and RLUIPA 

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section initiated matters pursuant to 

Titles III and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, and the SCRA. From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, no 

cases were filed under any of these provisions, except section 504, under 

which one case was filed in conjunction with the FHA.8

 The Section 

initiated 13 matters under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 

prohibits discrimination in public facilities based on race, color, religion, 

or national origin. According to data maintained by the Section, these 

matters involved discrimination based on national origin (Hispanic or 

Latino), race (black or African American), and religion (Muslim, Sikh, or 

other), or were not specified, and related to land use/zoning/local 

government, rentals, public accommodations, or other housing or nonhousing subjects. 

The Section initiated eight matters under the SCRA, on behalf of members 

of the military, which involved lending or rental issues. The Section also 

initiated five section 504 matters, 9

 which prohibits programs or activities 

receiving federal assistance from discriminating against individuals on the 

 

7

 A bill is pending in Congress that would give the Attorney General explicit authority to 

bring actions under the SCRA. See Servicemembers’ Rights Protection Act, H.R. 2696, 111th 

Cong. (2009). 

8

 The Section was assigned responsibility for the SCRA in 2006 and, according to Section 

officials, it took some time before the Section began receiving allegations of violations. 

Officials reported that they were able to resolve several SCRA matters without filing 

complaints by obtaining repayment for servicemembers from potential defendants. 

Officials reported that their first case involving the SCRA was filed in December 2008 and, 

as such, is outside the time period of our review; they also noted that they expect data from 

fiscal year 2009 to show an increase in matters and cases under the SCRA. 

9

 One of these matters also involved Title VI. 

Page 130 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

basis of disability.10 All of these matters involved discrimination on the 

basis of disability and the subject of other housing subject matter, which 

the Section uses to signify issues that relate to a housing complaint, but do 

not involve being denied housing, such as denial of utilities or repairs. 

Section officials explained section 504 matters are rare and are referred to 

the Section from HUD. The Section initiated four matters under Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964,11 which prohibits discrimination on the basis 

of race, color, and national original in programs and activities receiving 

federal financial assistance.12 Primary responsibility for prompt and 

vigorous enforcement of Title VI rests with the head of each department 

and agency administering programs of federal financial assistance and 

such cases require a referral to the Section from HUD. The matters 

initiated under Title VI involved discrimination based on disability, 

national origin (Hispanic or Latino), and race (black or African American), 

in land use/zoning/local government or other housing or non-housing 

subject matters. The Section initiated one matter involving the criminal 

interference with housing rights,13 which related to discrimination based 

on race (black or African American) and harassment issues. Section 

officials explained that such cases may be referred from the Criminal 

Section of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ. 

Time Spent on Matters, 

Cases, and Other Activities 

from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 

During fiscal years 2001 through 2007, about 48 percent of the total time 

that Housing and Civil Enforcement Section staff charged to cases, 

matters, and other activities was spent on cases, about 17 percent on 

matters, and about 34 percent on other activities such as outreach and 

professional development. As shown in table 44, of the time charged to 

matters during the 7-year period, the Section charged about 70 percent of 

its time to matters initiated under the FHA. Matters involving allegations 

under ECOA or allegations under ECOA and the FHA comprised about 19 

percent of the time charged. The Section staff charged about 5 percent of 

their time to matters involving allegations under Title II and about 5 

percent to those under RLUIPA. 

 

10 29 U.S.C. § 794. 

11 One of these matters also involved section 504. 

12 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. 

13 42 U.S.C. § 3631. 

Page 131 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

Table 44: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of Time Charged to Matters by Statute for Fiscal Years 2001-

2007 

Statute 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Percent of 

total time 

charged 

over the 

7-year period 

FHA 63 74 73 69 75 68 66 70

ECOA 12 5 12 13 7 13 9 10

FHA and ECOA 19 10 2 3 3 8 12 9

Title II 3 8 4 5 8 6 2 5

RLUIPA 0 2 8 7 6 6 6 5

Total 97 99 99 97 99 101 95 99

Source: GAO analysis of Division ICM data. 

Notes: Two hours of time charged were not provided. Time does not equal 100 percent, as the 

statutes and statute combinations to which the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section devoted less 

than 1 percent of its time are not included. Those statutes and statute combinations are: SCRA, 

Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Criminal Interference with Housing Rights, the FHA 

and RLUIPA, Title VI and the FHA, Title VI and section 504, Title VI, Title III and ECOA, Title III, Title 

II and the FHA, and section 504. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section professional staff, 

including section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, legal support staff, legal assistants, and 

law clerks, and any staff unique to a section. 

In September 2009, Section officials stated that while the current time data for the 7-year period are 

different from the data we obtained in September 2008 and reported in this table in part due to 

revisions to the data, they agreed that Section staff spent most of their time on the FHA matters, 

followed by ECOA, and then RLUIPA or Title II, depending on the year. 

The Section spent at least three-quarters of all time spent on cases on 

pattern or practice cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Fourteen 

percent of the Section’s time was spent on election cases that had an 

additional allegation of pattern or practice. Table 45 shows the 

percentages of case related time charged by Section staff by case type. 

Page 132 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

Table 45: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Percentage of Time Charged by Case Type for Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

Case type FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007

Percent of 

total time 

charged 

over the 

7-year 

period

Amicus Participation 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

Election Case 14 5 5 4 11 12 9 8

Enforcement 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Pattern or Practice 68 77 81 85 74 71 67 75

Pattern or Practice & Election 12 12 14 10 14 15 22 14

Othera2 3 0 0 0 3 2 1

Total 100 100 100 99 100 101 100 99

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Twelve hours were attributed to the category “not provided.” In some cases, the percentage 

was less than .05 percent. For example, 1 percent of hours charged in 2005 were charged to 

Enforcement; however, overall for the 7-year period, less than 1 percent of total time was charged to 

Enforcement. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section professional staff, 

including the section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, legal support staff, legal assistants, 

law clerks, and any staff unique to the section. 

Other includes the following case types and case type combinations: amicus and pattern or practice; 

defend other federal agency; enforcement and pattern or practice; Immigration and Nationality Act 

appeals; and prompt judicial action. 

Reasons the Housing and 

Civil Enforcement Section 

Closed Matters 

Using ICM data, we were unable to readily determine the reasons that the 

Section closed approximately 1,070 matters from fiscal years 2001 through 

2007 because this information was not maintained in the system.14

However, on the basis of interviews with agency officials and our review 

of 60 Housing closed matter files, we determined that the Section usually 

closed matters for one or more of the following reasons: (1) a lack of 

merit; (2) no further action was warranted (e.g., because the matter was 

referred to another section, or the parties settled); (3) the referral was 

returned to the referring agency for administrative resolution (e.g., the 

accused took actions to resolve the allegations); or (4) there was 

insufficient evidence of a pattern or practice. Housing officials stated that 

although HUD election referrals are generally filed as cases, they may be 

 

14 Of the 1,070 closed matters, 211 were initiated prior to fiscal year 2001 and the remaining 

859 were initiated from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

Page 133 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

closed as matters if (1) the parties settled early in the process and DOJ did 

not sign the settlement agreement, or (2) HUD withdrew the charge. We 

reviewed the matter files of 10 closed election matters, and although we 

were not able to generalize from this sample, we found that 7 of the 10 

files confirmed these reasons for closure. For example, in one election 

matter file we reviewed, the complainant alleged discrimination based on 

disability and HUD later withdrew the complaint in light of newly 

discovered evidence. The remaining three election files reviewed were 

initiated prior to fiscal year 2001 and closed either because (1) the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section asked HUD to follow up on an 

investigation, as some of the allegations were unclear, and HUD never 

issued a new determination of reasonable cause; or (2) the investigation 

was open for over 2 years, and it was determined no further action was 

warranted. 

The Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section’s 

Work on Cases Filed Prior 

to 2001 

According to ICM data, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section filed 

137 cases as plaintiff prior to fiscal year 2001 that remained open during 

the time period of our review. Section officials explained that once a case 

has been resolved, during the term of a consent decree, the Section 

monitors the defendants’ compliance with the consent decree’s various 

provisions. The cases that remained open involved the FHA, ECOA and 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, 132 cases involved the 

FHA, 7 involved ECOA, and 3 involved Title II.15 The cases remaining open 

under the FHA involved a variety of subject matters. Most involved rental 

issues (71 of 132), followed by cases involving the Section’s testing 

program (27 of 132).16 Most of the FHA cases were election cases (58 of 

132), followed by pattern or practice cases (51 of 132).17 Other cases 

involved the Section’s enforcement of an order or decision (an order, 

consent decree, or some type of agreement issued by an administrative 

law judge to collect money owed or to perform a service/duty) or a prompt 

judicial action or enforcement matter.18 All of the ECOA and Title II cases 

were pattern or practice cases. The Section also participated in 12 cases as 

amicus curiae and 1 case as plaintiff intervenor that were filed before 

 

15 Five cases involved both ECOA and the FHA. 

16 The subject matter of two cases was not identified in ICM data. 

17 Sixteen cases involved both pattern or practice and election. 

18 Two enforcement cases were also pattern or practice cases. 

Page 134 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

fiscal year 2001. Table 46 shows the 137 cases remaining open from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007, by statute and government role. 

