Opinion ID: 2982507
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gender-based Discrimination under Title VI

Text: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: “No 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. As a matter of plain language, Title VI does address discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. See id. “[W]hen the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms.” Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118 (2009). Because it does not say anything about sex or gender, the text of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d itself compels us to conclude that Title VI does not provide a cause of action for gender discrimination. Two of our sister circuits have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Shannon v. Lardizzone, 334 F. App’x 506, 507 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009); Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390, 1396 (11th Cir. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 526 U.S. 629 (1999). Moreover, dicta from Supreme Court cases contrasting Title VI with Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, suggests that Title VI is not applicable to gender discrimination. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 297 (2001) (referring to Title IX, which addresses gender discrimination in educational settings, as Title VI’s “gender-based twin”); Gesber v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 286 (1998) (stating Title VI is “parallel to Title IX except that it prohibits race discrimination, not sex discrimination”); N. Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 523 n.13 (1982) (noting that there had been proposed legislation to “extend[] the prohibitions of Title VI . . . to discrimination based on gender . . .” but that this proposal “never emerged [from] the committee”). In the face of this plain language, persuasive authority from our sister circuits, and confirming dicta from the Supreme Court, BBF attempts to read 23 U.S.C. § 324—a wholly - 16 - Case No. 13-2209 BBF Eng’g Servs. Co. PC v. Michigan separate statute that addresses gender discrimination in federally funded contracts—in a manner that extends Title VI’s coverage to prohibit discrimination based on gender, as well as presumably disability, age, and religion. This reading is unpersuasive because nothing in the text of 23 U.S.C. § 324 suggests that it affects the coverage of Title VI. Further, Appellants cite no, and indeed we have not found any, authority supporting this expansive reading of § 324. Appellants also argue that 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 provides a cause of action for a gender-based Title VI claim. Again, this argument is unpersuasive. That statute indicates that Congress intended to abrogate states’ sovereign immunity and to provide remedies under Title VI, among other civil-rights statutes. See Alexander, 532 U.S. at 280. Section 2000d-7, however, does not affect the substance of Title VI. Because Title VI only applies to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, the district court properly dismissed Appellants’ gender-based Title VI claims.