Opinion ID: 382939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 As a recipient of federal funds, the Board must comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, 2 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, 3 and their implementing regulations; 4 it may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in education programs that receive federal funds. OCR has the responsibility of ensuring compliance through reviews, investigations and complaint resolution. As we recounted in Caulfield I, see 583 F.2d & n.3, the director of OCR advised the Board by letter dated November 9, 1976, that the Board was not in compliance with Title VI, because it had (1) denied minority teachers full access to employment opportunity by using racially discriminatory selection and testing procedures and by using racially identifiable employment pools in a way that restricted placement, (2) assigned teachers and principals in a manner that created, confirmed and reinforced racial identifiability of the system's schools, and (3) assigned teachers with less experience, lower average salaries and fewer advanced degrees to schools with higher percentages of minority students. OCR also found the Board in violation of Title IX because it had denied females equal access to supervisory positions, provided less financial support for female athletic programs, and deprived female teachers of seniority rights and other compensation by failing to eliminate the effects of past discriminatory leave policies. 4 Ten months of negotiation ensued. During this time the Board's Deputy Chancellor Bernard Gifford chaired an internal committee reviewing and evaluating OCR's allegations. What is known as the Gifford Report substantiated and confirmed many of OCR's findings, although it denied any discriminatory intent on the part of the Board. See Caulfield I, 583 F.2d at 609 n.5. The Board itself on April 22, 1977, suggested affirmative efforts to equalize employment opportunities. See id. at 608. OCR rejected this proposed compliance plan but further negotiations resulted in the promulgation of the September Memorandum of Understanding challenged in this lawsuit. The Memorandum establishes a three-year plan to comply with Title VI and Title IX through affirmative action. We have set out in the margin key provisions of the agreement as they are reported in Judge Weinstein's memorandum opinion, 486 F.Supp. 862 (D.C.). 5 THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW 5 In appellants' complaint they alleged that HEW lacked Title VI jurisdiction to investigate the Board's employment practices because under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3 6 HEW can take such action only with respect to programs in which providing employment is a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance. They further alleged that the agreement's remedial measures are impermissible absent a formal administrative or judicial finding of intentional discrimination and that the evidence does not support a finding of intentional discrimination. Cf. Lora v. Board of Education, 623 F.2d 248 (2d Cir. 1980) (intentional discrimination required to make out a violation of Title VI). Appellants also contended that the Memorandum, by requiring teacher assignments on the basis of race, established a quota system in violation of a number of statutes, including Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the fifth and fourteenth amendments. 6 The district court held that HEW had jurisdiction to investigate and seek compliance under the authority of 45 C.F.R. § 80.3(c)(3) (1979), 7 a Title VI regulation authorizing oversight of the employment practices of a recipient of federal funds when such practices have a discriminatory impact upon direct beneficiaries of the federal funds, in this case, the students themselves. Here, HEW had alleged that the Board's employment practices have such an effect because discrimination in teacher hiring and assignment has deprived students of equal educational opportunity both by reinforcing the racial identifiability of schools and, in some cases, by resulting in the assignment of less qualified or experienced teachers to predominantly minority schools. The district court found that discrimination by race in the hiring and assignment of teachers or supervisors constitutes discrimination against students. In addition, the court rejected the argument that the Memorandum must be invalidated in the absence of a finding of intentional discrimination. Instead, it upheld the agreement, stating that the issue was really whether the parties entering into a Title VI or Title IX remedial plan had a reasonable belief that the practices at issue might result in liability, whether the remedial measures adopted are reasonable in view of the perceived liability, and whether the measures violate statutory or constitutional rights.