Table 46: Cases Remaining Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Statute 

and Government Role 

Statutes Government Role Total

ECOA Amicus 1

Plaintiff 2

ECOA Total 3

Title II Amicus 2

Plaintiff 3

Title II Total 5

Amicus 8

Plaintiff 127

FHA 

Plaintiff - Intervenor 1

FHA Total 136

FHA and ECOA Amicus 1

Plaintiff 5

FHA and ECOA Total 6

Grand Total 150

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section 

Resources from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 

According to data provided by the Division, the staff resources available to 

the Housing Section showed little fluctuation over the 7-year period. As 

shown in table 47, the total number of permanent positions available in the 

Section remained at 100 during the first 4 years and then declined to 98 in 

the last 3 years. 

Table 47: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: Historical Track of Available Resources 

(dollars in thousands) 

Fiscal year 

Resourcesa

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Permanent Positions 100 100 100 100 98 98 98

Salaries and Expenses 13,295 13,963 14,278 14,594 14,342 13,541 14,168

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

a

Salaries and Expenses. 

Page 135 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

The number of on-board staff, shown in table 48, generally decreased from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2007. However, the number of on-board 

attorneys was lowest in fiscal year 2003 (40). The Division stated that in 

fiscal year 2005 the Division had granted voluntary early retirement 

authority along with a voluntary separation incentive payment of $25,000. 

Over the 7-year period, the number of attorneys decreased from 49 to 41 

and the number of professionals in the Section remained relatively 

constant, fluctuating between 31 and 27. 

Table 48: Number of On-board Staff for Housing and Civil Enforcement Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Positiona

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Attorney 49 45 40 46 46 41 41

Professional 31 31 29 27 30 29 31

Clerical 13 13 9 12 9 8 10

Total 93 89 78 85 85 78 82

Source: Division on-board data for the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section. 

a

On-board statistics reflect the official numbers of staff at the end of the fiscal years. The Housing 

and Civil Enforcement Section keeps statistics on the average on-board numbers for each fiscal year. 

The average on-board number of attorneys and professionals is based on information contained in 

the “Staffing Pattern Report” the Section receives from Human Resources. If the Section receives 10 

reports for a fiscal year, it totals the number of on board attorneys and professionals and then divides 

each by the number of received reports ( in this case 10).The Section has been generating these 

numbers in this manner since fiscal year 2003. The Section’s statistics show the following average 

on-board attorney positions: fiscal year 2003––42; fiscal year 2004––42; fiscal year 2005––43; fiscal 

year 2006––42; and fiscal year 2007––41, and the following average on-board professional positions: 

fiscal year 2003––28; fiscal year 2004––27; fiscal year 2005––28; fiscal year 2006––29; and fiscal 

year 2007––30. 

In addition, the attrition rates for Section staff fluctuated over the 7-year 

period, as shown in table 49. The attrition rate for Section attorneys was 

highest in fiscal years 2003 and 2007, and attrition was at the lowest level 

in fiscal year 2001. 

Page 136 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix III: Additional Information on the 

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

Table 49: Percentage of Attrition for Housing and Civil Enforcement Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Position 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Attorney 5 10 24 15 13 13 27

Professional 11 29 22 14 15 28 10

Clerical 25 8 31 33 33 44 25

Source: Division attrition data. 

Notes: The Section’s attrition rates include employees who had separated from the Division (e.g., 

resignation, transfer to another federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 

section within the Division. 

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 

Page 137 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

Page 138 GAO-10-75 

Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

The Voting Section is responsible for the enforcement of federal voting 

rights statutes, including statutory provisions designed to safeguard the 

right to vote of racial and language minorities, disabled and illiterate 

persons, and overseas and military personnel. The Voting Section is also 

charged with the responsibility for enforcing federal statutes that, among 

other things, address issues such as voter registration, provisional voting, 

and voter information. 

The purpose of the Voting Rights Act (VRA),1

 as reauthorized in 2006, is to 

ensure that the right of all citizens to vote, including the right to register to 

vote and cast meaningful votes, is preserved and protected as guaranteed 

by the Constitution. The Voting Section is involved in enforcement of 

several of its provisions. 

Statutes Enforced by the 

Voting Section from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 

The Voting Rights Act 

• Section 2 

Section 2 of the VRA2

 prohibits discriminatory procedures or practices 

that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of 

race, color, or membership in a language minority group. A violation is 

proved where, based on a totality of the circumstances, political 

processes leading to nomination or election are not equally open to 

members of the protected classes, in that the members have less 

opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates 

of their choice. Prohibited practices and procedures include 

redistricting plans and at-large election systems, poll worker hiring, 

and voter registration procedures, among others, that discriminate on 

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

Section 2 prohibits not only voting practices and procedures that are 

intended to discriminate against the protected classes, but also those 

that have a discriminatory impact. Affected private citizens, as well as 

the Attorney General through the Voting Section, may bring lawsuits to 

obtain court-ordered remedies for violations of section 2. 

• Sections 203, 4(f)(4) and 4(e) 

Collectively known as the “language minority provisions” of the Voting 

Rights Act, sections 2033

 and 4(f)(4)4 are to enable members of 

 

1

 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1.

2

 42 U.S.C. § 1973. 

3

 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a. 

4

 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(4). 

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

applicable language minority groups to participate effectively in the 

electoral process. Under sections 203 and 4(f)(4), covered 

jurisdictions5

 must provide any registration or voting notices, forms, 

instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to 

the electoral process, including ballots, in the language of the 

applicable minority group, as well as in English. Where the applicable 

minority language group is Alaska Natives or American Indians, and 

the predominant language is historically unwritten, the covered 

jurisdiction is only required to provide oral instructions. Section 4(e)6

prohibits states from conditioning the right to vote on English 

language proficiency for persons educated in American-flag schools in 

which the predominant classroom language was other than English. 

The Attorney General is authorized to bring civil actions for 

appropriate relief for violations of these provisions, which is 

accomplished through the Voting Section. 

• Section 5 

Under section 5 of the act,7

 covered jurisdictions8 may not change their 

election practices or procedures until they obtain federal 

“preclearance” for the change. The act provides for either judicial or 

administrative preclearance. Under the judicial mechanism, covered 

jurisdictions may seek declaratory judgment from the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia that the change has neither 

the purpose nor the effect of discriminating against protected 

minorities in exercising their voting rights. Under the administrative 

mechanism, covered jurisdictions may seek the same determination 

 

5

 The coverage determination under section 4(f)(4) is related to the formula for 

determining coverage for the preclearance requirements of section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act. Coverage under section 203 is determined by a coverage formula contained in that 

section that takes into account factors such as the percentage of voting age citizens of a 

state or political subdivision who are members of a single language minority group and are 

limited-English proficient, as well as illiteracy rates of such citizens, among other factors. 

Section 203(b); see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.6. 

6

 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(e). 

7

 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. 

8

 The jurisdictions targeted for “coverage” are those evidencing discriminatory voting 

practices, based upon a triggering formula, as defined in section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. 

42 U.S.C. § 1973b. The Attorney General and the Director of the Census have responsibility 

for determining which jurisdictions are covered by the triggering formula, and their 

determinations are not reviewable in any court and are effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. Id.

Page 139 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

from the Attorney General. The Attorney General may deny 

preclearance by interposing an objection to the proposed change 

within 60 days of its submission. In order to terminate or “bailout” 

from the requirements of section 5, jurisdictions may seek a 

declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia that the jurisdiction meets 

certain statutory standards. To be successful, a bailout applicant must 

demonstrate, for example, that for the previous 10 years all changes 

affecting voting have been reviewed under section 5 prior to their 

implementation and that these changes were not the subject of an 

objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a section 5 

declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of 

Columbia, and that the jurisdiction has made constructive efforts to 

eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register to 

vote and vote, among several other requirements. The Attorney 

General is authorized to consent to an entry of judgment granting the 

bailout if after investigating the Attorney General concludes the 

jurisdiction has complied with all of the statute’s requirements. 

• Section 208 

Section 2089

 allows any voter who requires assistance to vote by 

reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write to be given 

assistance by a person of the voter’s choice other than the voter’s 

employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s 

union. 

• Section 11(b) 

Section 11(b)10 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits persons, whether 

acting under color of law or not, from intimidating, threatening, or 

coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce, any person 

for voting or attempting to vote. Section 11(b) further prohibits 

intimidation, threats, or coercion of those persons aiding other persons 

in voting or exercising certain powers or duties under the act. 

 

9

 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-6. 

10 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b). 

Page 140 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA),11 among other things, 

established a program to provide funds to states to replace punch card 

voting systems, established the Election Assistance Commission, and 

established minimum election administration standards for states and 

units of local government with responsibility for the administration of 

federal elections. Certain HAVA provisions relating to voting system 

standards, provisional voting and voting information requirements, and 

computerized statewide voter registration list requirements are to be 

enforced by the Attorney General. HAVA was enacted in 2002 and primary 

responsibility for its enforcement was delegated to the Voting Section. 

Help America Vote Act of 2002 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)12

requires states and territories to allow absent uniformed services voters 

and their spouses or dependents, and overseas voters to register and vote 

absentee in federal elections. Under UOCAVA, the Attorney General may 

bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to carry out the act’s 

provisions. 

Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)13 requires states14 to 

adopt certain federal voter registration procedures, including allowing 

voters to register to vote by mail, when they obtain driver’s licenses, or at 

offices that provide public assistance and services to persons with 

disabilities and other state agencies and offices. The NVRA also contains 

detailed requirements regarding state removal of names from federal 

registration rolls. The Act requires states to have a program to remove 

ineligible voters from voter rolls, but also requires that list maintenance 

programs incorporate specific safeguards, for example, they be uniform, 

non-discriminatory, in compliance with the VRA, and not be undertaken 

within 90 days of a federal election. The Attorney General is authorized to 

bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce the 

provisions of the NVRA, as are private parties. 

