Opinion ID: 2651680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Financial Assistance Under Title VI

Text: The district court granted summary judgment on Bary’s Title VI claim, holding that the only federal funding that Delta had received was pursuant to the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001) (codified as amended as note to 49 U.S.C. § 40101) (“Stabilization Act”), which did not constitute “assistance,” only a form of compensation. In so holding, the district court relied on Shotz v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 420 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2005), a case in which the Eleventh Circuit considered the express language used in enacting the Stabilization Act and determined that it was clear that Congress intended to “compensate” air carriers in response to the economic crisis the airline industry faced as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 rather than provide assistance in the form of a subsidy. See 420 F.3d at 1336 (“Plainly, the express language found in the Stabilization Act unambiguously shows Congress intended for the funds and financial benefits at issue to compensate, not subsidize, airline carriers.”) (emphasis added).1 Whether the Stabilization Act subjects an air carrier to Title VI is an issue of first impression for this circuit, but one we need not resolve. To establish a violation of Title VI, Bary was required to prove, in addition to Delta’s receipt of “[f]ederal financial assistance” within the meaning of that statute, that (1) the action was discriminatory based on race, color, or national origin; (2) such discrimination was intentional; and (3) the discrimination was a “substantial or motivating factor” for Delta’s actions. Tolbert v. Queens Coll., 242 F.3d 58, 69 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court found after trial on Bary’s Section 1981 claim that there was no evidence of race or national origin discrimination, Bary necessarily cannot establish a Title VI claim, rendering his challenge to summary judgment on that claim moot.