National Voter Registration Act 

of 1993 

 

11 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-545. 

12 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff – 1973ff-6. 

13 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg – 1973gg-10. 

14 Except for those states that have no registration requirements or that permit election-day 

registration with respect to federal elections. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-2. 

Page 141 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Section closed 345 matters. 

According to Section officials, the recommendation to close should come 

from the lead attorney and be approved by a reviewer (Section Chief or 

Deputy Section Chief). As previously discussed, through our analysis of 

ICM data we were unable to readily determine the reasons the Voting 

Section closed the 345 matters, because this information was not 

maintained in ICM. However, through interviews with Voting Section 

officials and our analysis of 50 closed matter files, we were able to 

ascertain why the Section usually closed matters. According to Section 

officials, the primary reasons the Section closed matters included: (1) no 

further action was warranted, (2) insufficient evidence to show a systemic 

problem, (3) the matter resolved itself, and (4) corrective action was taken 

by local officials. 

Reasons the Voting Section 

Closed Matters 

Among the 51 closed matters we reviewed, we identified specific reasons 

to close that fell within each of the four categories reported by Section 

officials. The specific reasons included the following examples: NVRA and 

HAVA claims were incorporated into a pending law suit; from post 

election interviews, the Section could not substantiate claims of 

intimidation; DOJ’s concerns were resolved; and the state agreed to extend 

the time to receive and count absentee ballots from overseas voters. 

However, we also identified three matters in which the documentation 

indicated that the Division had not approved the Section’s 

recommendation. In one instance, the Division denied further 

investigation on the grounds of limited resources, more pressing matters, 

and the election results were not due to ethnic background of the 

candidate; in the second, it decided not to bring suit; and in the third, it did 

not approve further contact with state authorities on this matter.15 Section 

officials further noted that section 5 enforcement matters, actions where a 

covered jurisdiction has failed to preclear a voting change with the Voting 

Section, may have remained open, in some instances for 2 to 3 years. The 

officials said that these matters may have remained open because the 

attorney was waiting for a corrective action to be taken by the jurisdiction. 

The reasons Section officials gave for closing the section 5 enforcement 

matters reviewed was that no objection to the proposed change was made. 

 

15 The first matter was on behalf of Native Americans and involved a possible violation of 

section 2 of the VRA based on a county’s use of an at-large election system; the second 

matter involved a state’s potential violation of UOCAVA; and the third matter was on behalf 

of African Americans and concerned a possible violation of section 11(b) of the VRA 

(intimidation) by state officials in the course of a voter fraud investigation. 

Page 142 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

Additional Information on 

Cases in Which the Voting 

Section Participated from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

In fiscal year 2001 the Section intervened in one case on behalf of the 

plaintiff, to defend the constitutionality of section 2. The underlying 

litigation had been ongoing since 1991 and the plaintiffs had alleged that 

the defendant city’s at-large method of electing members of the city 

council violated section 2. In response, the defendants had asserted, 

among other things, that section 2 of the VRA was unconstitutional. 

Plaintiff Intervenor Case 

The Voting Section participated in 3016 cases as defendant from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007.17 These cases involved several types of claims 

against the Attorney General and were filed by political jurisdictions 

covered under section 5 of the VRA as well as by private litigants; althoug

most cases were filed by jurisdictions (17 of

Defendant Cases 

h 

 30). 

 

The largest number of cases in which the Section served as defendant (12 

of 30) was filed by jurisdictions seeking relief under the “bailout” provision 

in section 4(a) of the VRA, which allows a political subdivision to be 

released from the preclearance requirements of section 5 if certain 

conditions are met. To bailout, a jurisdiction must seek a declaratory 

judgment18 from a three-judge District Court in Washington, D.C. It must 

show that for the previous 10 years it has not used any forbidden voting 

16 Three of these cases were related. 

17 According to data maintained by the Voting Section, there were an additional three cases 

in which the Section participated as defendant. Section officials reported that in one 

instance, a VRA case naming the United States as a defendant was closed after the court 

dismissed it for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute it. The United States was not served 

with the complaint and did not file any pleadings in the case. With respect to the second 

two cases, pro se plaintiffs had asserted challenges to HAVA and UOCAVA, but the Voting 

Section did not handle the cases. Division officials made the determination for the Civil 

Division and relevant U.S. Attorney’s Office to participate in the case. While the Section 

reviewed relevant documents, the officials reported that the amount of time spent was 

minimal. 

18 A “declaratory judgment” declares the rights of the parties or expresses the opinion of 

the court on a question of law without ordering anything to be done. 

Page 143 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

test, has not been subject to any valid objection under section 5, and has 

not been found liable for other voting rights violations. It must also show 

that it has engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and 

harassment of voters, and similar measures. The Attorney General can 

consent to entry of judgment in favor of bailout if the evidence warrants it, 

though other interested parties are allowed to intervene in the declaratory 

judgment action. Eleven of the bailout cases were brought by political 

subdivisions in Virginia; Voting Section officials reported that the United 

States consented to the declaratory judgment in each of these cases. In the 

last bailout case, a small utility district in Texas filed suit seeking to 

bailout from the VRA’s preclearance requirements. The district also argued 

that if the VRA was interpreted in a way that meant that the district was 

ineligible to bailout, then section 5 of the VRA was unconstitutional. The 

case was heard by the Supreme Court, which held that the district was 

eligible to bailout from the requirements of section 5 and did not reach the 

question of the constitutionality of section 5. 

In 5 cases, jurisdictions filed actions seeking a declaratory judgment under 

section 5 of the VRA that a change in voting had neither the purpose nor 

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

or membership in a language minority group. This is the judicial 

preclearance process—bringing an action in the District Court of the 

District of Columbia—as opposed to an administrative preclearance 

conducted by the Voting Section. All of these cases involved states seeking 

to have redistricting or reapportionment plans19 cleared by the court. For 

example, in one case, after the 2000 census, the state of Florida gained an 

additional two members in the House of Representatives and divided the 

state into different electoral districts. Because this constituted a voting 

change, Florida brought an action requesting the court to determine 

whether the congressional reapportionment plan satisfied the standard of 

section 5. After the case was filed, the Attorney General precleared the 

same plan, which the state had also submitted for administrative 

preclearance, consequently making the filed case unnecessary. In another 

case, which was litigated to the Supreme Court, the state of Georgia 

brought an action seeking to preclear its state senate redistricting plan. 

DOJ unsuccessfully argued that Georgia’s redistricting plan should not be 

precleared and that the plan’s changes to the existing boundaries of 

 

19 Redistricting and reapportionment are often used interchangeably to refer to the division 

or drawing of districts within a state; however, under the Constitution, apportionment is 

the division of congressional districts among the states according to population. 

Page 144 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

certain districts unlawfully reduced the ability of black voters to elect 

candidates of their choice. 

The remainder of the cases in which the Section acted as defendant were 

brought by private litigants (13 of 30). Four of these cases related to the 

section 5 preclearance process. In these cases, the plaintiffs brought suit 

seeking to challenge DOJ’s preclearance determination, or DOJ’s request 

for more information from a covered jurisdiction seeking preclearance. 

For example, after an invalidated primary election, the governor of South 

Carolina issued an executive order setting a special primary election, 

which the State of South Carolina then requested the Attorney General 

review under section 5 of the VRA. Voting Section officials informed the 

South Carolina officials that the Attorney General would not object to the 

proposed change to state election procedures. Subsequently, plaintiffs—27 

African American voters from South Carolina—brought suit challenging 

the Attorney General’s decision to preclear the change, which the court 

held that it could not do. 

Several cases (10 of 30) were filed by pro se plaintiffs (those acting on 

their own behalf, without legal representation) against the Attorney 

General, for which the Voting Section acted as defendant because the 

cases related to statutes the Section enforces. For example, in two cases, 

the same pro se plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of section 5 and 

in another case, a plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the Voting 

Rights Act as a whole. In another pro se case, the plaintiff alleged that DOJ 

had failed to respond to the states’ failure to implement HAVA-compliant 

voting procedures and requested that the court direct an official in the 

Voting Rights Section to take action to prevent future HAVA violations. It 

was not always clear what claims the plaintiffs were seeking to allege.20

A final case was filed by a group of individual plaintiffs and a nonprofit 

public interest organization to challenge DOJ’s actions with respect to its 

enforcement of HAVA. The plaintiffs filed an action against DOJ, along 

with Pennsylvania state and county defendants. The complaint alleged a 

number of claims against the state and county defendants relating to the 

purchase of new voting machines asserting that, among other things, the 

machines were inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The plaintiffs also 

 

20 In addition to the cases mentioned, the cases filed pro se included two cases involving 

the preclearance provisions of section 5 of the VRA, as discussed above, three related cases 

involving claims arising out of HAVA, and one case involving plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain 

party status for the Non-Affiliated Voters Party. 

Page 145 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

alleged that DOJ had treated Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs, and the county at 

issue differently than it had treated a similar matter in New York, which 

violated plaintiffs’ right to due process of law, under the Fifth Amendment. 

From fiscal year 2001 through 2007, the Voting Section filed two amicus 

briefs.21 Both of these cases involved the enforcement of the preclearance 

requirement under section 5 and the Section appeared on behalf of the 

plaintiffs. For example, in one case, the state of South Dakota, not itself 

covered by section 5, enacted a legislative redistricting plan in 2001 and 

sought to enforce that plan in Shannon and Todd counties, which were 

subject to section 5, without first obtaining the required preclearance. The 

plaintiffs alleged that the state had violated section 2 and 5 of VRA. DOJ 

filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs arguing that the state plan 

was a voting change in the covered counties subject to preclearance under 

section 5. 

Amicus Briefs Filed from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2007 

The Voting Section’s Work 

on Plaintiff Cases Filed 

Prior to 2001 

According to ICM data, the Voting Section filed 25 cases as plaintiff prior 

to fiscal year 2001 that remained open during the time period of our 

review. Complaints for these cases were filed starting in 1976 to just 

shortly before fiscal year 2001. Section officials explained that some cases 

remained open because the Section was monitoring consent decrees, and 

in other cases the Section continued to monitor elections in the 

jurisdictions to ensure continued implementation of procedures in 

accordance with the relevant statute.22 As shown in table 50, most of the 

cases (21 of 25) were filed under the VRA, and two cases were filed under 

the NVRA and UOCAVA, respectively. 

 

21 According to data maintained by the Voting Section, there were an additional six cases in 

which the Section participated as amicus. However, upon further review, Section officials 

reported that the Section did not file an amicus brief in any of the six cases. Specifically, in 

three cases, the Section appeared in court, but did not file any documents; in two cases, 

briefs were filed by the Division, not the Section, but appear in ICM because the Section 

may have reviewed the matter initially or assigned staff to analyze and/or monitor it; and, in 

one case, the Section sent a letter to the court of its willingness to participate if the court 

desired, but was never asked to participate. 

22 Section officials noted that many of the cases that the ICM data reported as being open 

during the time period were not active, so data reported may overrepresent the number of 

cases for which the Voting Section had ongoing responsibilities during the time period. 

Page 146 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

Table 50: Voting Section Plaintiff Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 2001, but Open 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Statute 

Statutes Number of cases

Voting Rights Act – 1965 21

The National Voter Registration Act 2

The Uniformed And Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act 2

Total 25

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

As shown in table 51, of the cases filed under the VRA, 15 involved section 

2 of the VRA, 6 involved section 203 of the VRA, and 1 involved both the 

enforcement of section 5 and section 2 of the VRA.23 Most (12 of 15) of the 

cases filed under section 2 of the VRA involved the subject of “at-large,” 

which refers to an at-large method of election as denying members of the 

protected class an opportunity equal to participate in the political process 

and elect representatives of their choice as other members of the 

electorate. An additional two cases filed under section 2 involved the 

subject of “other.” The Section uses the subject “other” to signify cases 

challenging practices other than a method of election, such as voting 

qualifications that deny or abridge the rights of protected groups, 

discriminatory voting registration procedures, or election-day practices 

that have a “disparate impact” (i.e., a greater impact on one group of 

voters than other groups). One case involved the subject “other dilution.” 

The Section uses the subject “other dilution” to identify cases alleging that 

the method of election or election plan—other than an at-large election 

system—denies members of the protected class an opportunity equal to 

participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice 

as other members of the electorate. 

 

23 One case involved both sections 2 and 5 of the VRA. 

Page 147 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

Table 51: Cases Filed under the Voting Rights Act Prior to Fiscal Year 2001, but 

Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Subject 

Subject Number of cases

Section 2–At Large 11

Section 2–At Large 

Section 5–Enforcement 1

Section 2–other dilution 1

Section 2–other 2

Section 203 6

Total 21

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

As shown in table 52, the (15) cases remaining open that were filed under 

section 2 of the VRA involved the protected classes of race (10)—5 on 

behalf of blacks or African Americans,24 3 on behalf of American Indians 

or Alaska Natives, and 1 on behalf of Arabs and 1 Hispanics, respectively

and language minority (5)—4 on behalf of Spanish speakers and 1 on 

behalf of Native Americans. 

—

Table 52: Cases Filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Prior to Fiscal Year 

2001, but Open from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Protected class 

Protected class Number of Cases

Race–African American 5

Race–American Indian Or Alaska Native 3

Race–Arab 1

Race–Hispanic 1

Total 10

Language Minority–Spanish 4

Language Minority–Native American 1

Total 5

Grand Total 15

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

 

24 One of these cases was in combination with section 5 of the VRA. 

Page 148 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

Most cases filed under section 20325 and that remained open during the 

period of our review involved Native Americans (5 of 6), and one case 

involved Spanish speakers. Section 203 requires covered jurisdictions to 

provide bilingual written materials and other assistance for elections (e.g., 

ballots) in the language of the applicable minority group or oral 

instructions in the case of Alaska Natives or American Indians. 

Time Spent on Matters and 

Cases from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 

The percentage time spent by the Section on matters fluctuated over the 

time period. As shown in table 53, over half of the total time spent on 

matters during the 7-year period was reported in fiscal years 2003 through 

2005. 

Table 53: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Matters from Fiscal Year 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Matters 14 8 16 20 18 14 11 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. 

Over the 7-year period, the proportion of the total time reported spent on 

cases fluctuated. As shown in table 54, the percentage of the total time 

spent on cases declined from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005, and then 

 

25 According to Voting Section officials, the reference “203” was used in ICM to designate 

cases and matters under sections 203 and 4(f)(4), as well as section 4(e) of the VRA; 

therefore, we were unable to distinguish under which of these provisions a case was filed. 

Coverage under section 203 is determined by a coverage formula contained in that section 

that takes into account factors such as the percentage of voting age citizens of a state or 

political subdivision who are members of a single language minority group and are limitedEnglish proficient, as well as illiteracy rates of such citizens, among other factors. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1973aa-1a; see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.6. The coverage determination under section 4(f)(4) is 

related to the formula for determining jurisdictions subject to the preclearance 

requirements of section 5 of the VRA, which are those evidencing discriminatory voting 

practices, based upon a triggering formula as defined in section 4 of the VRA. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1973b(f)(4); see also 28 C.F.R. § 55.5. During this time, the Section also did not have a 

separate ICM subject value for matters initiated under Section 208 on behalf of voters who 

were blind, disabled, or unable to read or write. Section officials stated that issues related 

to Section 208 would ordinarily be added to matters initiated under the minority language 

provisions. 

Page 149 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

began increasing. Thirty-eight percent of the total time spent on cases was 

reported in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

Table 54: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

All Cases 14 16 11 9 11 18 20 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. 

Of the total time spent on cases shown in table 55, the Section reported 

spending approximately 85 percent on cases in which it was the plaintiff 

and about 12 percent on cases in which it was a defendant.26 The total time 

the Section reported it spent on plaintiff cases fluctuated during the 7-year 

period with over 40 percent of the time reported in fiscal years 2006 and 

2007. 

Table 55: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Plaintiff Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007, by Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Plaintiff cases 15 14 11 8 12 21 20 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. 

The time spent on defendant cases, as shown in table 56, also fluctuated 

during the time period. Seventy percent of the total time spent on 

defendant cases during these years was reported from fiscal years 2002 

through 2004, over half of which was reported in fiscal year 2002 alone. 

 

26 The remaining 3 percent was spent on other roles including amicus, investigator, plaintiff 

intervener, or defendant intervener. 

Page 150 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

Table 56: Percentage of Time the Voting Section Spent on Defendant Cases from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 by Fiscal 

Year 

Fiscal year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total

Cases 6 36 16 18 5 5 14 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. 

Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. 

Voting Section Resources 

Available from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 

According to data provided by the Division, the staff resources available to 

the Voting Section fluctuated from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. As 

shown in table 57, the total number of permanent positions available in the 

Section was highest (105) during each of the first 4 years and then 

declined to a low of 98 in fiscal year 2007. Voting Section officials 

confirmed the fluctuations in staff, explaining that the Section has the 

largest number of positions during the periods when it is reviewing 

redistricting plans after a census. After the Section completed this work, it 

lost positions, which DOJ transferred to its Civil Division. 

Table 57: Voting Section: Historical Track of Available Resources 

Fiscal year 

Resources 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Permanent positions 105 105 105 105 102 102 98

Salaries and expenses 12,158 13,242 13,596 14,123 13,720 11,758 11,810

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Note:Salaries and Expenses, dollars in thousands. 

As shown in table 58, the number of Voting Section staff on board at the 

end of each fiscal year also fluctuated over the 7-year period. The number 

of attorneys reached its lowest levels in fiscal year 2005—the year in 

which the Division granted voluntary early retirement authority along with 

a voluntary separation incentive payment of $25,000. The number of 

professionals in the Section declined steadily, reaching a low of 20 in fiscal 

year 2007, half the number of professionals in fiscal year 2001. 

Page 151 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix IV: Voting Rights Section 

Table 58: Number of On-board Staff for Voting Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal Year 

Position 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Attorneys 41 43 39 36 33 34 38

Professionals 40 35 32 31 28 26 20

Clerical 16 16 15 16 15 14 13

Total 97 94 86 83 76 74 71

Source: Civil Rights Division. 

Note:Staff on-board reflects the official numbers as of the last day of each fiscal year. 

In addition, the attrition rates for Section staff, shown in table 59, 

fluctuated over the 7-year period. The rate for Section attorneys was 

highest in fiscal years 2005 through 2007, reaching its highest level in 2005. 

The Division noted that in fiscal year 2005, it was granted voluntary early 

retirement and voluntary separation authority, which contributed to the 

rate of attrition that year. 

Table 59: Percentage of Attrition for Voting Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Position 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005a 2006 2007

Attorney 6 7 19 15 31 27 21

Professional 5 20 20 31 13 32 35

Clerical 13 0 6 13 6 13 14

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Notes: The Section’s attrition rates include employees who had separated from the Division (i.e., 

resignation, transfer to another federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 

section within the Division. 

Numbers have been rounded to nearest whole number. 

a In fiscal year 2005, the Division granted voluntary early retirement authority along with a voluntary 

separation incentive payment of $25,000. 

Page 152 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Page 153 GAO-10-75 

Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

The Special Litigation Section was responsible for the enforcement of 

federal civil rights statutes in four major areas––institutional conditions, 

the conduct of law enforcement agencies, access to reproductive health 

facilities and places of worship, and the exercise of religious freedom of 

institutionalized persons. Specifically, the Section enforced provisions in 

the following statutes: 

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)1

 provides the 

Attorney General with the authority to bring lawsuits where there is a 

pattern or practice of egregious and flagrant conditions that deprive 

institutionalized persons of their federal or constitutional rights. These 

institutions include facilities for individuals who are mentally ill and 

developmentally disabled, nursing homes, juvenile correctional facilities, 

and adult jails or prisons,2

 which are owned or operated by, or on behalf 

of, state and local governments. Before commencement of a suit under 

CRIPA, the Attorney General is required to take several steps. Among 

other things, at least 7 days before an investigation begins, the Attorney 

General is to notify, in writing, the appropriate state officials of the 

intention to commence an investigation and, during that time, the Attorney 

General is required to make efforts to consult with the jurisdiction about 

assistance from the United States to correct the conditions and encourage 

the appropriate officials to take corrective actions. Forty-nine days before 

filing any complaint, the Attorney General is to notify the appropriate state 

or local government of the alleged unlawful conditions, and minimum 

necessary remedial measures. Lastly, the Attorney General must 

personally sign the complaint. The Attorney General has the authority to 

obtain equitable relief in a lawsuit, which is carried out through the 

Special Litigation Section. 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (14141)3

authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit for equitable and declaratory 

relief where there has been a pattern or practice of conduct by law 

enforcement or officials responsible for the administration of juvenile 

justice or the incarceration of juveniles to deprive persons of their rights 

under the Constitution or federal law. As such, the Special Litigation 

Statutes Enforced by the 

Special Litigation Section 

from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2007 

Civil Rights of Institutionalized 

Persons Act 

Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994 

 

1

 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j. 

2

 With respect to prisons, jails, and correctional facilities, under CRIPA, the Section is 

authorized to seek relief for constitutional violations only. 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a). 

3

 42 U.S.C. § 14141. 

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Section has the authority to obtain identical relief under CRIPA and this 

act with respect to incarcerated juveniles. Actions under this statute 

regarding conduct by law enforcement can involve, among other issues, 

systemic problems such as excessive force, false arrest, and 

discriminatory harassment, stops, searches and arrests. 

The Special Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing Title III of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964,4

 which prohibits discrimination in public facilities 

on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. 

Title III of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 19685

 authorizes the 

Attorney General to bring suit to remedy a pattern or practice of 

discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, or gender by 

law enforcement agencies receiving federal financial assistance. Relief 

may include, among other things, the repayment of federal funds. 

Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968 

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE)6

 prohibits 

the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, 

intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide 

reproductive health services and to exercise the First Amendment right of 

religious freedom at a place of religious worship. The Act also prohibits 

intentional damage or destruction of a facility providing reproductive 

health services or a place of religious worship. The Attorney General is 

authorized to seek various forms of civil relief against violators of FACE, 

as may persons who are injured by the unlawful activities. 

Freedom of Access to Clinic 

Entrances Act of 1994 

The Special Litigation Section is involved in enforcing section 3 of the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA),7

which protects the rights of free exercise of religion for institutionalized 

persons. Section 3 prohibits a state or local government from imposing a 

substantial burden on the religious exercise of an institutionalized person, 

unless the government can demonstrate that the imposition furthers a 

compelling interest and is the least restrictive means available to further 

that interest. DOJ is authorized to bring an action for injunctive or 

declaratory relief; private individuals may also seek remedies for 

The Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act of 

2000 

 

4

 42 U.S.C. § 2000b. 

5

 42 U.S.C. § 3789d. 

6

 18 U.S.C. § 248. 

7

 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. 

Page 154 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

violations of RLUIPA. Although RLUIPA was enacted in 2000, the Section 

was involved in enforcing similar provisions of the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act of 19938

 before it was declared unconstitutional by the 

Supreme Court. 

Reasons the Special 

Litigation Section Closed 

Matters 

We were unable to readily determine the reasons why the Section closed 

over 700 matters9

 using ICM data because this information is not 

maintained in the system. However, interviews with agency officials and 

our review of 51 randomly selected Special Litigation Section typically 

closed matter files provided information on the reasons why the Special 

Litigation Section closed matters. According to Section officials, the 

primary reasons matters were closed were lack of sufficient evidence to 

show a pattern or practice of unlawful conditions, no current evidence of 

problems, or corrective action had been taken by the relevant jurisdiction. 

Our review of 51 Special Litigation Section closed matter files identified 

examples of each of these reasons. The most frequently recorded 

summary reason to close a matter as identified in the file documentation 

was “no further action warranted” (12). Accompanying documents usually 

provided further explanation of why no further action was warranted and 

this information reflected the specific reasons to close identified by 

Section officials.10

Special Litigation Section officials further explained the Section’s use of 

these reasons to close matters within the context of the statutory 

prerequisites that it was required to meet to open an investigation. They 

noted that evidence might be insufficient to show a pattern or practice of 

discrimination or misconduct because it was difficult to gather evidence of 

systemic problems. Furthermore, officials said that if the Section received 

dated information but had no evidence of recent problems (e.g., if in 2009 

 

8

 Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993), invalidated by City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 

U.S. 507 (1997). 

9

 The more than 700 closed matters included matters initiated or open as of October 1, 

2000, and closed as of August 8, 2008. 

10 According to Special Litigation Section officials, since 2003 the Section’s closed matter 

files are to include a closure memo for all closed pre-investigations and investigations. 

Prior to 2003, closure memorandums were cursory forms. Our review of a random 

selection of matter files closed between 2001 and 2007, while limited, suggested that this 

policy was being implemented. We found closing memorandums or explanations of why 

matters were closed in 12 of the 14 files reviewed for matters initiated from fiscal years 

2004 through 2007. 

Page 155 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

an investigator were to receive evidence of three suicides that occurred in 

a jail in 2005), the Section would consider this information to be an 

indication that there possibly had been a problem. Accordingly, they 

would close the matter, but keep monitoring the situation (e.g., by using 

online news alerts) to identify evidence of current allegations of problems. 

In addition, with regard to preliminary investigations, officials said that the 

Special Litigation Section would close the investigation if officials believed 

that a jurisdiction recognized a problem existed and fixed it (e.g., the 

jurisdiction fired the sheriff, provided funds to a nursing home, or 

implemented an initiative to stop certain behaviors within an agency). In 

such instances, the Section would close the file and monitor the 

jurisdiction to ensure that reform was effective. 

Special Litigation Section’s 

Work on Cases Filed Prior 

to Fiscal Year 2001 

From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the Special Litigation Section 

continued to participate in 66 cases in which the complaint or brief had 

been filed prior to 2001 and remained open for at least part of the 7-year 

period.11 As shown in table 60, these cases involved three of the Section’s 

areas of responsibility––institutional conditions, the conduct of law 

enforcement agencies, and access to reproductive health facilities and 

places of worship. The largest number of cases (47 of 66) involved 

institutional conditions; 14 cases involved access to reproductive health 

facilities and 4 involved the conduct of law enforcement agencies. 

 

11 An additional case identified in ICM indicated that the Section’s role was investigator. 

According to Section officials, the Section’s role was investigator because the defendant in 

the case was under a permanent injunction and if the defendant violated the injunction, the 

Special Litigation Section would return to court as it had done in the past. The case 

involved FACE and access to a reproductive health clinic. 

Page 156 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Table 60: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 2001 by Facility 

Type 

Facility type Total

Institutional conditions 

Developmental disabilities facility 14

Mental health facility 6

Nursing home 2

Jail 13

Prison 7

Juvenile correctional facility 4

Juvenile justice systema1

Total 47

Access to reproductive health facilities and places of religious worship 

Clinic 14

Conduct of law enforcement agencyb

Law enforcement agency 4

Unable to determine 1

Grand Total 66

Sources: GAO analysis of ICM data and Special Litigation Section documentation. 

a

This case involved the entire juvenile correctional system of a state. 

b

The area of responsibility conduct of law enforcement agencies includes one facility type in ICM––

law enforcement agency. Therefore, the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of 

law enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility type law enforcement 

agency. 

The Section participated as plaintiff in 56 (of 66) cases, as plaintiff 

intervenor in 6 cases, and as amicus curiae in 4 cases. As shown in table 

61, the Section filed complaints, as plaintiff, in cases involving three of its 

four areas of responsibility and diverse facility types. Five of the 6 cases in 

which the Section participated as plaintiff intervenor fell under 

institutional conditions––3 involved prisons and 2 involved facilities for 

persons with developmental disabilities––and the sixth case involved a 

clinic under the Section’s responsibility for access to reproductive health 

care facilities. The 4 cases in which the Section filed amicus briefs 

involved institutional conditions in facilities for persons with 

developmental disabilities (2), a mental health facility, and a nursing 

home. 

Page 157 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Table 61: Special Litigation Section Cases Filed Prior to Fiscal Year 2001, by Government Role and Facility Type 

Government role 

Facility type Plaintiff

Plaintiff 

Intervenor Amicus Total

Institutional conditions 

Developmental disabilities facility 10 2 2 14

Mental health facility 5 1 6

Nursing home 1 1 2

Jail 13 13

Prison 4 3 7

Juvenile correctional facility 5 5

Total 47

Access to reproductive health facilities and places of religious worship 

Clinic 13 1 14

Conditions of confinement 

Law enforcement agency 4 4

Unable to determine 1 1

Grand Total 56 6 4 66

Sources: GAO analysis of ICM data and Special Litigation Section documentation. 

All 66 cases were open for some period during our review. According to 

the ICM data, as of May 28, 2008, the files for 45 cases were closed; 19 

cases were being monitored for compliance; and for 2 cases the parties 

agreed to a settlement and the file remained open. 

Time Spent on Matters and 

Cases from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2007 

Aggregate data on time spent by Special Litigation staff on matters and 

cases from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 showed that the Section spent 

the greatest percentage of time on those matters and cases involving 

institutional conditions. However, the proportion of time varied by facility 

type within this area of responsibility and in relation to the time spent 

enforcing laws related to the conduct of law enforcement agencies. 

According to aggregate time data spent on matters from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007, the Section reported spending the greatest percentage of 

time on matters involving institutional conditions in all facility types (62 

percent). The remaining percentage of the time was spent on matters 

involving the conduct of law enforcement agencies. 

Aggregate time data for matters 

Page 158 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Table 62: Percentage of Hours Spent on Matters by Facility Type and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Area of responsibility 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2001-2007

Conditions of confinement 53 51 54 61 63 69 75 62

Conduct of law enforcement agenciesa46 47 43 39 37 31 24 39

Total 99 98 97 100 100 100 99 101

Source: GAO analysis of ICM time reporting data. 

Notes: Deleted facility group home (CRIPA), jail/prison (RLUIPA matters), and clinic (FACE) where 

were hours less than .05 percent and other, which involved CRIPA, but facility type was not identified 

and combination of hours was less than 1 percent in any fiscal year. Percentages rounded to nearest 

whole number. 

Hours that provided the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

a

The area of responsibility––conduct of law enforcement agencies includes one facility type in ICM––

law enforcement agency. Therefore, the numbers reported for the area of responsibility conduct of 

law enforcement agencies are the same as those reported for the facility type law enforcement 

agency. 

The time spent on matters involving institutional conditions (62 percent) 

varied by category and facility type by fiscal year. Among these matters, 

the Section reported spending the greatest percentage of time on matters 

involving adult corrections (26 percent) during the 7-year period, as shown 

in table 63. Time spent on matters involving jails was about 27 percent of 

total time reported for fiscal year 2007, the highest percentage of time for 

any facility type that year. Taken together, the time reported spent on 

matters involving facilities for persons with developmental disabilities, 

mental health facilities, and nursing homes totaled 23 percent for the 7-

year period, but fluctuated from year to year. Section officials explained 

that time spent on these matters involved investigating a particular facility, 

drafting findings letters, and engaging in settlement negotiations during 

the investigatory stage, as the majority of these matters were filed as 

cases. The time reported spent on conditions in juvenile correctional 

facilities peaked at 14 percent in fiscal years 2001 and 2004. According to 

Section officials, time spent on juvenile matters usually occurred during 

the investigatory stage, but relatively little time was spent on juvenile 

justice matters. Rather, a significant amount of time was spent litigating or 

monitoring compliance on filed cases, information that would be recorded 

in the case time data. Generally, Section officials stated fluctuations in the 

percentage of time spent on these matters across fiscal years may reflect 

the ebb and flow of complaints received in a year, the nature of the 

allegations, and the type of investigations recommended and approved in 

any given year. 

Page 159 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Table 63: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on Institutional Conditions Matters, by Facility Type and 

Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Category Facility type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2001-

2007

Jail 17 11 13 15 18 24 27 17

Prison 5 4 9 10 10 12 10 9

Adult corrections 

Total 22 15 22 25 28 36 37 26

Developmental disabilities facility 3 7 3 4 10 10 13 7

Mental health facility 2 10 3 2 2 5 7 5

Nursing home 11 13 13 12 12 7 6 11

Health and social 

welfare 

Total 16 30 19 18 24 22 26 23

Juvenile correctional facility 14 6 8 14 11 11 12 11

Juvenile court 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 2

Juvenile corrections 

Total 15 6 13 18 11 11 12 13

Total 53 51 54 61 63 69 75 62

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Deleted facility group home (CRIPA), jail/prison (RLUIPA matters), and clinic (FACE) where 

hours were less than .05 percent and other, which involved CRIPA, but facility type was not identified 

and combination of hours was less than 1 percent in any fiscal year. Percentages do not sum to 100 

due to rounding. Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. 

Hours that provided the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including section 

chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any staff 

unique to a section. 

During the 7-year period, 39 percent of the total reported time spent on 

matters involved law enforcement agencies, the highest for any single 

facility type for those years (see table 62). Section officials said that 

matters involving law enforcement agencies were highly technical, 

resource-intensive, generally more time-consuming as compared to the 

Section’s other areas of responsibility, and required a thorough review by 

the Division at all stages from pre-investigation through resolution. They 

added that such matters involved significant and time-consuming reviews 

of documents and databases and required that Section staff work closely 

with expert consultants, who review numerous documents and 

reconstruct specific incidents to arrive at conclusions about the 

appropriateness of the level of force used in any given incidents. 

Additionally, Section staff might conduct on-site interviews and “ridealong” with police officers. Officials stated that in these matters, unlike its 

work involving institutional conditions, the Section is required to present 

objective evidence to demonstrate a factual basis for each issue in 

technical assistance letters and settlement agreements. The time data 

Page 160 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

show that the percentage of time spent each fiscal year on these matters 

declined during the period. According to Section officials, this change in 

the percentage of time spent might have been due to fluctuations in the 

number of complaints received; the number of institutional conditions 

matters received that were egregious, resource intensive, and required 

more of the staff’s attention; or the additional review of police misconduct 

recommendations by the Division’s Front Office. 

As shown in table 64, of the total reported time spent on cases for the 7-

year period, the Section spent the greatest percentage of time (81 percent) 

on cases involving institutional conditions. In addition, 17 percent of the 

time spent on cases was spent on cases involving the conduct of law 

enforcement agencies.12 However, the proportion of time spent on each of 

these two areas of responsibility varied during the time period. 

Aggregate time data for cases 

Table 64: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on Cases, by Area of Responsibility and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Area of responsibility 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2001-

2007

Institutional conditions 58 72 83 84 90 88 92 81

Conduct of law enforcement agencies 40 26 15 15 10 9 7 17

Access to reproductive health 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1

Immigration appeals 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1

Total 98 99 100 99 100 100 101 100

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff any, including 

section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any 

staff unique to a section. 

Total percentages may be less than 100 percent due to exclusion of facility type mental retardation 

and mental health where hours were less than .05 percent. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. 

As shown in table 65, the time spent on cases involving institutional 

conditions (81 percent) varied by category and facility type by fiscal year. 

Over 40 percent of the time was spent on cases involving health and social 

welfare facilities. The greatest percentage of that time (27 of 41 percent) 

 

12 These data included cases on which the Special Litigation Section staff worked from 

fiscal years 2001 through fiscal year 2007, including cases in which the Section filed 

complaints during the period, cases in which the Section was a defendant or defendant 

intervener, and cases that remained open during the 7-year period. 

Page 161 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

was spent on cases involving facilities for the developmentally disabled. 

During the 7-year period, the percentage of time spent each year on cases 

involving juvenile correctional facilities reached a high of 44 percent in 

fiscal year 2007. Section officials explained that while the Division’s 

emphasis on juvenile justice may have been a factor, a more significant 

factor contributing to this increase was the Section’s involvement in 

contested litigation related to juvenile justice practices in two states and in 

regular contempt proceedings in another case. 

Table 65: Percentage of Hours the Special Litigation Section Spent on Institutional Conditions Cases by Facility Type and 

Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Category Facility type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2001-

2007

Developmental disability facility 27 32 38 33 20 23 18 27

Mental health facility 10 12 13 11 11 12 9 11

Nursing home 1 3 2 2 3 4 8 3

Health and social welfare 

Total 38 47 53 46 34 39 35 41

Juvenile corrections Juvenile correctional facility 9 17 18 26 37 27 44 26

Prison 4 2 4 5 5 10 4 5

Jail 7 6 8 7 14 12 9 9

Adult corrections 

Total 11 8 12 12 19 22 13 14

Grand Total 58 72 83 84 90 88 92 81

Source: GAO analysis of ICM data. 

Notes: Hours that provide the basis for the percentages include time of all section staff, including 

section chief, deputies, special counsel, attorneys, support staff, legal assistants, law clerks, and any 

staff unique to a section. 

Total percentages may be less than 100 percent due to exclusion of facility type mental retardation 

and mental health where hours were less than .05 percent. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. 

The percentage of time spent on cases involving the conduct of a law 

enforcement agency was highest in fiscal year 2001 (40 percent) followed 

by fiscal year 2002 (26 percent) (See table 64). According to Section 

officials, during these two years the Section was engaged in highly 

contested litigation that involved racial profiling claims and required 

intensive document analysis. Since this was the first contested police 

department litigation under the Section’s police misconduct authority, 

officials said that each issue that arose required significant attorney time. 

Page 162 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Special Litigation Section 

Resources Available from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2007 

According to data provided by the Division, the number of permanent 

positions available to the Special Litigation Section from fiscal years 2001 

through 2007 increased from fiscal years 2001 through 2002 and then 

remained relatively constant. However, Section officials stated that while 

the official budget data indicated minor fluctuations in staff resources, the 

Section had a number of vacancies for a number of years during the 7-year 

period. 

Table 66: Special Litigation Section: Historical Track of Available Resources 

Fiscal year 

Resources 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Permanent positions 63 73 73 73 72 72 72

Salaries and expenses 7,500 8,920 9,799 10,048 10,233 12,096 12,656

Source: Civil Rights Division, DOJ. 

Note:Salaries and Expenses, dollars in thousands. 

As shown in table 67, the number of Section staff on board at the end of 

each fiscal year increased from fiscal years 2001 through 2004, and then 

declined in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Section officials confirmed that 

fewer staff were available in the later years of the 7-year period, as the 

number of onboard Special Litigation staff––attorneys, professional, and 

clerical--decreased in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, from higher staff 

numbers in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. 

Table 67: Number of On-board Staff for Special Litigation Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Position 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Attorneys 33 47 47 48 41 39 39

Professionals 12 13 14 16 12 10 11

Clerical 7 9 9 9 8 8 10

Total 52 69 70 73 61 57 60

Source: Civil Division, DOJ. 

Note:Staff on-board reflects official numbers as of the last day of each fiscal year. 

In addition, the attrition rates for Section staff varied over the 7-year 

period. The rate for Section attorneys was higher in fiscal years 2001, 2005, 

and 2006. The Division noted that in fiscal year 2005, it was granted 

voluntary early retirement and voluntary separation authority, which 

contributed to the rate of attrition that year. 

Page 163 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Table 68: Percentage of Attrition for Special Litigation Section by Position and Fiscal Year 

Fiscal year 

Position 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005b 2006 2007

Attorney 26 3 17 17 31 24 18

Professional 0 8 8 7 31 25 10

Clerical 0 14 44 0 11 13 38

Source: Civil Division, DOJ. 

Notes: The Section’s attrition rates include employees who had separated from the Division (i.e., 

resignation, transfer to another federal agency, retirement, etc.) and those reassigned to another 

section within the Division. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. 

In fiscal year 2005, the Division granted voluntary early retirement authority along with a voluntary 

separation incentive payment of $25,000. 

A July 2, 2008, joint report by the DOJ Office of the Inspector General and 

Office of Professional Responsibility addressed staffing issues confronted 

by the Special Litigation Section, which occurred within the period of our 

review. The report describes the results of an investigation into allegations 

that political or ideological affiliations were considered in hiring, 

transferring, and assigning cases to career attorneys in the Division, 

including the Special Litigation Section.13 Specifically, it cites issues raised 

by the Section Chief that attorneys were unqualified to work in the Section 

and the Division management changed the attorney assigned to a case. 

According to Section officials, these decisions affected the morale of the 

Section and managers had to take on the work of attorneys. 

Subject Values Used by the 

Special Litigation Section 

The Special Litigation uses the ICM subject field to describe the types of 

issues and allegations under investigation in matters initiated and cases 

filed. Table 69 provides a list of the subject values that the Section used 

and descriptions of these values. According to Special Litigation Section 

officials, the information presented describes what the code was supposed 

to mean when it was originally devised by the ICM team. 

 

13 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, An Investigation of 

Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil 

Rights Division. (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2008), released publicly January 13, 2009. 

Page 164 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Table 69: Special Litigation Section Subject Values for Matters and Cases Recorded in ICM 

Subject Description of subject 

Abuse/neglect In the Section’s CRIPA health care cases and CRIPA/14141 juvenile justice facility cases, 

this refers to staff’s physical abuse of residents or staff’s failure to properly care for or 

supervise a resident. 

Access to courts In the Section’s CRIPA/14141 juvenile justice facility cases and CRIPA jail and prison cases, 

this refers to the failure of a facility to provide juveniles, detainees, or prisoners with an 

adequate ability to exercise their legal rights with respect to the court system. 

Accessibility (ADA) In the Section’s CRIPA cases, except for prisons and jails where CRIPA does not permit the 

Section to enforce federal statutes, this refers to the failure of a facility to provide adequate 

accommodations so that residents with disabilities can access facilities or programs. 

Active treatment In the Section’s CRIPA cases involving facilities for persons with developmental disabilities, 

this refers to the failure of a facility to provide a program of specialized and generic training, 

treatment, health services, and other services directed toward the acquisition of skills 

necessary for the residents to function with as much self-determination and independence as 

possible, and to prevent regression and loss of function. 

Coercive sexual misconduct In the Section’s CRIPA cases and juvenile facility cases under both CRIPA and 14141, this 

refers to sexual acts by staff or peers perpetrated on residents, detainees, or inmates without 

consent. 

Community placement In the Section’s CRIPA health care cases, this refers to enforcement of the integration 

mandate of the ADA that residents be served in the most integrated setting appropriate to 

their needs and which they do not oppose; most often, if a resident is not being served in the 

most integrated setting, a transition from an institution into the community is the remedy. 

Correctional staffing In the Section’s CRIPA cases involving jails and prisons, this refers to the direct staffing on 

the cellblocks; the issue usually comes up that detainees or inmates are not adequately 

protected from harm due to insufficient direct staffing and supervision. 

Dental care In all of the Section’s CRIPA cases and CRIPA/14141 juvenile justice facility cases, this 

refers to a facility’s inadequate provision of dental care services to the residents of the facility.

Diet/nutrition In the Section’s CRIPA cases, this refers to a facility’s failure to provide an adequate diet or 

nutrition to residents who need a specialized diet due to a health condition such as diabetes 

or high blood pressure, or, where inmates are only being served one meal a day. In the 

Section’s RLUIPA cases, this refers to a facility’s failure to provide a diet required by a 

person’s religion, such as kosher diets or vegetarian diets. 

Environment In the Section’s CRIPA cases, usually involving jails and prisons, it often finds egregious 

environmental health and safety issues, such the presence of vermin or human waste, or an 

environment with insufficient ventilation, which can cause medical issues. 

Excessive force In the Section’s CRIPA cases, the Section encounters this issue, which involves the use of 

more force than is necessary under the circumstances. The Section sees this issue in many 

of its CRIPA investigations, particularly involving jails, prisons, and juvenile justice facilities. 

The Section does not use this issue code when it encounters this issue in its Police 

Misconduct work, where it uses a separate issue, below. 

Face-obstructive activities In the Section’s FACE cases, this issue involves efforts by a citizen to block a woman’s right 

to access reproductive services. 

Face-property damage In the Section’s FACE cases, this issue involves any damage to a clinic by a citizen who is 

trying to impede a woman’s right to access reproductive services. 

Face-violence/threats In the Section’s FACE cases, this issue involves the use of physical force or verbal threats 

made by a citizen to a woman seeking reproductive services at a clinic. 

Page 165 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Subject Description of subject 

False Claims Act In the Section’s CRIPA health care cases, this legal action involves a jurisdiction billing the 

Department of Health and Human Services for services it did not, in fact, render to an 

institutionalized person, or to services that were billed that deviated so substantially from 

accepted professional care such that the services could be characterized as a failure of care. 

The Special Litigation Section does not pursue False Claims Act cases. Instead, when the 

Section suspects that there may be False Claims Act issues in a matter, the Section refers it 

to the Civil Division, the component which enforces this statute. 

Feeding practices In the Section’s health care cases involving nursing homes and facilities for persons with 

developmental disabilities, the Section often encounter feeding practices that endanger 

institutionalized persons, such as improperly feeding someone who cannot feed him or 

herself, such that food is aspirated into a lung, causing aspiration pneumonia that after 

repeated episodes often leads to death. 

Fire safety In the Section’s CRIPA cases, the Section often finds dangerous fire safety issues, such as 

the lack of sprinklers, expired fire extinguishers, or an insufficient avenue of egress in the 

event of a fire. 

First Amendment This is the primary issue code in all of the Section’s RLUIPA cases, which involve the free 

exercise of religion issues. The Section’s also use this, sometimes, in its CRIPA cases. In 

those cases, there are times when a jurisdiction refuses the Section access to speak with the 

residents of a facility during its investigation. In those circumstances, the Section takes the 

position that the jurisdiction is violating the residents’ First Amendment right to access their 

government to make a complaint. 

Grievance In the Section’s CRIPA cases involving jails, prisons, and juvenile justice facilities, residents 

have a right to a system to make their complaints known. 

Inmate violence In the Section’s CRIPA cases involving jails and prisons, this issue arises when there is a 

systemic level of violence as a result of inmate-on-inmate fights. 

Isolation/seclusion In the Section’s CRIPA work, the Section often finds that residents are improperly placed in a 

locked room by themselves, often for a very long period of time, without access to adequate 

services. 

Juvenile administration Under 14141, the Section’s can investigate the administration of juvenile justice in a 

jurisdiction where the Section has reason to believe that the is infringing on juveniles’ civil 

rights. 

Juvenile facility In both the Section’s CRIPA and 14141 work, the Section investigates juvenile detention 

centers, where youth are held before they are adjudicated, and juvenile training centers, 

where some youth are sent following adjudication. 

Law library In the Section’s CRIPA work, detainees in jails and inmates in prisons are legally entitled to 

access to certain legal materials that may assist them in their efforts to challenge their 

detention or for other related legal matters. 

Mail tampering In the Section’s CRIPA work, particularly in jails and prisons, residents have legal rights to 

use the mail; institutions have rights to monitor the mail for security risks. The Section has 

received allegations, in certain matters, that inmate mail is tampered with so that outgoing 

information is impermissibly not allowed to leave the facility or that incoming mail was 

impermissibly searched or confiscated. 

Medicaid regs In the Section’s CRIPA health care work, the Section often cites as the professional 

standards regulations issued by Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services regarding the requirements that a facility must meet in order 

to maintain federal funding. 

Medical care In all of the Section’s CRIPA work, the Section typically evaluates the medical care provided 

to the residents of a facility to assess whether it is legally sufficient. 

Page 166 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Subject Description of subject 

Mental health services In all of the Section’s CRIPA work, the Section typically evaluates the mental health care 

services provided to the residents of a facility to assess whether it is legally sufficient. 

Most integrated setting (ADA) In the Section’s CRIPA health care work, the Section typically assesses whether residents of 

a facility are being served in the most integrated setting appropriate to individual needs, as 

required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 

Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). 

Numbers of professional staff In all of the Section’s CRIPA work, the Section evaluates whether there are enough 

professional staff to provide the services that are legally required in the particular facility. 

Numbers of trained direct care staff In all of the Section’s CRIPA work, the Section evaluates whether there are enough trained 

direct care staff to adequately and safely supervise the residents of the particular facility. 

Nursing care In all of the Section’s CRIPA cases, the Section typically evaluates, as part of the medical 

care, whether the nursing care at the facility is legally sufficient. 

Occupational therapy In the Section’s CRIPA health care work, particularly with respect to facilities serving persons 

with developmental disabilities, the Section evaluates whether a facility is providing adequate 

services to increase an individual’s ability to engage in supported employment. Most often, 

the Section assesses communication services under this issue. 

Overcrowding In the Section’s CRIPA work, the Section often encounters facilities that house more 

residents than were intended to be housed in the facility. 

Physical therapy In the Section’s CRIPA health care work, particularly with respect to facilities for persons with 

developmental disabilities, the Section evaluates whether a facility is providing adequate 

physical therapy services to individuals who need them as a result of a physical disability. 

Police-canine In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, the Sections evaluates whether a police force is 

using dogs in a legally permissible manner. 

Police-city In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, the Section uses this issue code when it is 

investigating a city police force. 

Police-Civilian Complaint System and 

Discipline 

In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, the Section uses this issue code when it is 

evaluating whether the civilian complaint system is legally sufficient; it also uses this issue 

code when it is evaluating whether an officer is appropriately disciplined as a result of a 

finding that a citizen’s rights were violated. 

Police-coercive sexual conduct In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, the Section uses this issue code when it is 

investigating whether officers are impermissibly coercing sexual conduct from the citizens 

they are interacting with. 

Police-county In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, the Section uses this issue code when it is 

investigating a county police force. 

Police-discriminatory highway stops In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this code when it is investigating whether

officers are impermissibly stopping cars on the highways due to discriminatory factors, such 

as race. 

Police-discriminatory pedestrian stops In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this code when it is investigating whether 

officers are impermissibly stopping pedestrians due to discriminatory factors, such as race. 

Police-discriminatory urban traffic 

stops 

In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this code when it is investigating whether 

officers are impermissibly stopping cars on city streets due to discriminatory factors, such as 

race. 

Police-excessive force In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this issue code when it is investigating 

whether officers use more force than is necessary to subdue a citizen. 

Police-false arrest In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this issue code when it is investigating 

whether officers are arresting citizens for pretextual reasons that have no basis in the facts. 

Page 167 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Subject Description of subject 

Police-improper searches/seizures In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this issue code when it is investigating 

whether officers are searching or seizing property in a way that violates the law. 

Police-other discriminatory policing In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this issue code when it is investigating

allegations of discrimination by officers that do not fit into the other codes already described. 

Police-retaliation In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this code when it is investigating allegations 

that someone has been retaliated against for cooperating with the Special Litigation Section 

while the Special Litigation Section was conducting its investigation. 

Police-sheriff In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this code when it is investigating the sheriff 

and his/her officers, often used in connection with investigations of conditions in the lock up 

cells in a jail. 

Police-state In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this code when it is investigating state police 

officers. 

Police-supervisory measures In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it uses this code when it is investigating whether the 

measures that a police force uses to supervise its officers is adequate. 

Police-training In the Section’s Police Misconduct work, it use this code when it is investigating whether 

officers are adequately trained to do their jobs. 

Protection from harm In all of its CRIPA cases, the Section uses this very broad term to determine whether the 

residents of a facility are provided with adequate safety. This term can encompass whether 

there is staff abuse, whether there is too much resident-on-resident violence, whether 

residents are adequately supervised, and many other areas. 

Psychiatric services In the Section’s CRIPA work, this issue is a bit narrower than the term “mental health 

services.” Psychiatric services are provided to residents who have been diagnosed with a 

serious mental illness, whereas mental health services are provided to any resident who 

needs help with a mental health problem, even if there hasn’t been a psychiatric diagnosis. 

Psychological services In the Section’s CRIPA work, especially with respect to matters involving facilities for persons 

with developmental disabilities, this issue relates to the services to persons who have 

challenging behaviors and to the services provided to all residents in order that they learn 

skills designed to help them function better in their living situation. 

Psychopharmacology In all of its CRIPA work, the Section evaluates the psychoactive medication practices at a 

facility to ensure that dosages are correct, that the medications actually can treat the 

diagnosed problem, the medication error rates, whether particular residents are taking many 

different medications to treat the same problem, and whether residents are experiencing 

negative side effects without intervention by the facility. 

Rehabilitation services In the Section’s CRIPA work involving psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, and juvenile 

justice facilities, it evaluates whether the facility is providing adequate services to address the 

problems that required the resident to be institutionalized in the first place. 

Restraints-chemical In all of its CRIPA work, the Section evaluates whether psychoactive medications are 

impermissibly being used for the convenience of staff to sedate residents, instead of treating 

the underlying problem; this issue can also be used when an institution uses mace on 

residents to subdue them when there was no imminent threat to the resident or to others. 

Restraints-physical In all of its CRIPA work, the Section’s evaluates whether a facility is using undue or 

unnecessary physical restraints on facility residents. Physical restraints include such things 

as soft leather strips used to tie psychiatric patients to hospital beds; mittens used to cover 

the hands of a self abusive person; helmets used to prevent a person from banging his or her 

head on the wall; or take down procedures where staff hold a resident on the resident’s 

stomach on the floor until calm. 

Page 168 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix V: Special Litigation Section 

Subject Description of subject 

Sanitation This issue arises in some of the Section’s CRIPA work, particularly in jails and prisons, but 

can arise in its health care work. The Section investigates issues such as whether laundry is 

properly cleaned so that it does not spread infection; whether dishwashers are using water 

hot enough to prevent food borne illnesses from being spread on dishes and utensils; or 

whether toilets and showers are properly cleaned to prevent the spread of disease. 

Special Education (IDEA)a In the Section’s CRIPA health care where there are residents under the age of 22 and in its 

juvenile justice work, the Section investigates whether youth with learning disabilities are 

being provided education in accordance with the requirement of this federal statute. 

Speech/Language Therapy In its CRIPA cases involving persons with developmental disabilities and in its juvenile justice 

cases involving youth entitled to related services under the IDEA, the Section investigates 

whether appropriate individuals are provided adequate services to address disabilities related 

to the individuals’ ability to communicate. 

Substance abuse treatment In its CRIPA psychiatric hospital cases and in its juvenile justice cases, the Section 

investigates whether residents with substance abuse diagnoses are being provided adequate 

substance abuse treatment to address their needs. 

Suicide prevention In all of its CRIPA cases and in its juvenile justice cases, the Section investigates whether 

facilities are adequately protecting residents with suicidal or self harming behaviors from 

harm, making sure that environments where suicidal residents are housed are free from 

suicidal hazards and that mental health services are provided in an appropriate and timely 

manner to prevent harm. 

Vocational training In the Section’s matters and cases where there are IDEA violations, the Section investigates 

whether youth are provided with adequate vocational training, as required by IDEA. 

Word Trade Center/Pentagon attacks The Special Litigation Section does not use this issue in its ICM data base. This code was 

added as a value to all sections of the Civil Rights Division not long after the September 11, 

2001 attacks. 

Source: Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section. 

a

Refers to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 

Page 169 GAO-10-75 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts
Appendix VI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 170 GAO-10-75 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Eileen Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, Maria Strudwick, Assistant 

Director, and Barbara Stolz, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. 

David Alexander, Jennifer Andreone, R. Rochelle Burns, Michele Fejfar, 

Emily Hanawalt, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Lara Kaskie, Jan 

Montgomery, Joy Myers, and Janet Temko made significant contributions 

to this report. 

 Civil Rights Division: Enforcement Efforts 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(440817) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper