discrimination case study

Accessibility tools

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility

You are here:

• Case studies
• Sex discrimination

Main site sub navigation

In this section:

• The top level navigation links
• Legislation
• Leading Authorities
• Judicial review decisions
• Case notes - discrimination
• Case notes - human rights
• Reports on unresolved human rights complaints
• Tribunal exemptions
• Intervention guidelines
• Interventions
• Call for case studies
• Submissions
• Health equity
• Age case studies
• Breastfeeding case studies
• Family responsibilities case studies
• Gender identity case studies
• Impairment case studies
• Parental status case studies
• Political belief or activity case studies
• Pregnancy case studies
• Race case studies
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander case studies
• Relationship status case studies
• Religious belief or religious activity case studies

Sex discrimination case studies

• Sex work activity case studies
• Sexuality case studies
• Trade union activity case studies
• Association case studies
• Sexual harassment case studies
• Unlawful requests for information case studies
• Victimisation case studies
• Vilification case studies
• Human rights case studies
• Guides and toolkits
• Fact sheets
• Human Rights Month 2019 Speaker Series: Right to education
• Human Rights Month 2019 Speaker Series: Understanding the impact of Queensland's Human Rights Act
• Working it Through
• A Human Rights Act for Queensland
• 2023 theme: Universal means everyone
• Events and training
• Human Rights Week in your workplace
• Posters and supporter resources
• Why the hummingbird?
• Queensland human rights timeline

These sex discrimination case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and conciliated outcomes.

• Sex discrimination: summaries of court and tribunal decisions
• Sex discrimination: summaries of conciliated outcomes

Court and tribunal decisions are made after all the evidence is heard, including details of loss and damage. The full text of court and tribunal decisions is available from:

• AustLII website
• Queensland Supreme Court Library website

Conciliated outcomes are where the parties have reached an agreement through conciliation at the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Court and tribunal decisions

Different dress requirements for men.

Back to top

Conciliated outcomes

Woman excluded from sporting club.

Private school allows pants for girls

Sex discrimination when recruiting for a construction site

Female refused haircut at barber shop

Ongoing sexist and sexual comments in workplace ignored

Sex discrimination and sexual harassment on farm

Requiring husband to be present for a quote

Hours cut for female deckhand, but not for males

$70 Million Verdict Against Texas Company In Employment Discrimination Case

Gavel for judge, law and order

Last month, a jury in Texas delivered a stunning $70 million verdict in favor of 10 employees who worked for Glow Networks. Nine of the ten plaintiffs were Black employees. The case, Yarbrough, et al. v. Glow Networks, Inc., is a potent reminder about the continuing effects of employment discrimination as well as the legal remedies that exist to combat unequal treatment and retaliation at work.

The plaintiffs are represented by The Sanford Firm.

The defendants are represented by Ford & Harrison.

Background Of The Case

The employees filed their lawsuit against Glow Networks in a Texas federal court in December 2019 (Civil No. 4:19-cv-00905, E.D. Tex. 2019). According to their complaint, numerous Black employees faced continuing race discrimination at work, including promotion denials, unequal pay, and a hostile work environment.

At trial, the employees sought only compensatory/emotional distress damages and punitive damages in the lawsuit and did not seek lost pay damages. For this reason, their decision to proceed solely under 42 U.S.C. 1981 (Section 1981) rather than including a claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII) was particularly important and will be discussed in more detail below.

Ultimately, the jury determined that the employees had proved that Glow Networks had subjected them to unlawful discrimination and retaliation at work. This discrimination and retaliation included demotions, promotion denials, and getting fired or laid off.

DAMAGES word on the card

Notably, the jury then awarded each plaintiff $3 million in emotional distress damages and $4 million in punitive damages, which are designed to punish employers in particularly egregious cases of employment discrimination. The total award to the 10 employees thus equaled $70 million (this amount does not include any attorneys’ fees and trial expenses that the court may later order the company to pay).

Glow Networks will have an opportunity to appeal the jury verdict if it chooses to do so.

Differences Between Section 1981 And Title VII Race Discrimination Claims

On a broader level, both Section 1981 and Title VII outlaw employment discrimination based on race. In the Yarbrough case, the employees filed their case under Section 1981 instead of Title VII. This choice paid off handsomely as a key difference between these two employment discrimination laws is that Title VII caps the maximum amount that a plaintiff can receive for compensatory and punitive damages at $300,000. Title VII’s cap would thus result in a maximum jury verdict of $3,000,000 for these 10 plaintiffs. Section 1981, however, has no cap on compensatory and punitive damages, which resulted in a $70 million verdict, an eye-popping $67 million more than could have been awarded under Title VII.

Other distinctions between Title VII and Section 1981 exist, including:

Title VII outlaws disparate impact discrimination but Section 1981 does not

Both statutes prohibit intentional discrimination in employment based on race. But Title VII also prohibits using hiring practices that are neutral on their face (such as written tests), which have a discriminatory outcome: disproportionately excluding female, African-American, and other protected classes of applicants.

Under the disparate impact theory, even if the employer did not intend for an employment practice to exclude protected groups, if the practice ultimately has the effect of rejecting an excessive number of otherwise qualified, for example, female or African-American applicants, then using the practice might violate Title VII.

Section 1981, on the other hand, outlaws only intentional discrimination.

Section 1981 does not require the employee to file an EEOC charge

To file a Title VII lawsuit in court, an employee must fist have exhausted their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Depending on which state the employee works in, the time period can be either 180 or 300 days to file the charge if the employee works in the private sector. Different procedures and time periods apply if the employee works for the federal, state, or local government.

Section 1981, however, does not require an employee to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. This distinction is particularly important if the employee has missed the deadline to file an EEOC charge of discrimination because the employee may still be able to assert a claim under Section 1981.

Section 1981 has a longer statute of limitations than Title VII

close up of calendar and alarm clock

As noted above, the deadline for filing an EEOC charge of discrimination can be up to 300 days, depending on where you work and whether you are in the public or private sector. Also, a Title VII lawsuit must generally be filed within 90 days after the EEOC’s Right to Sue Notice is received.

Claims asserted under Section 1981 though have a significantly longer statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. Indeed, an employee may file a Section 1981 within four years of the violation. Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co ., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, section 1981 applies only to race discrimination while title vii covers more classes of people.

Section 1981 provides several additional benefits not contained in Title VII, but in at least one area–scope of protected classes–Title VII offers broader coverage.

Section 1981 covers discrimination based only on race or ethnicity.

Title VII covers discrimination based not only on an employee’s race and ethnicity, but also protects against discrimination related to, for example, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The Yarbrough jury verdict highlights the work that remains to be done to eradicate employment discrimination, but also the promise that laws like Section 1981 and Title VII can provide a powerful weapon to improve workplaces for everyone. As one of the lawyers for the employees, Brian Sanford, told BET about the jury verdict, “[t]hey were sending the message,” he said. “Don’t do this in the 21st century. Stop.”

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

Case Summaries

Beneath the title of each case summary below are links that connect to lists of similar cases sorted by topic areas relevant to each case by protected class . Links within each case summary connect to important case documents including complaints, briefs, settlement agreements, consent decrees, orders, and press releases.

On March 18, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Section moved to intervene in A.B. v. Rhinebeck Central School District and Thomas Mawhinney , a sexual harassment case brought against the Rhinebeck Central School District and the former high school principal Thomas Mawhinney. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 9, 2003, by four current and former high school students and a school employee. The plaintiffs alleged that the school district and Mawhinney violated state and federal laws, including Title IX. The United States filed an intervention brief and complaint-in-intervention alleging that Mawhinney sexually harassed the four plaintiff students as well as other female high school students during his ten-year tenure as principal and that the school district violated Title IX by acting with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment of these students. The district opposed the United States' intervention, and the United States filed a reply . On August 25, 2004, the court granted the United States' intervention motion.

On March 22, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that requires the district to develop and implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a discrimination-free educational environment for all students. The district must retain an expert regarding sexual harassment training and prevention to assist in developing the comprehensive plan, to evaluate the district's sexual harassment policies, to conduct a school climate assessment, and to develop a mandatory training program. The consent decree also requires the district to educate school board members and employees regarding how to respond to sexual harassment complaints. Lastly, the district must pay $152,500 to compensate the student victims and to pay their attorney's fees. On December 9, 2009, the parties informed the court that the case could be closed based on the district's implementation of the consent order.

On October 3, 2018, the Section and the District of Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (collectively the “United States”) entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the Adams 12 Five Star Schools (“the District”) in Colorado to bring the District’s English Learner (EL) program into compliance with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). This is the United States’ second settlement agreement with the District. The first settlement agreement was reached in 2010 and aimed to resolve numerous EEOA violations that the Section had identified during a compliance review of all the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices. This 2010 agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: ensure timely, adequate and appropriate EL services; train EL teachers and administrators; recruit and hire qualified staff for EL students; provide translation services for parents and guardians; ensure EL students are appropriately evaluated for special education and receive dual services when eligible; provide adequate and appropriate materials for EL classes; monitor current and exited EL students; and evaluate its EL programs adequately. The Section ended its monitoring of the 2010 agreement in 2015.

In 2016, the United States began conducting a complaint investigation to determine whether the District was appropriately serving its approximately 5,600 EL students as required by Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. The second settlement agreement addresses the narrower set of conditions that the United States identified as noncompliant with the EEOA in 2018. The 2018 agreement requires the District to: provide adequate language services to all EL students; provide EL students with appropriate access to core content through sheltered instruction; adequately train the administrators and teachers who provide language services and implement the EL program, including on how to use its curricula for EL students; adequately monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and properly evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the 2018 agreement will remain in place for three years.

This desegregation case involves the Longview Independent School District ("LISD") in Longview, Texas, which was ordered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to desegregate on August 27, 1970. On January 24, 2011, as part of a district-wide consolidation plan, the court approved a consent order adopting LISD's revised attendance zones. On February 28, 2014, the court declared that LISD was partially unitary and had eliminated all vestiges of past de jure discrimination to the extent practicable in its facilities, transportation, extracurricular activities, and staff assignment. Following a comprehensive review of the school district's policies and practices, and subsequent negotiations, on December 22, 2014, the court approved the parties' proposed consent order. The Section is monitoring the district's compliance with this consent order, which requires LISD to publicize and broadly disseminate the application and assessment procedures it uses to admit students to the Hudson PEP Elementary School magnet program; permit and facilitate majority-to-minority transfers between certain schools; provide equal access to pre-advanced placement courses at its middle schools; and publicize and broadly disseminate its gifted-and-talented program admission procedures.

On October 12, 2022, the United States issued its Letter of Findings alleging the State of Alabama is violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Based on our investigation, we concluded the State of Alabama discriminates against students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the foster care system who have been enrolled at on-site schools on the campuses of Alabama’s psychiatric residential treatment facilities.  By enrolling students at the on-site schools without regard to each student’s ability to perform in local public schools, the State’s practices relegate them to unnecessarily segregated classes and unequal educational opportunities.  During our investigation, we found these on-site schools differ in many and substantial ways from general education schools, including in their physical attributes, the multi-grade composition of the classes, their heavy reliance on online programs in classrooms without certified staff, and an overall and profound lack of resources.  The on-site schools also lack grade-appropriate curricula; provide insufficient instructional services and supports, including through the use of shortened school days; and are often unable to provide students with access to facilities that are common in general education settings, such as libraries, gyms, and science labs, or opportunities to participate in sports and extracurricular activities. For more information, please see the press release .    

In this matter involving the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s (PDE) system of alternative education programs, known as Alternative Education for Disruptive Youth (AEDY), the Section conducted an investigation into complaints that Pennsylvania’s statewide system of alternative education discriminated against students with disabilities in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as English Language Learners (EL) students in violation of Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  On March 25, 2019 , the Section along with the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania entered into a settlement agreement with PDE .  The settlement agreement requires that PDE monitor the AEDY system to ensure that students with disabilities are not placed in AEDY in a manner that discriminates based on disability; that they are not unnecessarily segregated within AEDY programs on the basis of disability; that they are not denied equal educational opportunities; and that students with disabilities are transferred back to their home schools in a timely manner.  In addition, the agreement will require all local educational agencies referring EL students to AEDY to establish an EL service plan to ensure EL students are provided appropriate services.  Further, PDE will ensure that AEDY programs provide EL services by utilizing teachers who hold ESL teaching credentials and by using appropriate materials. The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.  For more information, please see this press release .

On February 16, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Anchorage School District in Anchorage, Alaska to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the district engaged in improper restraint and seclusion practices in its specialized schools and programs for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Under the settlement agreement, the district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other things: prohibit the use of seclusion; limit the use of restraint; document and review all instances of restraint and ensure they were justified; hire a district-level administrator to review incidents and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA; create classroom-wide behavior management plans to discourage restraint and promote positive behaviors; revise its complaint form to ensure it can receive complaints related to restraint and seclusion; provide training and professional development for all teachers and instructional staff at its schools and programs for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities; notify parents and guardians of all instances of restraint and seclusion; and offer compensatory counseling or education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices. For more information, please see this letter , press release , and summary of the agreement .

In this longstanding school desegregation case, the Section and a class of black plaintiffs opposed the school district's proposal, among other things, to build five new schools. The Section contended that the district's proposal would not further desegregation of the district's schools, would not afford black students equal educational opportunities, and would impose disproportionate transportation burdens on black students. The school district's transportation records showed, for example, that some black high-school students were required to ride a bus up to nearly two and one-half hours each way to and from school, while white students were bussed no longer than forty-five minutes to and from the same school; nonetheless, the school district proposed to build a new high school at a location that would reduce the transportation times of white students while maintaining the transportation times of black students. The Section also alleged that the school district had failed to comply with existing desegregation orders in the areas of faculty and staff hiring, assignment and compensation; transportation; facilities; and curriculum.

After a seven-day evidentiary trial in May 1999, the district court issued an order approving the school district's construction plan, but requiring the school district to address several of the matters about which we had complained. Among other things, the district court ordered the school district to take steps to reduce the transportation times to school for black students. The Section and the plaintiff class appealed from the district court's order relating to new construction. At the request of the Section and the plaintiff class, the district court entered an order "staying," or putting on hold, the school district's proposed new construction, pending a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into settlement discussions. In April 2000 the parties signed and the district court approved a consent order that both required the school district to address areas of its alleged non-compliance with federal law and resolved all but one of the issues on appeal. The remaining issue on appeal was whether the school district's proposed site for a new high school was consistent with the district's affirmative desegregation obligations. On November 6, 2000, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that allowed construction of the new high school to proceed at the contested location. In December 2000, the district court entered an order establishing a bi-racial advisory committee.

On August 5, 1965, the private plaintiffs brought this school desegregation case to enjoin the Monroe City School District from continuing to operate racially segregated schools.  The United States joined the case as amicus curiae in 1970 and intervened in the lawsuit in 1978.  On July 6, 1992, the Court declared the District unitary with respect to facilities, extracurricular activities, and “the hiring and retention of black teachers and administrators.”  However, the Court declined to declare the District unitary with regard to “teacher and principal assignments, student assignments and transportation.”  On March 30, 2010, the Court ordered the District to “offer the same courses at every high school in the District;” fully implement a medical magnet program at Carroll High School by the fall of the 2011-12 school year (in an attempt to increase the diversity of the student population at Carroll High); encourage each high school student “to attempt to qualify for the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS), which provides scholarships for qualified high school students who choose to attend a Louisiana state college or university;” “work with the Equity Assistance Center for the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) in order to ensure that all students have an equitable opportunity to participate in Gifted, Honors, pre-AP, and AP programming at all schools in the District;” and ensure that all principals, other administrators, faculty and certified staff are informed of the terms of the Court’s order.  On September 25, 2015, the Court declared the District unitary with respect to student assignment and transportation, but declined to pronounce the District unitary as to teacher and principal assignments.  In addition, the Court found that the District had not complied with the March 30, 2010 Consent Decree.  On December 11, 2015, the Court entered a Consent Decree designed to remedy teacher and principal assignment and course offerings.  Among other actions, the board must take steps to equalize course offerings and ensure that the racial makeup and credentials of the teachers and administrators at any given school does not indicate that a school is intended for black students or white students.  On March 23, 2016, in the interest of securing full compliance with the letter and spirit of the December 2015 Consent Decree, the United States and the District jointly filed a motion for the extension of certain deadlines therein.  The Court granted the motion and entered an Amended Consent Decree on March 24, 2016.  On April 14, 2016, the Court entered a Second Amended Consent Decree .

On July 24, 2013, the Section and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights entered into a resolution agreement with the Arcadia Unified School District in Arcadia, Calif., to resolve an investigation into allegations of discrimination against a transgender student based on the student's sex. Under the agreement, the school district will take a number of steps to ensure that the student, whose gender identity is male and who has consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years, will be treated like other male students while attending school in the district. The agreement resolves a complaint filed in October 2011. As detailed in the closure letter sent to the district, the complaint alleged that the district had prohibited the student from accessing facilities consistent with his male gender identity at school and on a school-sponsored overnight trip because he is transgender. The United States investigated this complaint under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both Title IX and Title IV prohibit discrimination against students based on sex. Under the agreement, the district will work with a consultant to support and assist the district in creating a safe, nondiscriminatory learning environment for students who are transgender or do not conform to gender stereotypes; amend its policies and procedures to reflect that gender-based discrimination, including discrimination based on a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity with gender stereotypes, is a form of discrimination based on sex; and train administrators and faculty on preventing gender-based discrimination and creating a nondiscriminatory school environment for transgender students. Additionally, the district will take a number of steps to treat the student like all other male students in the education programs and activities offered by the district. The district-wide provisions of the agreement will be in place until the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The student-specific provisions of the agreement will be in place as long as the student is enrolled in the district. For more information, please see this press release .

On July 23, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the South District of Texas in Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District .  In this case, the District disciplined two black boys when they refused to cut their locs to conform to the District’s hair length policy.  Because similarly situated girls would not have been in violation of the District’s policy, the boys and their parents brought suit, alleging that the hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex (among other bases) in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  Plaintiffs further allege that the District retaliated against one of the parents in violation of Title IX.  On June 21, 2021, the District filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal, arguing primarily that Fifth Circuit precedent establishes a per se rule barring judicial review of all school hair length regulations and that a parent lacks standing to bring a Title IX retaliation claim.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that there is no binding Fifth Circuit precedent barring review of plaintiffs’ sex-based challenges to the District’s hair length policy.  The United States further advises that Title IX applies to all aspects of a federal funding recipient’s education programs and activities, including its dress and grooming code, and that parents of minor schoolchildren have standing to bring Title IX retaliation claims.  Applying the proper Equal Protection Clause and Title IX standards, the United States concludes that plaintiffs adequately allege that the District’s hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, and that the District unlawfully retaliated against a parent who complained about the hair length policy’s discriminatory effect.  For this reason, the United States asserts that the District’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ sex discrimination claims should be denied. 

On January 28, 1975, Mississippi was sued for maintaining an unconstitutional dual system of higher education. Plaintiffs argued that Mississippi denied equal opportunities to black students and faculty members by favoring the State's historically white colleges and universities at the expense of its historically black colleges and universities, and by failing to remove the vestiges of racial segregation in the former de jure dual system. On April 21, 1975, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring Mississippi's higher education system into conformity with constitutional and statutory provisions.

After a trial, the district court and appellate court found for the defendants, but, in 1992, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case to the district court to determine if Mississippi had taken the necessary steps to ensure that a student's choice of college was indeed free and unconstrained by Mississippi's former discriminatory policies. The case marked the first time that the Supreme Court defined the applicable legal standards for higher education desegregation.

On February 15, 2002, the court entered a final judgment approving a $503 million settlement . Endorsed by the Mississippi legislature, the settlement will fund a comprehensive plan over a seventeen-year period aimed at improving academic programs, making capital improvements, and expanding summer programs at the State's historically black colleges and universities. The State also will recognize the historically black Jackson State University as a comprehensive university. The district court dismissed the case, but has retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

On January 30, 2017, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana approved a consent order that addresses the remaining issues in the desegregation case and when fully implemented will lead to its closing. The consent order, negotiated with the school district (the “District”) and private plaintiffs, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, puts the District on a path to full unitary status within three years provided it:

• Implements a new student assignment plan that desegregates its three nearly all-black elementary schools to the extent practicable, by revising feeder patterns and creating specialized academic programs that will attract a diverse student body;
• Revises the District’s code of conduct to ensure fairness and consistency in the handling of subjective disciplinary offenses that do not threaten safety, and provides District staff with additional tools to address student misbehavior in nondiscriminatory ways;
• Takes reasonable steps to recruit a diverse pool of applicants for faculty and staff vacancies that arise in the course of implementing the new student assignment plan; and
• Incorporates into its student handbook a statement prohibiting discrimination in extracurricular activities and encouraging participation by students of all races.

The consent order declares that the District has already met its desegregation obligations in the area of transportation. The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance. For more information, please see this press release .

This longstanding desegregation case was filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs, with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and local cooperating attorneys serving as counsel. The United States intervened later that year. In 1969, the Fifth Circuit entered a desegregation order permanently enjoined the District from discriminating on the basis of race or color in the operation of the Meridian schools. In 2010, as part of efforts to enforce the desegregation order, the department began to investigate complaints that the District had implemented a harsh and punitive student discipline policy that resulted in the disproportionate suspension, expulsion, and school-based arrest of black students in Meridian schools. The department found that these kinds of disparities persisted even when the students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a proposed consent decree filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 22, 2013. Along with the proposed consent decree, the parties jointly filed a motion to approve the decree , and the United States separately filed a memorandum of law . Under the consent decree, the district will take steps to create safe and inclusive learning environments in all Meridian schools, including providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On May 30, 2013, the Court adopted the consent order .

For more information regarding the proposed consent decree, please see this press release .

On June 21, 2010, the Division filed a Motion for Leave to file an amicus brief in Biediger, et al. v. Quinnipiac University. Plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac failed to provide female students an equal opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics, and that this failure constituted intentional sex discrimination in violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(1). The plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac misrepresented its athletic participation numbers by, among other things, requiring women’s teams to artificially increase their number of participants, resulting in some members lacking a genuine varsity athletic participation opportunity; underrepresenting the number of male athletes on teams; eliminating the women's volleyball program; and counting participants on its cheer squad as a sport under Title IX. The United States' amicus brief provided guidance as to what constitutes a genuine participation opportunity, as well as guidance concerning what constitutes a sport for Title IX compliance.

On October 1, 2010, the Section, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education (OCR), and the Boston Public Schools (BPS) entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve violations of English Language Learner (ELL) students' rights under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 20 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. The 2010 Agreement , which grew out of the Section’s and OCR’s joint compliance review of BPS' ELL programs, was needed to address as soon as possible its failure to test approximately 7,000 students in reading and writing to determine if they were ELL students and over 4,000 known ELL students whom it had misidentified as having opted out of ELL programs between 2003 and 2009. The 2010 Agreement secured ELL and compensatory services for the more than 4,000 misidentified “opt out” students and the 4,300 of the 7,000 students who were improperly identified as non-ELL students. The 2010 Agreement further required BPS to provide all ELL students with English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction by ESL-certified teachers and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) content classes by teachers trained to provide SEI instruction. While BPS was implementing the 2010 Agreement, OCR and DOJ completed the remainder of their compliance review and negotiated a Successor Agreement with BPS to resolve the additional areas of noncompliance identified in the review. The April 19, 2012 Successor Agreement replaced the 2010 Settlement Agreement and provides systemic, comprehensive relief across BPS’s ELL programs, procedures, and practices. The Successor Agreement requires, inter alia: accurate and timely identification of ELL students; appropriate ESL and SEI services provided by qualified faculty; meaningful communications with Limited English Proficient parents through translations and qualified interpreters; assessments and services specially designed to meet the needs of ELL students who face unique challenges, such as students with disabilities and students with interrupted formal education; and greater access for ELL students to the higher-level learning opportunities in BPS. To ensure these programmatic changes are effective, the agreement further requires BPS to evaluate the effect of these changes on student achievement over time through robust, disaggregated data analyses. For more information on both agreements, please see the 2010 press release and 2012 press release .

In this matter involving the Bound Brook New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs) as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; ELLs' access to basic skills instruction, special education services, and academic enrichment programs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; and monitoring of students currently enrolled in the ELL program and those students who have exited from the program. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues and on October 16, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement required the district to provide, among other things: timely assessment of all students with non-English speaking backgrounds; quality curricula and instruction for ELLs; adequate teacher training; and careful monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of current and former ELLs. After the district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement, the agreement ended on January 12, 2007.

On June 17, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in evaluating the Title IX and Equal Protection claims in B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. , Case No. 2:21-cv-00316.  In this case, the plaintiff, an 11-year-old girl who is transgender, challenged H.B. 3293, a state law that prohibits girls who are transgender from participating on female interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by any public secondary school or state institution of higher education.  She asked the court to enjoin West Virginia from enforcing H.B. 3293 and allow her to participate on girls’ sports teams consistent with her gender identity.  The plaintiff alleged that H.B. 3293 requires her school, a recipient of federal financial assistance, to exclude her from school athletics on the basis of sex, causing her harm in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The plaintiff also alleges that H.B. 3293 violates the Equal Protection Clause because the state law discriminates against her because of sex and gender identity and is not substantially related to an exceedingly persuasive justification.  In its statement of interest , the United States advised the court that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including because a student is transgender.  The United States concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on these claims in support of her motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Memorandum and Order - B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

On November 13, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Burlington School District in Burlington, Vermont, to resolve an investigation into allegations of sex discrimination.  The Section initiated its investigation in response to a complaint by a group of parents alleging that their children had been subject to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment, including assault, that went unaddressed by the District.  As a result, their children feared for their safety and several withdrew from the school.  Under the Agreement, the District will take a number of steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on sex.  Those steps include retaining the technical assistance of the Mid Atlantic Equity Center to support a review of the District’s sex-based harassment policies, practices, and procedures as well as the District’s training on and implementation protocols for such policies.  The Agreement further requires that the District work with the Equity Center to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District-level to ensure that all schools have the capacity to implement fully the District’s policies and procedures.  Under the Agreement, the District will provide particularized training for students and faculty at the elementary school implicated in the complaint, and will conduct climate surveys at that school to assess the presence and effects of harassment and bullying, the inclusiveness and safety of the educational environment, and the effectiveness of the measures taken pursuant to the Agreement.  The Agreement will be in place through the 2021-22 school year.    

On July 14, 2014, the Division filed a Statement of Interest in D.J. et al v. State of California , a state case brought by parents and guardians of English Language Learner (ELL) students against the State of California and the California Department of Education (CDE) among others, which alleged that the State violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (“EEOA”) by failing to respond to credible information that tens of thousands of ELL students were not receiving ELL instructional services.  The Division’s Statement of Interest articulated what the United States maintains are the correct legal standards governing the State’s obligations under the EEOA, including monitoring local education agencies (LEAs) provision of EL instructional services.  In an August 12, 2014 decision, the state court ruled that the State had violated the EEOA and ordered it to take remedial action, reiterating many of the legal standards discussed in the United States’ brief.  In November 2014, the State appealed the ruling, and then subsequently settled the appeal and all of D.J. plaintiffs’ claims in a private settlement approved by the state court.

Applying the standards in the Statement of Interest in its own EEOA compliance review of the State’s monitoring practices, the Division notified CDE and the California State Board of Education in a letter dated May 22, 2015, that the State was not meeting its obligations under the EEOA and needed to respond promptly and appropriately to ensure LEAs provide their EL students with appropriate EL instructional services.  On September 8, 2016, the Division and the State settled the matter in a two-year settlement agreement that requires the State to respond in a timely and effective manner to credible evidence that LEAs are failing to serve their ELLs, including notifying them of violations and providing a protocol by which they must submit to CDE documented evidence that resolves the violations.  The agreement also requires CDE to: consider LEAs’ reports of unserved ELs when selecting schools for monitoring reviews; improve CDE’s online monitoring tool; require that schools found to be out of compliance with specific requirements in this online tool receive onsite monitoring if they fail to provide adequate evidence that the noncompliance has been resolved; and develop and provide training on the monitoring, review, and corrective action processes associated with CDE’s system of monitoring schools for ELL service violations.  For more information, please see the press release .

In this religious discrimination case, the plaintiffs alleged that their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the school board excluded them from using school facilities for a "prayer meeting" at which civic and social issues would be discussed. The school board permits community groups and non-students to use school facilities for a wide variety of civic and recreational purposes such as luncheons, homeowner association meetings, seminars, and athletic activities. The policy permits groups to use school facilities to engage in discussions having a "religious viewpoint," but not to engage in "religious services or instruction." Relying on this distinction, the board denied facility access to the plaintiffs on the grounds that the proposed prayer meeting was a religious service rather than a meeting presented from a religious viewpoint. On April 25, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, arguing that (1) plaintiffs' proposed meeting fits well within the forum created under the school board's facility use policy, and (2) there is no legal or practical distinction between religious viewpoints on a topic and "religious services or instruction." On June 3, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On July 10, 2003, the court held a hearing on the parties' motions in which the Section participated. On July 29, 2003, the court issued an order granting summary judgment for plaintiffs. The court concluded that although the plaintiffs' proposed meeting was primarily a religious service, it also included a discussion of family and political issues from a legally protected religious viewpoint. Thus, the court held that the proposed meeting was not "mere religious worship," but included speech that the school district permitted through its facility use policy. The school district therefore improperly denied the plaintiffs access to school facilities for their evening meeting. On February 19, 2004, the case was dismissed.

On February 19, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio opened an investigation into Case Western Reserve University’s (“CWRU”) response to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, and sexual misconduct in its Greek Life community.  The Department’s investigation included interviews with former and current campus employees, students, and alumni, and an extensive review of CWRU’s polices grievance procedures, training, and response to reports of sexual harassment.

On August 22, 2023, the Department and CWRU reached a resolution agreement under Title IX to address the areas of noncompliance identified through the Department’s investigation.  Under the agreement, CWRU will, among other steps: reorganize the Title IX reporting structure to remove it from the purview of the Office of General Counsel and ensure CWRU follows its grievance procedures free from conflicts of interest; promote greater awareness about the Office of Equity and the Title IX Coordinator; require annual training for all students and employees; invest resources into enhanced prevention programming and training for CWRU fraternities and sororities; conduct campus-wide outreach; and implement a campus-wide student survey to better serve its community.  The Department will carefully monitor the CWRU’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2025-2026 academic year.  For more information, please see this letter , press release , and a plain-language summary  of the agreement.

On September 12, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Cedar Rapids Community School District in Cedar Rapids, Iowa to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: end its use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint, revise its restraint procedures and practices, and consistently implement those procedures and practices in all schools; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified; offer counseling and other services to students who are restrained; adopt policies and procedures to assess suicide risk, prevent suicide and self-harm, and implement immediate crisis intervention for students who threaten or engage in self-harm; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and hire two new administrators to oversee schools’ use of restraint and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this letter ,  press release , and  summary of settlement agreement .

In this matter involving Charleston County School District in Charleston, South Carolina, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina conducted an investigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The United States received complaints that the school district failed to communicate essential information to Spanish-speaking, limited English proficient (LEP) parents, denying their children full and equal access to the school district’s education programs and services.  The United States found that, over the course of several years, the school district often failed to use qualified interpreters to communicate with Spanish-speaking LEP parents and guardians, even when their need for an interpreter was documented or otherwise evident.  The United States also found that the school district did not consistently translate essential written information into Spanish, and asked parents who can only communicate in Spanish to make important decisions about school programs and services without explaining the options in a language they understand. 

On March 2, 2021, the United States entered into a settlement agreement  with the school district to ensure that the school district and each its 80 schools and programs use qualified interpreters and translators to communicate with LEP parents about matters essential to their children’s education, including special education services.  The agreement requires, among other things, that the district take proactive steps by: developing and implementing effective language access policies and procedures; training faculty and staff on how to properly identify and meaningfully communicate with LEP parents and guardians; informing LEP parents and guardians of their right to language access services at special-education related meetings and receive translated special-education related documents; and providing a language-assessment report and bi-annual compliance reports to DOJ.  For more information, please see this press release  and a translated version in Spanish .  A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

In this matter involving Cherry Creek School District in Colorado, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado conducted an investigation under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The United States received complaints that the school district failed to communicate essential information to limited English proficient (LEP) parents, denying their children full and equal access to the school district’s education programs and services.  The LEP parents in the community speak more than 150 languages, and the United States found that, over the course of several years, the school district often failed to use qualified interpreters to communicate with LEP parents, particularly when parents enrolled their children in the district’s schools and during expulsion hearings and other disciplinary proceedings.  

On May 21, 2024, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district to ensure that the school district identify LEP parents and provide them with appropriate language assistance services, such as in-person interpretation, remote video or telephonic interpretation, translation, and/or sight translation, when communicating with parents about matters essential to their children’s education.  The agreement requires, among other things, that the district train faculty and staff on how to properly identify and meaningfully communicate with LEP parents and inform LEP parents about their right to language access services.  The district will translate all enrollment documents, including all forms and registration instructions, into any languages used by 100 or more LEP parents in the district.  The district also will identify parents’ preferred language of communication at the beginning of the student enrollment process and use telephonic interpretation services and other language assistance services to help LEP parents navigate the enrollment process.  The district will take similar steps when staff communicate with parents concerning disciplinary proceedings, including potential exclusionary discipline hearings.  The district also will provide annual compliance reports to DOJ. 

For more information, please see this press release and the agreement .  A translated versions of the press release are available in Amharic , Arabic , Chinese , Korean , Russian , Spanish , and Vietnamese , and a translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

On July 9, 2004, Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF), an organization that sponsors after-school Good News Bible Clubs, filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that officials of the Upland Unified School District (California) discriminated against CEF by allowing non-profit organizations such as the Boy Scouts free use of school facilities while at the same time charging religious organizations such as CEF rent equal to “direct costs.”

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States’ motion.

The United States filed a brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States argued that the district’s practice of charging religious groups a fee to use school facilities for activities serving local youth when the district does not charge secular groups a fee to use facilities serving local youth violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the fee discriminated against CEF’s religious viewpoint.

On November 15, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction thereby enjoining the district from requiring CEF to pay any rental fees or other fees that are not required of other non-profit community organizations for use of the district’s facilities.

Then, on February 4, 2005, the Court entered a Stipulated Dismissal without prejudice with an attached Settlement Agreement stating that the district agreed, among other terms, to permit CEF equal access to school facilities on the same terms and conditions as other similar non-profit groups.

The department conducted a compliance review of the English Language Learner (ELL) program at the Clay County School District in Alabama to determine whether ELL students were receiving services required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 19, 2014, a settlement agreement was reached that will ensure that this rural district takes appropriate action to serve its small but growing population of ELL students, including: increasing services for ELL students, obtaining additional English as a Second Language-certified instructors, conducting significant professional development for teachers, providing adequate materials and classroom supports for ELL students, monitoring the academic performance of current and former ELL students and improving language-accessible communication with limited English proficient parents. For more information, please see this press release .

Settlement Agreement in: Spanish

Press Release in: Spanish

In this matter involving the Clay County School District, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida investigated whether the District was providing appropriate language services to its English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). The investigation revealed that the District was not appropriately identifying EL students or providing them with the educational services and supports needed for EL students to become proficient in English and participate equally in school. On October 30, 2023, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement . Under the agreement, the District will modify its practices so that EL students are properly assessed and identified shortly after their enrollment, promptly provided with language services if they qualify and have the opportunity to equally benefit from the academic and behavioral supports provided to their peers. The District will also make certain that all teachers are qualified, trained and provided enough support and resources to help EL students become fluent in English and understand their core-content courses. The District will also translate and interpret important school information for parents who are not fluent in English. For more information, please see the press release in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole . The agreement is available in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole , and summaries of the agreement are available in English , Spanish , and Haitian-Creole .

In this matter involving the Colton Joint Unified School District in California, the United States investigated whether the district’s programming for English learners was adequate under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. After a multi-year investigation conducted by the Educational Opportunities Section along with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office for the Central District of California, the United States found that English learners in the district did not receive adequate English language instruction, and that core content teachers did not have the requisite training to meet English learner needs in math, science and social studies courses. On December 19, 2022, the United States entered an out-of-court settlement agreement with the district to ensure that every English learner in the district receives English language instruction, and that teachers working with English learners are trained and qualified to meet their needs. The district will also implement additional changes to ensure that English learners have an equal opportunity to participate in the district’s various programs, including programs for gifted and talented students. The agreement will remain in place for three years. For more information please see this press release in English and Spanish ( español ).

In this sex discrimination case, high school girls in Michigan filed a complaint alleging that the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that MHSAA refused to sanction additional sports for high school girls, provided inferior practice and playing facilities for post-season tournaments held in certain girls' sports, and required girls to play certain sports in disadvantageous seasons. This last contention allegedly reduced participation opportunities for high school girls by shortening playing seasons, thereby preventing participation in club competitions and all-star competitions involving players from other states and negatively affecting their chances of being recruited for collegiate-level sports programs. On September 7, 1999, the Section was granted leave to participate as litigating amicus curiae and filed an amicus brief at the summary judgment stage, arguing that the case should go forward under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On January 21, 2002, the court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

In the summer of 2001, the parties participated in mediation which resulted in a settlement of all claims except for the issue of playing seasons. The court conducted a two-week bench trial in September 2001 and received evidence concerning the following questions: (1) whether MHSAA, by assuming controlling authority over interscholastic athletics from member schools that receive federal funds, is subject to Title IX; (2) whether MHSAA is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) whether MHSAA's scheduling of only girls' sports in disadvantageous seasons violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On December 17, 2001, the court issued its ruling finding in favor of the plaintiffs and the Section on all three issues. See Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n , 178 F. Supp.2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001). The court held that MHSAA is subject to Title IX and is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In so holding, the court further concluded that MHSAA's scheduling practices violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Lastly, the court ordered MHSAA to submit a compliance plan to remedy the discriminatory scheduling of girls' sports.

The Section filed an opposition to the compliance plan in June 2002. After reviewing briefing on the issue of the remedial plan and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court issued a ruling requiring MHSAA to switch girls' basketball and volleyball to their traditional, advantageous seasons of the winter and fall respectively. The Court ultimately approved the rest of MHSAA's remedial plan, finding that the switching of the remaining sports at issue (soccer, golf, tennis, swimming, and diving) balanced the inequity of nontraditional playing seasons amongst high school boys and girls in Michigan.

MHSAA appealed the district court's rulings on liability and the remedial plan to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit. The Division filed an amicus brief in August 2003. In July 2004, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that MHSAA's scheduling of sports violates the Equal Protection Clause. MHSAA then appealed to the Supreme Court, which instructed the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the case. On August 16, 2006, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion that again affirmed the district court's ruling that the sports schedule discriminates against female athletes on the basis of sex. On December 7, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied review of MHSAA's petition for certiorari.

In 1999, the Section intervened in this lawsuit alleging the Denver Public Schools (DPS) violated Title VI and the EEOA by failing to take appropriate actions to overcome language barriers of its English Language Learner (ELL) students. On June 16,1999, the district court approved a new English Language Acquisition Plan for the Denver Public Schools.

The result of compliance monitoring by the Section and the Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE), and DPS’s recognition that the 1999 order no longer reflected the district’s own best practices for serving ELL students, moved the parties to develop a new consent decree to replace the existing plan. On April 16, 2013 the district court in Denver approved a comprehensive consent decree between the Department of Justice, CHE, and DPS that requires DPS to provide language services to the more than 28,000 ELL students enrolled in the district’s 170 schools.

The consent decree requires the district to implement comprehensive measures to ensure that ELLs have equal opportunities to succeed academically in district educational programs, starting with the proper identification of ELL students when they enter DPS.  Among other things, the consent decree requires DPS to: provide language acquisition services to ELL students in district schools, including charter schools, until they are proficient in English and to monitor ELL students after they exit services to ensure they are participating meaningfully and equally in mainstream classes; to make translation and interpretation services available for thousands of Limited English Proficient parents who speak more than 130 different languages – ensuring that all parents have access to essential information about their children’s education;  to provide Pre-K language services at each school where DPS offers early childhood education; and to make  appropriate language services available for ELL students who face unique challenges, including refugee students and students with disabilities.

For more information about the 2013 Consent Decree, please see the following fact sheet available in: English | አማርኛ (Amharic) | العربية (Arabic) | မြန်မာစကား (Burmese) | Soomaali (Somali) | Español (Spanish) | Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) .

The June 16, 2009 complaint alleges that FHSAA’s new policy discriminates against female students by reducing the maximum number of competitions that a school can schedule by 20% for varsity teams and 40% for sub-varsity teams while exempting 36,000 boys who play football and only 4,300 girls and 201 boys who participate in competitive cheerleading. The complaint also alleges that OCR has not recognized competitive cheerleading as a sport under Title IX and that even if it were recognized as a sport, the new policy exempts nearly nine times as many boys than girls from the reductions in their competition schedule. The complaint further alleges that FHSAA sanctions football for a total of 23 weeks of coaching, practices, and competitions, while the majority of girls’ sports operate for only a total of 15 weeks. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 19, 2009. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July1, 2009. On July 14th, the Division filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The United States’ amicus brief argues that plaintiffs’ allegations establish claims of intentional discrimination, not just disparate impact, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause that are sufficiently detailed to survive the motion to dismiss. The brief also argues that there is a substantial likelihood that the Title IX and Equal Protection claims will succeed on the merits, and that the court should preliminarily enjoin new Policy 6. On July 15, the court granted the United States’ motion for leave to file its brief and its request for oral argument at a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for July 17. Shortly thereafter on July 15, FHSAA voted unanimously to rescind its challenged policy. On July 16, 2009, the court cancelled the preliminary injunction hearing because the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that FHSAA’s rescission of the policy rendered the motion for a preliminary injunction moot. On October 21, 2009, the court issued an order granting the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss the case without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement until December 31, 2010.

In this matter involving the Coolidge Unified School District (“the District”) in Arizona, the Section examined whether the District’s instructional services and materials for English Learner (EL) students and its training for their teachers and administrators complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Opportunities Act of 1974.  On April 16, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to improve and increase language instruction for EL students so they can become fluent in English and understand the coursework in all of their academic subjects.  The agreement also requires the district to provide robust teacher and administrator training, obtain the special materials and curricula that English learner students need to succeed academically, and actively evaluate students’ progress over time.  The agreement will remain in place for three full school years.  For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish . A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish .

In this longstanding desegregation case involving the Franklin County Board of Education (North Carolina), the Section monitors the school district's compliance with existing court orders. The school district achieved partial unitary status in certain areas in 2002 and additional areas in 2018 . The court retains jurisdiction over the Green factor of student assignment, including the school district’s administration of discipline and its gifted and talented programs.

On April 13, 2000, the school district moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that it had attained unitary status. On November 22, 2000, the Section filed a  memorandum  opposing, in part, the school district's motion. On June 24, 2002, the district court held that the school district was partially unitary with respect to school transportation, extracurricular activities, school construction and facilities, student transfers, and faculty desegregation. On June 17, 2003, the Court approved a Consent Order governing the school district’s remaining areas of obligation (student assignment, staff desegregation, and quality of education). A new student assignment plan was approved in a May 2005 order .

At the court’s request, in a January 2018 response to the school district’s annual report the Section identified two areas of ongoing district noncompliance with the 2003 Consent Order that pertain to the assignment of students within schools: (1) discipline that excludes students from schools and classrooms; and (2) the referral and assignment of students to the gifted and talented program. With the consent of the  school district, the Section simultaneously filed a joint motion to declare the district partially unitary and approve a proposed stipulation with regard to several of the school district’s remaining desegregation obligations. Separately, counsel for Plaintiffs asked the Court to require the school district to provide notice of the proposed changes and invite public comment before dismissing any part of the 2003 Order. The Court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s request.

Having provided the public appropriate notice and an opportunity to submit comments pursuant to a court-approved schedule, the United States and the school district filed a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Support on December 14, 2018, to declare the District partially unitary with respect to desegregation of staff and the following quality of education areas governed by the 2003 Order: academic achievement, advanced course offerings and enrollment, special education program, and student dropouts. The court granted the joint motion in an order dated December 18, 2018.

This case was brought by the Henrico County School Board (board) to appeal a Virginia hearing officer’s decision in favor of R.T.’s parents’ private school placement. R.T. is an autistic child entitled to a free and appropriate education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The hearing officer agreed with R.T.’s parents that the board failed to provide R.T. with a FAPE and that the private school placement was a FAPE. One issue before the federal district court was which party should pay for the private school placement pending the board’s appeal of the state hearing officer’s decision. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s regulation, 34 C.F.R. §300.514(c), which implements the IDEA’s stay put provision, 20 U.S.C. §1415(j), the board should fund the placement while litigation is pending. The board challenged the validity of the statutory and regulatory stay put provisions, and the Section filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education to defend both provisions. The Section argued that the regulation was consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory provision and that the statutory provision was a valid exercise of the Spending Clause power. On June 22, 2006, the court issued an opinion rejecting the board’s Spending Clause challenge and agreeing with the United States that the board must pay for R.T.’s private pendent placement.

On January 18, 2017, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Covington Independent Public Schools to ensure the District does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its administration of school discipline. The agreement will guarantee that the District provides reasonable modifications of school policy for students with disabilities to avoid the use of exclusionary discipline, isolation, seclusion, or restraint, and contact with law enforcement. The agreement will also replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate.

This is a cooperative resolution of the Justice Department’s investigation, opened in November 2015 in response to complaints that the District’s discipline practices discriminated on the basis of race and disability. As a part of the settlement agreement, the District will continue its current practice of not stationing School Resource Officers (SROs) at elementary schools; cease requesting SROs to enforce disciplinary rules; eliminate the use of seclusion and isolation rooms; prohibit the use of restraints unless there is imminent danger to the physical safety of the student or others; develop a protocol to identify students who are disproportionately subject to disciplinary referrals, particularly those students who receive exclusionary discipline as a result, and provide those students with interventions and supports intended to reduce disciplinary actions; take prompt and effective steps to help students who are in crisis; implement a code of conduct that focuses on positive interventions, rather than punitive discipline; and train administrators and teachers on how to provide all students with effective interventions and supports.

On August 7, 2017, Cleveland Central High School and Cleveland Central Middle School opened in Cleveland, Mississippi, a major milestone in this longstanding desegregation case, which was initially filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs (the United States intervened in 1985).

On May 2, 2011, the United States had filed a motion for further relief asking the court to find that the district had violated its desegregation obligations under several previously-entered desegregation orders governing the District, and to compel the district's compliance with federal law. In its brief , the United States argued that, while the district had been governed by desegregation orders for more than 42 years, the predominantly black schools on the east side of the District had never been desegregated. The United States further asserted that the ratio of black and white faculty at numerous District schools reinforced the reputation of those schools in the community as "white" or "black" schools. The district filed an opposition brief on August 18, 2011, and the United States filed a reply brief on October 6, 2011.

In an opinion issued on March 28, 2012, the court determined that two schools, a middle school and high school that were formerly de jure black schools, had never been desegregated. The court also found that the ratio of black and white faculty at every school in the District deviated from the district-wide faculty ratio. The court ordered the district to submit a proposed desegregation plan addressing these issues. On December 11, 2012, following a hearing on the District’s proposed plan, the Court issued an order and opinion , finding that the District's proposal did not meet constitutional requirements and ordering the District to implement a "freedom of choice" plan for its middle and high school students.

On February 21, 2013, the United States filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its remedial order, arguing in its brief that "freedom of choice" was an inadequate remedy in this case. The Court denied the motion in an April 30, 2013 order . On April 1, 2014, following the United States' appeal of the court's remedial order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding for further proceedings. On January 23, 2015, the United States submitted a proposed desegregation plan to the Court. The district filed two separate plans. The United States objected to the District's plans on February 13, 2015 and responded to the District's objections to its plan on February 27, 2015. The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing on the proposed plans in May 2015. 

On May 13, 2016, the Court approved the U.S. plan and ordered the Cleveland School District to consolidate its secondary schools, rejecting as unconstitutional both of the District’s proposals. For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release .  After several months during which the District proceeded with an appeal of the Court’s May 2016 decision to the Fifth Circuit and submitted additional proposals to the district court, the Parties reached an agreement.  On February 8, 2017, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Modification of the Court’s May 2016 Order that would end the appeal and remove the additional proposals from the district court’s consideration.  In a March 13 order , the Court granted the Parties’ motion, and on March 17, 2017, the Court issued an updated implementation timeline . For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release .

Cleveland Central High School opened to all District 9th-12th graders and Cleveland Central Middle School opened to all District 7th-8th graders in August 2017.  The Department of Justice will continue to monitor the District’s compliance with the Court’s orders and federal law.

In this matter involving the Crestwood School District in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, the Department investigated a complaint alleging violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. §1703 et seq., related to the district's English Language Learner (ELL) program, as well as claims of employment discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On August 13, 2014, the Department and the district entered into a comprehensive, multi-part Settlement Agreement. The agreement requires the district to ensure all of its ELL students, most of whom are native Arabic speakers, receive appropriate English as a Second Language and sheltered content instruction taught by teachers who are properly qualified and trained. The district also must provide ELL students and limited English proficient parents with meaningful access to important information, including discipline and special education materials and procedures. Pursuant to the agreement, the district will work with the Department' Community Relations Service to improve parental outreach and community engagement, establish a community advisory panel, and implementing training on cultural competency. The district also will retain a qualified consultant to help it draft a comprehensive recruitment and hiring policy and implement best practices for recruiting, hiring, and retaining a qualified and diverse faculty and staff. The agreement also requires the district to institute internal complaint processes to investigate and resolve allegations of employment discrimination and/or retaliation. The district's compliance with the agreement will be monitored for four years. For more information, please see this press release .

Settlement Agreement in: Arabic

Press Release in: Arabic

On June 16, 2004, the parents of a 5th-grade student at the Hadley School Program for the Creative and Academically Talented sued the school district of the City of Saginaw, Michigan for allegedly discriminating against the student’s religious beliefs. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the district prohibited him from “selling” candy cane ornaments with an attached card explaining the religious origin of the candy cane as part of “Classroom City”–a multi-disciplinary marketplace town simulation that was part of the school’s social studies curriculum. The district conceded that the student had properly followed the assignment’s directions and received a grade of A for the simulation. Both the plaintiffs and the district filed cross motions for summary judgment.

The United States filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The United States argued that the district’s censorship of student religious speech that otherwise fulfills the assignment criteria violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments proscribing government regulation of speech that discriminates against a particular point of view–here a religious viewpoint. On September 18, 2006, the Court issued an opinion finding that the district had abridged the plaintiff student’s First Amendment free speech rights, but granted the district’s motion for summary judgment on other grounds.

On September 7, 2022, the Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Czerwienski, et. al. v. Harvard University, et. al .  The plaintiffs in this case are doctoral students at Harvard University who allege that they were retaliated against for reporting sexual harassment by a professor.  Harvard argues that it cannot be held liable for any retaliatory acts by the professor.  The United States’ brief clarifies that a recipient of federal financial assistance, like Harvard University, may be held liable for damages under Title IX where retaliatory conduct amounts to an official act of the recipient or where the recipient is deliberately indifferent to its employee’s retaliatory conduct.

On July 17, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah notified the Davis School District in Utah that we had opened an investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to parent complaints that Davis deprived students of equal protection of the law based on race. The Department’s investigation principally focused on Davis’s response to serious and widespread racial harassment of Black and Asian-American students.  The Department also investigated reports that Davis disciplined Black students more harshly than their white peers for similar behavior and that Davis denied Black students the ability to form student groups while supporting similar requests by other students.  After conducting over 100 interviews and an extensive review of Davis’s policies, trainings, discipline and other records, and responses to reports of racial harassment and other discrimination, the Department concluded that Davis violated students’ equal protection rights.

On September 15, 2021, the Department issued a  letter  notifying Davis of the Department’s conclusions, and on October 20, 2021, the Department entered into a settlement agreement  with Davis to address its violations of the Equal Protection Clause.  Under the Agreement, Davis will take significant steps to prevent and appropriately respond to racial harassment and other discrimination, including to: create a new department to handle complaints of race discrimination; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; create a centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and Davis’s response to complaints; implement student, staff, and parent training and education on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; analyze and review discipline data and amend policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies; and develop a districtwide procedure to assess requests for student groups and treat such requests fairly.  The Department will carefully monitor Davis’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2024-2025 school year. For more information, please see this  summary and the  press release . An Amendment to the 2021 Agreement is available, here .

In October 2012, counsel for the Sikh Coalition filed a complaint with the Department of Justice alleging that a middle school student had been repeatedly targeted with verbal and physical harassment because of his Sikh faith. The United States has authority to investigate and resolve complaints of religious and national origin harassment through its enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Following an inquiry into the student-specific complaints, the United States notified the district of its concerns that the district had failed to respond promptly and appropriately to the Sikh Coalition's allegations of harassment, including allegations that the student was called "Aladdin" because he wore a turban and was told by a fellow student to "go back to his country." The United States also raised concerns that the district had not investigated witness statements that the student had been called a "terrorist" and that there was a history of fellow students targeting him because of his turban. The United States also found that the disciplinary measures the district did take had not been effective in ending the harassment, and that the student feared continued harassment.

The district worked cooperatively with the United States to resolve the complaint and ensure greater protections for the student. The May 2013 Resolution Agreement, which will be in effect until the end of the 2014-2015 school year, requires the district to: work with a consultant to develop and implement anti-harassment training at the student's middle and high school; immediately implement a safety plan to ensure that the student is safe at school and, should incidents of harassment occur, that the district responds quickly and effectively; and meet with the student, his family, and administrators from his middle school and the high school where he will enroll, to identify key school personnel who can support the student should any future incidents of harassment occur. The Parties also agreed to continue to work collaboratively to resolve the United States' remaining concerns regarding the district's anti-harassment policies, procedures, and practices, and to ensure that district students and employees had appropriate training and guidelines on their federal civil rights and obligations as they pertain to harassment based on religion and national origin.

As a result of that joint effort, the district and the United States agreed to a second Resolution Agreement in November 2014 that supplements the existing and operative May 2013 agreement. The districtwide agreement, which will be in effect through the 2016-2017 school year, is designed to enhance the district's ability to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on national origin and religion and to provide clear and consistent procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to such conduct. The agreement requires the district to: review and revise all district anti-harassment and discipline policies and procedures to ensure consistency with the district's obligations under federal law; ensure that parents and students with limited English proficiency have access to essential information, including discipline policies and procedures, in a language they understand; develop and implement annual age- and position-appropriate trainings on religious and national origin harassment for all students, district and school administrators, faculty, and staff; and continue to build upon the district's existing anti-bullying initiatives and the May 2013 resolution agreement.

For more information, please see this press release .

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA (Punjabi)

The Department of Justice, through the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, filed a statement of interest on July 7, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Doe v. Fulton County School District.  In this case, the plaintiff, a middle school girl with significant physical, developmental, and intellectual disabilities, alleges that the Fulton County School District   subjected her to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.  Her claims of discrimination arise from an escalating series of sexual assaults and rape that she endured at the hands of other students while riding on a District special needs school bus, all with no intervention by the bus driver.  The plaintiff seeks damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as injunctive relief under the Georgia Open Records Act.  On June 15, 2020, the District filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing primarily that the knowledge of a bus driver categorically may not be attributed to the District for purposes of plaintiff’s discrimination claims.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that determining whether a school district employee is an “appropriate person” under Title IX is fact-dependent and thus may not be based on the employee’s title alone.  The United States concludes that proper application of Title IX case law requires that plaintiff be permitted to demonstrate facts in support of her allegations and that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should therefore be denied.

In November 2010, the Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that students in the school district were being harassed by other students because they didn't dress or act in ways that conform to gender stereotypes. Pursuant to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Departments of Justice and Education conducted an extensive investigation into sex-based harassment in the district's middle and high schools. Many students reported that the unsafe and unwelcoming school climate inhibited their ability to learn.

Six student plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Anoka-Hennepin School District in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in July 2011. In August 2011, the Court asked the United States to join in the mediation of the lawsuit. On March 5, 2012. The United States, the six student plaintiffs, and the District filed a Consent Decree , which was entered by the Court on March 6, 2012. Also on March 5, 2012, the three parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree and a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree , and the United States filed its Complaint-in-Intervention .

The Consent Decree requires the school district to retain an expert consultant in the area of sex-based harassment to review the district's policies and procedures concerning harassment; develop and implement a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment at the middle and high schools; enhance and improve its training of faculty, staff and students on sex-based harassment; hire or appoint a Title IX coordinator to ensure proper implementation of the district's sex-based harassment policies and procedures and district compliance with Title IX; retain an expert consultant in the area of mental health to address the needs of students who are victims of harassment; provide for other opportunities for student involvement and input into the district's ongoing anti-harassment efforts; improve its system for maintaining records of investigations and responding to allegations of harassment; conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation of its anti-harassment efforts; and submit annual compliance reports to the departments during the five year life of the Consent Decree. For more information on the Consent Decree, please see this press release .

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating Colorado Springs' Falcon School District 49 in response to complaints that the District was not adequately responding to incidents of racial harassment and discrimination in its schools. On January 25, 2010, the parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve the United States' concerns. A modified settlement agreement designed to address the District's non-compliance with the parties' original settlement agreement was executed on October 14, 2014. The modified settlement agreement requires the District to adequately address incidents of racial harassment by keeping adequate records, analyzing those records, training teachers and students, and providing appropriate disciplinary responses. For more information on this settlement, please see this press release and agreement.

On November 12, 2020, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington entered into a Settlement Agreement with Federal Way Public Schools in Federal Way, Washington to resolve an investigation into allegations of peer-on-peer harassment on the basis of religion and national origin between 2014 and 2018, and that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians who are not English language proficient. The Department initiated its investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to complaints by parents alleging their children had been subjected to severe and pervasive religion- and national-origin-based harassment that went unaddressed by the District. The complaints alleged that other students repeatedly called Muslim students “terrorists,” pulled off their hijabs, and physically assaulted them, and told a Latina student to “Go back to Mexico,” threatened to kill her, and physically assaulted her. The Department also investigated complaints that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians with English language barriers as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. Under the Agreement, the District will take proactive steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on religion and national origin. Those steps include retaining consultants to provide technical assistance to support a review of the District’s harassment policies, practices, and procedures, as well as the District’s training on and implementation of protocols for such policies. The Agreement also requires the District to work with the consultants to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District level to ensure that antiharassment policies are properly implemented. The District will also provide training for students and faculty, and will survey the educational environment and effectiveness of measures taken pursuant to the Agreement. Lastly, the District will ensure that it communicates essential school-related information in a language that parents and guardians with limited English proficiency understand so that their children can access the District’s educational programs. The Section will monitor compliance with this three-year agreement. For more information, please see this press release  and Extension Agreement .

Settlement Agreement: English | Español (Spanish) | العربية (Arabic) | Soomaali (Somali)    

On February 6, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona approved a Unitary Status Plan ("USP") filed by the Department of Justice, together with private plaintiffs and the Tucson Unified School District. The USP is the latest step in this longstanding desegregation case, originally filed in 1974. The United States intervened in the case in 1976. In 2012, after extensive negotiations, the parties jointly submitted the USP, a four-year plan requiring the District to undertake a robust set of measures to desegregate its schools. The USP touches on nearly every aspect of school operations and lays a strong foundation for a high quality educational environment for all students. For more information, please see this press release .

On December 1, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Frederick County Public School District in Maryland to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into complaints that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained children enrolled in the district’s specialized programs for students with autism and emotional and behavioral disabilities.  Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities.  The district will, among other things: prohibit the use of seclusion; report all instances of restraint and evaluate whether they were justified; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; design and implement procedures for handling complaints about restraint; offer counseling and compensatory education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices; and hire an administrator to supervise school-based staff and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA.  For more information, please see this letter , press release , and summary of the agreement .

On June 24, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with Fulton County Schools following an investigation into the district’s response to an escalating series of student-on-student sexual assaults on a school bus serving students with special needs.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation found that the school district’s policies and practices failed to ensure equal access to its educational programs based on sex, disability, and national origin/English Learner status.  Under the settlement agreement, the district will, among other steps: revise its policies for responding to complaints of student-on-student sexual misconduct; provide appropriate district personnel with trainings on student-on-student sexual misconduct, including the vulnerabilities unique to students with disabilities; ensure it provides students with disabilities the accommodations they need to participate in the district’s educational programs; and ensure that appropriate language assistance services are available to Limited English Proficient parents and guardians.  The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.  For more information, please see this press release in  English  and Spanish .

Settlement Agreement: English | Espa ñ ol (Spanish)

In this matter involving the Ganado Unified School District in Arizona, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner (“ELL”)  students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).  On February 18, 2014, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the EEOA.  The agreement requires the district to: improve language acquisition instruction to ELL students; conduct significant training for staff and teachers of ELL students; provide adequate materials to support their acquisition of English and academic content; monitor ELL students who opt out of ELL services and after they exit such services to ensure they are participating equally in instructional programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL program.  The training-related remedies require teachers to facilitate ELL students’ access to the grade-level core content curriculum by using appropriate instructional strategies and providing a culturally responsive learning environment.  For more information, please see this press release .

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) partnered with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division - Educational Opportunities Section (DOJ) to initiate a compliance review of the Gallup-McKinley County School District (District). The purpose of the review was to determine whether the District discriminated against Native Americans by excluding them from college and career readiness programs and courses, such as Gifted and Talented (GATE), Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and honors courses. We also evaluated whether the District discriminated against Native American parents by failing to ensure meaningful access to the information surrounding the aforementioned programs and courses.

On June 16, 2017, the District entered into a Resolution Agreement to address OCR and the DOJ’s concerns. As part of the Agreement, the District agreed to (i) retain a consultant to examine and make recommendations to address the underrepresentation of Native American students in the college and career readiness programs and courses; (ii) improve outreach to the Native American community to ensure that Native American students and their parents are timely informed about the various college and career readiness programs and courses, including the application and admission processes and procedures; (iii) review and revise its practices and procedures for identifying and recommending students to college and career readiness programs and courses; (iv) provide mandatory training to teachers involved in the identification or referral of students to the college and career readiness programs and courses; (v) increase the number of college and career readiness programs and courses offered in its high schools; (vi) monitor the academic performance of students enrolled in the college and career readiness programs and courses, providing academic support where necessary; and (vii) provide language assistance, including translation services, for limited English proficient parents/guardians.

On January 4, 2001, the court approved a five-year consent decree negotiated by the parties to eliminate further the vestiges of segregation in the Tennessee system of public higher education. Under this consent decree, the State committed to creating new high-demand programs at TSU, particularly at the downtown campus (the former UT-N site), to appeal in particular to nontraditional students. Other efforts included revitalization of the downtown TSU campus, an increase in system-wide efforts to recruit black undergraduate students, and the creation and funding of a TSU endowment for educational excellence. In an order dated September 21, 2006, the court recognized the parties' efforts and achievements in the case in establishing a unitary system of public higher education in Tennessee, and approved the parties' joint motion for a final order of dismissal and terminated this longstanding litigation.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest on June 29, 2015 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board.  In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that the Gloucester County School Board unlawfully discriminated against him and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex when it passed a policy that prohibited transgender students from using facilities matching their gender identity.  The plaintiff, represented by the A.C.L.U., asked the court for a Preliminary Injunction to permit him to use the boys’ restrooms the beginning of next school year.  In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments also stated that a sex-stereotyping claim can be based on an individual’s anatomical features, as well as behavior and appearance.  The departments concluded that the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction had a likelihood of success on the merits under Title IX and that granting the relief would serve the public interest.

On June 10, 2024, the Department entered into a settlement agreement with Hawkins County Schools in eastern Tennessee in response to complaints of racial harassment and discrimination targeting Black students. The agreement resolved an investigation conducted jointly with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation focused on whether the school district insufficiently responded to the race-based harassment. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure it properly responds to complaints of harassment and monitors and addresses any racially hostile environment. The district will, among other steps: retain a consultant to support agreement implementation and creation of a discrimination-free learning environment for all; create a new electronic reporting portal; update its racial harassment and school discipline policies; train staff on identifying, investigating, and responding to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; conduct listening sessions, school climate surveys, training, and educational events on identifying and preventing race discrimination; and analyze discipline data and amend policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies. For more information, please see this findings letter and press release .

A sixth-grade student who practiced Islam wore her hijab, a religious head covering, for several weeks at the beginning of the 2003-04 school year in the Muskogee Public School District. On September 11, 2003, school officials told the sixth-grader that she could no longer wear her hijab because of the “no hats” policy in the school’s dress code. The dress code, however, had not been applied consistently, and the school district had allowed students to wear hats for medical, educational, and other secular purposes. When the sixth-grader refused to remove her hijab, she was suspended for eight days.

In October 2003, the student, through her father, sued the school district for alleged violations of her constitutional rights and Oklahoma law. The United States opened an investigation in November 2003, and then intervened in the lawsuit upon finding evidence to support a claim based on the denial of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 6, 2004, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying memorandum in support .

On May 20, 2004, the parties negotiated a consent order . Under the six-year consent order, the school district must: allow the plaintiff to wear her hijab; make similar religious accommodations for any other student in the school system who has a bona fide religious objection to the dress code; implement a training program for all teachers and administrators regarding the revised dress code; and publicize the revisions to students and parents. The district also must certify its compliance with the terms of the order to the United States for a four-year period. The private plaintiffs and the school district also negotiated a confidential damages settlement and the claim for expungement of her school records. For more on this settlement, please see the press release linked here.

In this matter involving the Horry County Schools, the Section examined whether South Carolina’s third-largest public school district was providing appropriate services to its rapidly growing population of English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). On August 24, 2017, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the district would take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement required the district to: properly identify and place EL students when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English and access grade-level core content instruction; secure enough teachers certified in English as a Second Language to serve all EL students; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time. The agreement required the district to regularly report to the Section on the agreement’s implementation; the agreement was terminated December 2023.

In a long-standing desegregation case, the Huntsville City Schools proposed plans for construction to replace or expand several schools. Following negotiations, the United States agreed not to oppose the district's proposed motion for approval of school construction plan, which the district submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The court approved the plan on May 20, 2013. On April 21, 2015, the court issued an opinion setting forth its reasons for approving a consent order jointly filed by the United States and the Huntsville City Schools. The consent order revises attendance zones and strengthens magnet offerings across the school district; expands access to pre-K, gifted programs, advanced course offerings, academic after-school programs, and college counseling; and includes comprehensive remedies to address racial discrimination in student discipline, among other areas.

On August 28, 2023, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas entered into a Settlement Agreement with Highland Community College in Kansas to resolve an investigation into allegations it discriminated against Black students—primarily Black student-athletes—on the basis of race in the administration of its discipline, housing and campus security policies and procedures, and its response to complaints of racial discrimination. The investigation was conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the settlement, the college will strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure an effective response to  students’ complaints of racial discrimination and clarify campus security policies, procedures, and training to promote consistent, non-discriminatory interactions between security personnel and students. The college will, among other steps, train relevant staff on how to respond to and resolve allegations of discrimination; promote fair and equitable application of discipline policies and analyze discipline data to ensure non-discrimination; train campus security and other staff on effective de-escalation techniques and non-coercive methods of gathering information; survey and improve the climate and culture of the college’s main campus and cultivate safe, welcoming spaces for Black students; and ensure students’ equitable access to the college’s education programs and activities regardless of race. For more information, please see the cover letter to the agreement and press release .

On November 22, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with Illinois Central College in Peoria, Illinois, to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the College’s programs, and to address concerns related to the College’s process for investigating complaints of disability discrimination. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that a student with a hearing disability was denied access to the College’s theatre program, and that the College failed to adequately investigate the student’s complaint. Under the settlement agreement, the College will update its investigation process to ensure that student complaints of disability discrimination are handled in a fair and timely manner. In addition, the College will train the managers and staff involved in investigations, as well as staff in the College’s theatre department, on the new complaint investigation procedures and the requirements of the ADA. Finally, the College will appoint an ADA Coordinator charged with overseeing implementation of the revised processes and compliance with Title II of the ADA.

In this matter involving the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), the Section conducted a review to determine whether ISBE was providing appropriate guidance and monitoring of school districts' services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). The Section determined that ISBE was violating the EEOA because its administrative rules and guidance did not ensure that districts serve ELL students beyond the three-year requirement under State law for transitional bilingual education (TBE) and transitional program of instruction (TPI) services. Although ISBE denied violating the EEOA, it agreed to revise its administrative rules and guidance to make clear that ELLs must receive services until they achieve English proficiency on the State's mandated test. The amended rules were approved by ISBE on June 24, 2010, were cleared by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules on July 13, 2010, and will take effect once filed with the Illinois Secretary of State. See press release . The amended rules require school districts that terminate TBE and TPI services at year three to submit to ISBE a plan explaining the ELL services to be provided beyond year three, the staff providing such services, and the resources available to implement those services. ISBE also agreed to monitor these plans to determine if they are sufficient and appropriately implemented. ISBE further agreed that it will issue guidance identifying educationally sound ELL services that could be provided in lieu of TBE and TPI services after year three. ISBE released this guidance in March 2011. Pursuant to the agreement between the Department and ISBE, ISBE will apply the amended rules and this guidance when monitoring districts' ELL programs.

Following negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order , which the court approved on July 14, 2000. The order required the district to take steps to increase African-American student participation in its gifted program and its advanced classes. To decrease the number of African-American students in resource classes, the order also required the district to annually evaluate students in resource classes to determine if placement in a regular class would be more appropriate. The JISD provided three reports in conjunction with its requirements under the order, as well as supplemental reports requested by the Section. On October 16, 2001, the parties agreed to, and the court signed, an agreed order of dismissal , indicating that the JISD had achieved unitary states in all facets of its operations.

In September 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights began investigating the Jefferson Parish Public School System ("JPPSS") after the Departments received several complaints alleging violations of federal civil rights laws. Specifically, the complaints concerned JPPSS's policies and practices for student registration, enrollment, and graduation; JPPSS's policies and practices for communicating with national origin minority parents who have limited English proficiency; and JPPSS's response to alleged harassment of Latino students based on their national origin. After requesting and reviewing documents and information provided by JPPSS, the Departments visited Jefferson Parish and interviewed many administrators, faculty, and students in May 2013. At the conclusion of the Departments' visit, JPPSS voluntarily agreed to resolve the investigation by entering into an agreement that includes school-specific and parish-wide remedial measures to address the United States' concerns.

The agreement, signed by the parties on July 9, 2014, will ensure that all students who reside in Jefferson Parish can enroll in school regardless of their or their parents' national origin or immigration status. The agreement also requires JPPSS to review and revise its policies and practices for communicating with national origin essential parents who have limited English proficiency to make sure that parents receive important information in a language they can understand. Additionally, JPPSS will review and revise its policies and practices to ensure that all complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, including allegations of harassment, are appropriately investigated and resolved.

For more information, please see this press release and the full agreement available in English and Spanish.

Summary in: Spanish.

Summary in: Arabic.

Summary in: Vietnamese.

On January 14, 2010, in the Northern District of New York, the Section moved to intervene in J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District. The lawsuit was filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of J.L., a 15-year-old student in the District. J.L. alleged that the District violated state and federal laws including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, both of which prohibit discrimination based on sex, including discrimination based on failure to conform to gender stereotypes. According to the United States' motion , J.L. failed to conform to gender stereotypes in both behavior and appearance. He exhibited feminine mannerisms, dyed his hair wore makeup and nail polish, and maintained predominantly female friendships. The alleged severe and pervasive student-on-student harassment based on sex escalated from derogatory name-calling to physical threats and violence. The United States further alleged that the District had knowledge of the harassment, but was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take timely, corrective action, and that the deliberate indifference restricted J.L.'s ability to fully enjoy the educational opportunities of his school. The District denied all allegations. Prior to the court ruling on the United States' intervention motion, an out-of-court settlement was reached among J.L., the District, and the United States. The court approved the settlement agreement on March 29, 2010. The agreement requires the District to (1) retain an expert consultant in the area of harassment and discrimination based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation to review the District's policies and procedures; (2) develop and implement a comprehensive plan for disseminating the District's harassment and discrimination policies and procedures; (3) retain an expert consultant to conduct annual training for faculty and staff, and students as deemed appropriate by the expert, on discrimination and harassment based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation; (4) maintain records of investigations and responses to allegations of harassment for five years; and (5) provide annual compliance reports to the United States and private plaintiffs. Lastly, $50,000.00 will be paid to J.L. and $25,000.00 in attorneys' fees will be paid to the New York Civil Liberties Foundation.

On May 5, 2006, Junior Does filed a complaint against the Allentown School District alleging that, as six- and seven-year-old students, they were sexually assaulted by another student in the bathrooms at Central Elementary School during the 2003-2004 school year. On April 21, 2009, Junior Does amended their complaint to include a sex discrimination claim pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and on July 10, 2009, the Division intervened. On August 3, 2011, Junior Does again amended their complaint to include allegations that a fifth student was sexually assaulted, adding another minor plaintiff as a party.

In the case, the Division alleged the following: that sexual assaults occurred on at least five separate occasions; that the district was made aware of each incident immediately after it occurred; and that despite this notice, the district did not take appropriate action, and in some circumstances took no action, to prevent the harassment from recurring. Furthermore, the department alleged that both before and after the sexual harassment of the students, the district failed to adopt and implement adequate and effective sexual harassment policies and procedure as required by federal law; had the district adopted and implemented such policies and procedures, the district would have prevented the continued sexual assault of students.

After extensive discovery, the Division and the school district negotiated a consent decree . The court approved the proposed consent decree on July 31, 2012. The consent decree provides for substantial systemic relief and requires the school district to take the following steps: develop and implement a comprehensive plan for addressing and preventing sexual harassment in all district schools; retain an expert consultant in the area of student-on-student harassment to draft and implement a sexual harassment policy and procedures; provide training to administrators, faculty, staff, students and parents on sex-based harassment; select qualified district and school-based equity coordinators to ensure proper implementation of the district's harassment policies and procedures and compliance with Title IX, including prompt investigation, resolution and reporting of sexual harassment complaints and allegations; create procedures for identifying, monitoring, and supervising students with a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students; develop and implement policies and procedures for communicating with outside agencies, such as police, hospital and child protection agencies, of allegations of sexual harassment in the district; and submit annual compliance reports to the Division.

On July 1, 2016, the Section and the United State Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas filed two statements of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with evaluating the Title IX sexual assault claims in T.F. v. Kansas State University and S.W. v. Kansas State University . In these cases, the plaintiffs, both students of Kansas State University (K-State), allege that K-State discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when K-State allegedly refused to respond to or investigate their reports of sexual assault by K-State students during parties hosted at and by fraternities recognized and supported by K-State. In the statements of interest responding to K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the United States advised the court that Title IX imposes an obligation on federally-funded schools to respond to reports of rape that occurred at off-campus school-recognized fraternity houses and events and to determine if a hostile educational environment exists in such school-recognized activities or other education programs or activities. The United States further argued that under the proper Title IX standards, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages and equitable relief should be allowed to proceed. On March 14, 2017, after considering the parties pleadings and the United States’ statements of interest, the court denied K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, holding that both plaintiffs had alleged the elements required to state a plausible Title IX harassment claim. Specifically, the court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that K-State had substantial control over the alleged assailants and the context of the assaults, which were so severe as to deny plaintiffs access to educational benefits and opportunities, and that K-State’s alleged deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ reports of rape made them “liable or vulnerable” to further harassment or assault.

Memorandum and Order - T.F. v. K-State       

Memorandum and Order - S.W. v. K-State

In this case, formerly known as Lau v. Nichols, the United States Supreme Court held that the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and its implementing regulations by failing to provide special programs designed to rectify the English language deficiencies of students who do not speak or understand English, or are of limited English-speaking ability, and by failing to provide these students with equal access to the instructional program. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). The Supreme Court remanded the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief. On October 22, 1976, the parties entered into a Consent Decree that incorporated a Master Plan that requires bilingual-bicultural education for the English Language Learner (ELL) students who speak Chinese, Filipino, and Spanish. Chinese and Spanish bilingual programs continue subsequent to the passage of California's Proposition 227. The Consent Decree also requires the provision of other special programs and English as a Second Language (ESL) for ELL students of other language groups, as well as the provision of bilingual instruction, whenever feasible. The Consent Decree calls for annual reporting to the Court by the SFUSD regarding its ELL programs and the establishment of a Bilingual Community Council (BCC) to assist the SFUSD in filing these annual reports.

On August 24, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the Court should not relieve the SFUSD of responsibility for reporting under the extant Consent Decree. The United States filed a response to the show cause order that identified problems with the ELL programs and recommended continued reporting by the SFUSD, additional on-site visits of the ELL programs, and the development of an updated Master Plan for ELL programs. The SFUSD and the private plaintiffs filed responses agreeing to this approach for going forward. The Court continued the reporting obligations and assigned the case to an active judge. On May 1, 2007, the new judge held a status conference in which he agreed to let the parties continue their school visits and work collaboratively on developing an updated Master Plan. The United States' consultant and members of the BCC completed visits to twenty-four schools on May 18, 2007. The parties agreed to a new Master Plan that would replace the outdated plan and filed a stipulated application to modify the 1976 Consent Decree. On September 11, 2008, the Court approved the new Master Plan and entered an order modifying the 1976 Consent Decree.

The United States and the Private Plaintiffs then monitored SFUSD's implementation of the 2008 Master Plan through the District's annual reports, regular site visits, community meetings, and communications with parents and students. To resolve the United States' and Private Plaintiff's consistent concerns about SFUSD's compliance, the parties negotiated a Modified Consent Decree (MCD) . On June 24, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion and supporting memo seeking court approval of the MCD. The MCD, approved by the court on June 29, 2015, requires SFUSD to, among other things: promptly identify, assess, and place EL students in effective EL programs; offer a range of EL programs and services to meet the needs of all EL students, including newcomers, students with disabilities, and long-term EL students; expand translation and interpretation services for LEP families; adequately train employees who serve EL students so that they can fulfill their roles; and conduct robust monitoring. The MCD also protects the educational rights of the district's most at-risk and vulnerable EL students who are learning in alternative education or juvenile justice settings. If SFUSD implements the MCD fully and in good faith, the MCD and this historic case are expected to end in the fall of 2018. For more information about the MCD, please see the June 24, 2015 press release . Translated copies of the MCD are linked here in Chinese , Spanish , Vietnamese , Filipino , and Arabic .

This statewide settlement resolved issues relating to the overrepresentation of black students in the mental retardation and emotional disturbance special education classifications and the underrepresentation of black students in the specific learning disabilities and gifted and talented special education classifications. This consent decree , approved by the court on August 30, 2000, involves special education issues that were raised as a result of information gathered during unitary status reviews in eleven desegregation cases pending before the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. Parties to the decree include the United States, private plaintiffs, and the Alabama State Department of Education.

The settlement required the State of Alabama to undertake initiatives in providing teacher training, to establish a program to improve reading achievement, and to make changes to Alabama administrative law in the areas of pre-referral, referral, evaluation procedures, and eligibility criteria. This emphasis on pre-referral intervention services resulted in substantial changes over the six years of implementing the consent decree. There have been significant reductions in racial disparities in the special education classifications of mental retardation (MR), and disparities have been virtually eliminated in the classifications of emotional disturbance (ED) and specific learning disabilities (SLD). There also has been an overall decrease in the number of students classified as MR or ED, and increases in students classified as SLD. The number of black students classified as gifted also has increased.

The settlement also required reevaluation of certain categories of minority students who had been identified as MR. As a result, several hundred students who had been inappropriately placed as MR were exited from special education. These students were provided with appropriate supplemental services to help transition successfully into the general education program, and were carefully monitored during this process.

On February 12, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a consent order filed by the Justice Department, together with private plaintiffs and the Calhoun County, Alabama School District, in this longstanding desegregation case. The order found that the district has met its desegregation obligations in certain areas and providing for additional, comprehensive relief in the areas of faculty and staff hiring and recruitment and student discipline and school climate.

In approving the consent order, the district court declared that the 9,200-student school district has eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation in the areas of student assignment, extracurricular activities, school facilities, and transportation, thereby ending the court's supervision in those areas. The order requires the district to take additional steps to reach full compliance, including adopting measures to promote racial diversity in its faculty and staff, expanding its use of positive behavioral supports and interventions throughout its schools, and revising its student discipline policies and procedures to ensure they are fair, non-discriminatory, and limit the use of exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions.

In this school desegregation case, the parties entered into a consent decree , which provided for the closure of two K-12 schools and the consolidation of the students into two central school zones. One of the K-12 schools to be closed had a virtually all-white student body and had never graduated a black student. The day after the decree was filed, the school board voted to rescind its consent. The Section filed a motion to enforce the consent decree , arguing that once the board had given its consent, granted authority to counsel to sign on its behalf, and jointly filed the consent decree, the board was bound by the terms of the consent decree.

At the same time, two groups moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of opposing the consent decree. The groups comprised parents, students, and other citizens from each of the two schools scheduled for closure. The Section filed briefs opposing both motions for intervention – one against the Mellow Valley School intervenors and one against the Bibb Graves School intervenors – arguing that the proposed intervenors did not express a cognizable interest in furthering desegregation, and, even if they had, the United States and private plaintiffs adequately represented any such interest.

On May 13, 2003, the district court accepted all of the Section's arguments and entered an order (1) denying the Board's motion to rescind its consent, (2) denying both motions to intervene, and (3) enforcing the consent decree. The parties worked to implement the consent decree, and the two schools were successfully closed prior to the beginning of the 2003-04 school year. The two groups of unsuccessful intervenors appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter involving the Lewiston, Maine school district, the United States reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs)–particularly among the district’s large population of Somalian refugees–as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 4, 2007, the school district and the United States entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement requires the district to develop, among other things: standardized curricula for ELLs; adequate teacher training and collaborative opportunities; systematic monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of ELLs; and a comprehensive ELL program evaluation model.

The Section investigated complaints about whether (i) the Lewiston Public School District’s shortening school days for students with disabilities by placing them on an “abbreviated” school day schedule violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and (ii) the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). The investigation found that the District routinely shortened school days for students with disabilities because of behavior related to their disabilities without considering their individual needs or testing alternative interventions or supports to keep students in school for the full day.  The investigation further revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support needed to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.  On May 27, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the compliance issues identified by the United States, including: ensuring students with disabilities receive supports they need to remain in school for the full day; developing policies and procedures for non-discriminatory abbreviated school day placements; and ensuring that all special education personnel, school counselors, and school psychologists receive training on appropriately responding to disability-related behaviors. The agreement also requires the District to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction to all of its EL students and targeted programming for those ELs with limited or interrupted formal education; fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers; provide training to principals and teachers; communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities; and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years.  For more information, please see this press release in  English , Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese . Translated versions of the agreement are also available in Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese .

This historic desegregation involving the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) began in 1972.  The Section continues to monitor the SPLS’s compliance with a 1999 Agreement that set forth requirements to ameliorate the effects of segregation through voluntary interdistrict transfers, remedial programs, school improvement and accountability, and the provision of funds from the state to the SLPS.  This Agreement has been consensually modified by new orders and agreements in recent years, including a 2011 agreement that allowed for the use of desegregation funds for specific programs, such as magnet school transportation, principal leadership training, early childhood, and enhanced computing and technology in the SLPS.  Section 10 of the 1999 Agreement set aside funds for “construction and site acquisition costs to accommodate any reasonable anticipated net enrollment increase caused by any  reduction or elimination of the voluntary transfer plan.” 1999 Agreement, Section 10, at 12 .  While the parties anticipated in 1999 that the voluntary transfer program would continue for a number of years, Section 10 was designed to provide for SLPS’ capital needs if the transfer program ended and numerous students returned at one time to the SLPS.  Over the years, however, the assumptions underlying creation of the Section 10 fund did not come to pass, primarily as a result of population declines, the advent of charter schools, and the ongoing commitment by both city and county schools to the voluntary transfer program. Accordingly, in 2013, the court approved the parties’ agreement to allow the use of certain remedial funds set aside in the desegregation account to provide continued funding for the St. Louis Community Monitoring and Support Task Force.

On July 30, 2007, Kimberly Lopez filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) alleging her son was sexually assaulted by another student while riding a special education school bus operated by Metro. On April 30, 2008, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a sex discrimination claim against Metro pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Recognizing the United States’ substantial interest in ensuring recipients of federal funds do not discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX, the Court issued an order granting the United States Motion to Intervene and permitting the United States to file its complaint in intervention. In January 2009, the United States moved for summary judgment , and subsequently opposed Metro’s cross-motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim and submitted a reply brief in support of its own motion. On July 7, 2009, the Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment but adopting the Section’s interpretation of Title IX in numerous key respects. On February 8, 2010, the parties entered into a consent decree that obligates the Nashville Public School District to take substantial steps to enhance the security of students with disabilities on its public school transportation system. These steps include staffing bus monitors to assist drivers on all special education buses; implementing comprehensive screening procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are not assigned to buses where they would be at risk of harassment; expediting the investigation of suspected acts of sexual harassment involving students with disabilities; and ensuring open lines of communication between transportation officials and school-based personnel. Metro also agreed to pay Plaintiff $1.475 million as part of the settlement.

The Section intervened in this same-sex peer harassment case alleging the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to respond appropriately to harassment of a student on the basis of sex. Specifically, the Section alleged in our complaint-in-intervention : from the eighth grade through the eleventh grade, Jeremy Lovins was subjected to harassment on the basis of sex (ostensibly because other students believed he was gay); Jeremy and his parents repeatedly informed school officials of the harassment but the harassment continued; and Jeremy was eventually subjected to an assault and forced to leave school because of the harassment. On July 31, 2000, the Court entered a consent decree settling the case

The consent decree included monetary relief for Mr. Lovins in the amount of $72,500 and injunctive relief. Under the consent decree, the school district agreed, among other things: to conduct a climate assessment of student-to-student and teacher-to-student relations within its schools; to develop a comprehensive plan to identify, prevent, and remedy harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation; to educate and train teachers, staff, and students about the operation of the policy and procedures; to maintain written records of complaints and investigations; and to file implementation reports with the Section and the court.

The two plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Sullivan County Board of Education (SCBE) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to appropriately address known student-on-student harassment on the basis of race. Specifically, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that both Michael and Marquita Madison, who are black, were subjected to ongoing racial harassment while attending Sullivan East High School (East). This harassment included a constant barrage of racial slurs, some made within earshot of teachers, racially derogatory graffiti on walls and desks, and racially offensive paraphernalia. Though school officials knew or should have known of the harassment, they failed to take appropriate steps to address it. Marquita eventually transferred to another school after her sophomore year. Michael fell victim to a racially-motivated assault outside the school cafeteria his junior year. He did not return to East after the assault and finished high school on homebound studies.

The Section filed its complaint-in-intervention , motion to intervene , and supporting memorandum in November 2000. In our complaint-in-intervention, we sought monetary relief for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief, such as policies and procedures to prevent or address such harassment in the future. The court granted the Section's intervention on November 28, 2000. The parties conducted discovery in 2001 and early 2002. Following discovery, the parties negotiated a consent order and monetary settlement of the Title VI and equal protection claims. Under the consent order , which was approved by the Court on October 16, 2002, the school system agreed to retain an expert to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination; provide an education and training program for teachers, staff, and students about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination; and maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations. For more details about the settlement, please see the press release linked here .

On June 12, 2023, the Section entered into a  settlement agreement  with the Madison County School District to address complaints of race-based harassment in its schools. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on allegations that the school district denied students equal protection of the laws based on their race. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will undertake significant institutional reforms. The district will, among other steps: revise its anti-discrimination policies and procedures; create three new central office positions to oversee effective handling of complaints of race discrimination; update its racial harassment and discipline policies to more accurately track and consistently respond to complaints of race-based harassment; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; update its centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and the district’s response to complaints; implement focus groups, conduct surveys, training and educational events on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; and analyze and review its discipline data and amend its policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies. For more information, please see this  letter  to the District and  press release .

In this matter involving the Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School of Excellence (“the School”), the Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts examined whether the School was adequately serving its English Learner (EL) students, including EL students with disabilities, as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On March 10, 2020, the School and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the issues identified by the United States and ensure the School’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the School to: provide all EL students – who make up nearly a quarter of the School’s population – with an adequate amount of daily English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction taught by an ESL-certified teacher; actively recruit qualified, certified staff for ESL, core content area, and special education teaching positions; ensure all ELs with disabilities receive both ESL and special education services unless their parents/guardians voluntarily and knowingly waive one or both services; train special education and ESL-certified teachers who work with EL students with disabilities on how to provide services to ELs with disabilities; communicate with Limited English Proficient parents about essential school information in a language they understand; and properly monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place through the end of the 2021-22 school year. 

Private plaintiffs filed this school desegregation case in 1965; the United States intervened later that year. On July 31, 1969, the Court approved the District's 1969-70 Revised Desegregation Plan, which was subsequently modified with the court's approval in 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, and 1978. In 2007, the United States initiated a review of the District's compliance with the court's desegregation orders and applicable federal law. This review resulted in the filing of negotiated consent order, which was approved by the court on February 5, 2009. On July 27, 2012, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on August 21, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on July 12, 2013 . The consent order requires the district to close four of its seven elementary schools, including three racially identifiable schools; construct a new school; modify its attendance zones; and implement a controlled choice program at two of its elementary schools. The consent order also will require the district to continue certain intra-district transfers that have the effect of furthering the desegregation of the district's schools. On March 5, 2014, the court approved amendments to the July 12, 2013 consent order, which extended the timeline for implementing the elementary desegregation plan and established monitoring and reporting requirements sought by the United States.  On October 11, 2023, the court declared the district had met its desegregation obligations in several areas of operations, including staff assignment, facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities, and approved a negotiated consent decree that requires the district to take measures to desegregate its gifted program and advanced and dual enrollment courses.  The consent order also requires the district to implement changes to its student discipline policies designed to reduce racial disparities in discipline and eliminate the use of corporal punishment.

In this matter involving the Mercer County School District in West Virginia, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA"). After determining that the school district was not complying with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district on January 31, 2012. This agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: timely identify and assess all students with a primary or home language other than English; serve ELLs with appropriate instruction; provide adequate teacher training; and carefully monitor the academic progress of current and former ELLs.

On September 26, 2016, the Division filed a Statement of Interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims under Title VI, its implementing regulations, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) in Methelus v. School Board of Collier County .  The plaintiffs filed on behalf of their newly-arrived, foreign-born English Language Learner (ELL) children ages 15-17, arguing that the Collier County School Board (Board) has violated the EEOA and Title VI by refusing to enroll these children in its regular high schools and diverting some to enroll in Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs that charge a fee and do not earn credit toward a high school diploma.  Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the Board’s practices did not constitute “appropriate action to overcome language barriers” under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA and intentionally discriminated against these foreign-born, ELL children on the basis for their national origin in violation of Title VI.  The Board moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims in their Amended Complaint.  The United States’ Statement of Interest , filed in response to the motion to dismiss, sets forth the legal standards applicable to the claim under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, including the Castaneda v. Pickard standards binding on the Florida federal court. The filing explains why under those standards the plaintiffs adequately pled facts supporting a plausible Section 1703(f) claim.  The filing also sets forth the well-established Arlington Heights factors for evaluating intentional discrimination claims under Title VI, explaining how the plaintiffs’ factual allegations addressed many of these factors and sufficed to state a plausible Title VI claim.

On April 24, 2013, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township, Indiana to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment in schools. The agreement resolved the Section's review of the district's policies and practices related to harassment and bullying, which was initiated in June 2011 after reports of possible racial harassment at a district school. The agreement requires the district to take a number of steps to prevent and address harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability, and to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. These steps include forming a district-wide anti-harassment task force to review and revise the district's policies and procedures related to harassment, bullying, and discipline; establishing a cohesive process for receiving, investigating and monitoring complaints of harassment and bullying, enabling the district to track repeated incidents involving individual students or groups targeted for their membership in a protected class; and providing training, professional development and school climate assessments for both students and staff at two of the district's schools. For more information, please see this press release .

On November 18, 1963, private plaintiffs filed this case complaining that the Gadsden City Board of Education was maintaining a segregated school system. On May 9, 1966, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring the school system into conformity with federal constitutional and statutory provisions.

Over the years, the court issued a series of orders aimed at eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination and completely desegregating the school system. In July 2003, the court approved the parties' proposed consent order that required the school district to take remedial actions in the areas of student assignment, personnel assignment, facilities, and quality of education. The consent order required the district to assign students randomly to classrooms and to enforce attendance zone lines strictly. With respect to personnel assignment, the consent order required the district to increase efforts to recruit minority teachers and to ensure that each school had a faculty whose racial diversity was reflective of the district-wide faculty. The consent order also required the district to make substantial improvements to its secondary schools so that these facilities were all of comparable quality. Finally, with respect to quality of education, the consent order required the district to equalize its offering of and access to advanced and honor classes among secondary schools. Having fulfilled these obligations, the district was declared unitary on August 26, 2005.

In this long-standing school desegregation case, the Jackson-Madison County School Board filed a motion for unitary status in December 1999, asserting that it had complied in good faith with prior desegregation decrees and had eliminated the vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable. The Section and the private plaintiffs opposed the board's motion for unitary status. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations, which resulted in an agreement shortly before trial in November 2000.

The agreement, which the court approved in December 2000, permits the board to proceed with its plan to construct five new schools and implement revised student attendance zones over the next four years. The agreement includes numerous measures that will further desegregation by voluntary means, including the construction of magnet schools and the introduction of other school choice options. The board is also required to take additional remedial action in faculty and staff assignments, and to encourage minority student participation in all programs and activities. Implementation and monitoring of the agreement is ongoing

Parents of students with disabilities who allege that their children were not properly identified, evaluated, and provided with special education services filed a class action lawsuit against the Newark Public Schools, the State of New Jersey, and several state officials. The lawsuit alleges that Newark does not have adequate systems in place to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and that New Jersey has violated its obligation to supervise local implementation of IDEA requirements.

In its motion to dismiss, New Jersey raised a constitutional challenge to the IDEA, claiming that the Eleventh Amendment afforded it immunity against a private lawsuit to enforce the IDEA. The Section sought and was granted intervention to defend the constitutionality of the IDEA. In its brief , the Section argued that New Jersey had agreed to comply with the IDEA and waive its sovereign immunity when it accepted federal IDEA funds to defray the cost of educating students with disabilities. In the alternative, the Section argued that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court accepted both arguments and denied the State's motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed the denials of their motions to dismiss, and the Appellate Section defended the IDEA's constitutionality on appeal. On September 16, 2003, the Third Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's holding that the State of New Jersey had waived its sovereign immunity.

In this matter involving the Nashua School District (“the District”) in New Hampshire, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire investigated whether the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support they need to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.  On May 24, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction to all of its EL students, fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers, provide training to principals and core academic teachers of EL students, communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities, and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years. For more information, please see this press release in English , Spanish , and Portuguese .

Settlement Agreement: Español (Spanish) | Português (Portuguese)      

The United States initiated this litigation against the Nettleton Line Consolidated School District on September 8, 1969, and the court subsequently approved consent decrees requiring the District to desegregate on December 8, 1969 and June 19, 1970 .  On August 8, 2011 , following negotiations between the United States and the District, the court issued a consent order requiring the District to revise its policies and procedures and to terminate its race-based selection and election procedures for extracurricular activities (e.g., elections for class officers, homecoming court, and class superlatives).  After the United States completed a review of the District’s operations and compliance with the Court’s orders, on September 2, 2020 the court approved an additional consent order .  The 2020 Consent Order granted partial unitary status and found that the District had eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of student assignment, staff, extracurricular activities, and facilities.  The 2020 Consent Order also required the District to complete more work to demonstrate that it has eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of faculty and transportation.  Therefore, the 2020 Consent Order requires the District to take steps to (i) increase its recruitment of black applicants for teacher vacancies; (ii) conduct its hiring with the goal of eliminating any real or perceived racial barriers in hiring; (iii) retain qualified, black faculty members who are employed by the District; (iv) eliminate overlapping or duplicative bus routes; and (v) eliminate or reduce the number of racially identifiable bus routes or at least mitigate the disparities between the percentages of black and white students assigned to each racially identifiable bus.  The District may file a motion with the court for full or partial dismissal of the case after three full school years of compliance with the relevant provisions of the 2020 Consent Order .

In this matter involving the Newark Public Schools (“the District”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey examined whether the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  The United States initiated its investigation in response to a complaint alleging that the District was failing to appropriately communicate with parents who have limited proficiency in English (“LEP parents”).  In addition to corroborating the District’s LEP parent communications failures, the United States found  that the District failed to hire and retain enough qualified teachers to support its program, resulting in limited instruction time for some students, and for others, no language services at all.  On September 1, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; and locate and re-offer services to EL students who were exited improperly from the District’s programs without achieving English proficiency.  The agreement also requires the District to ensure that English as a Second Language (“ESL”) classes and bilingual classes are taught by ESL-certified and bilingual-endorsed teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with LEP parents about District and school programs and activities; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL programs over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for at least three school years until the District has fully complied with its obligations. Translations of the Agreement are available in Spanish , French , Haitian Creole , and Portuguese . For more information, please see press releases available in English , Spanish , Portuguese , Haitian Creole , and French .

On September 15, 2022, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the district to resolve the Section’s investigation of the district’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA).  The Section opened the investigation in 2020, after the U.S. Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that the district violated the EEOA by failing to communicate effectively with K’iche’-speaking Limited English Proficient parents and denying K’iche’-speaking EL students equal educational opportunities.

Through its investigation, the Section identified that the district: (1) failed to communicate adequately with Limited English Proficient parents, including K’iche’ speakers, about school-related programs and activities; (2) did not adequately train its faculty on providing appropriate services to its EL students, including training to address the specific needs of K’iche’ speakers to overcome language barriers; and (3) did not adequately evaluate its EL programs for effectiveness, including assessing the performance of K’iche’-speaking EL students to determine if they are overcoming language barriers.

The agreement requires, among other things, that the district implement effective measures to correctly identify the languages spoken by students and parents/guardians, so that school staff do not assume K’iche’ speakers are native Spanish speakers based on their country of origin.  The district also agreed to improve its practices and professional development to address the specific needs of EL students who speak K’iche’ so that they can access the same educational opportunities as other students in the district.  For more information on this settlement, please see this press release  (in Spanish , Portuguese , and Cape Verdean Creole ).

On September 28, 2012, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division entered into a settlement agreement with the Northeastern Local School District (NELSD) in Springfield, Ohio, to resolve allegations of racial harassment of African-American students in the district.

In December 2011, the Section received a complaint alleging incidents of racial harassment, including race-based death threats, directed at an African-American student enrolled at Kenton Ridge High School in NELSD. The Section's investigation of the complaint revealed that the student had been subjected to significant harassment based on race and retaliation for reporting the harassment of which the District knew or should have known. In violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District failed to investigate the alleged harassment and retaliation adequately, address it effectively, and prevent it from recurring. Because of the severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment and retaliation, the student was afraid to go to school and eventually left the district out of fear for her own safety. The investigation also revealed that other African-American students in the district had experienced racial harassment and retaliation for reporting racial harassment.

Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent racial harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. These steps include revising policies and procedures for handling racial harassment complaints; conducting trainings for faculty, staff, students, and parents; and reporting data to the Department of Justice for three years. For more information, please see this press release .

On December 31, 2020 the Section entered into a settlement agreement  with the North Gibson School Corporation in Princeton, Indiana to address and prevent the discriminatory secluding and restraining of students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into a complaint that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the district’s self-contained classrooms. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will, among other things: change its policies to prohibit use of seclusion rooms; report all instances of restraint and review whether they were justified; take steps to avoid placing students with emotional and behavioral disabilities on an abbreviated school day or homebound instruction and document those steps; create and implement a procedure for handling complaints of disability discrimination; provide appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and appoint an Intervention Coordinator to ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this press release .

In this matter involving the North Plainfield, New Jersey school district, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes.  The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on September 3, 2004, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on September 3, 2007.

On December 20, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Okaloosa County School District in Fort Walton Beach, Florida to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities and the district’s responses to allegations of physical and verbal abuse. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices and failed to appropriately respond to known physical and verbal abuse of students. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: continue to prohibit the use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint; clarify and improve crisis response team procedures and post-restraint procedures; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified and complied with district policy; reform district complaint procedures and improve internal district investigations into allegations of employee abuse or improper use of restraint or seclusion; develop and deliver appropriate trainings for personnel who restrain students and personnel who review restraint reports; and deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement. For more information, please see this letter and press release .

In this matter involving Old Dominion University (ODU) in Norfolk, Virginia, the Section conducted an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The Section received a complaint alleging that ODU discriminated and retaliated against a graduate student based on her disability and her related request for acknowledgement of her right to reasonable modifications of policy.  The Section found that, in a series of retaliatory acts, ODU terminated the student’s relationship with her professor-advisor and his research lab, withdrew her from a professional conference where she was scheduled to present, and forced her to change her graduate course of study.  On February 3, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with ODU to ensure that the University provides reasonable modifications of policy for students with disabilities.  The agreement requires that ODU develop and disseminate a retaliation policy; train staff and faculty on the requirements of the ADA and Section 504; and provide compliance reports to DOJ.  In addition, under the agreement ODU will pay the complainant $40,000 in compensatory damages. For more information, please see this press release .

This religious discrimination case arose after the principal of an elementary school in New Jersey prohibited an eight-year-old girl from singing a Christian song in a voluntary after-school talent show. On May 20, 2005, the student’s parents filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the school violated her constitutional rights by censoring her speech. The school defended the censorship by asserting that (1) the song had an overtly religious and proselytizing message and (2) permitting the song would have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

On June 19, 2006, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of the student’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the school engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by censoring her performance based solely on the religious perspective of her song. The brief also contended that the school’s Establishment Clause justification was unavailing because the song clearly represented the student’s expression, not the school’s.

On December 11, 2006, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment. In its opinion , the court held that the school’s censorship of “Awesome God” constituted unlawful viewpoint discrimination because the song conformed to the talent show guidelines and the school permitted other acts with religious and “proselytizing” content. The court found that the school did not have “a legitimate pedagogical concern in distancing itself from proselytizing religious speech.” The court further ruled that the school’s Establishment Clause concerns could not justify censoring the plaintiff’s song because the performances in the talent show did not represent school-sponsored speech.

On April 12, 2011, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the Owatonna Public School District ("District") in Owatonna, Minnesota, to resolve a complaint regarding the student-on-student harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students based on their race and national-origin.

The complaint arose from a November 2009 fight between several white and Somali-American students at Owatonna High School and alleged severe and pervasive harassment. Following DOJ's and OCR's investigation, the Section and OCR worked with the school district to resolve the complaint. The departments gathered evidence indicating that the district meted out disproportionate discipline for the students involved in the November 2009 incident and that the district's policies, procedures and trainings were not adequately addressing harassment against Somali-American students.

The District took affirmative steps to address the harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students, and voluntarily entered into the resolution agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the District will take all reasonable steps to ensure that all students enrolled in the district are not subject to harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and to respond promptly and appropriately to all reports of harassment. To that end, the District has agreed to improve its policies and procedures concerning harassment and discipline as necessary to make them effectively protect students from racial or national origin-based harassment. For more information, please see this press release .

This case involves religious harassment by students against a Jewish public school teacher in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Mr. Owen, a veteran teacher of more than 30 years, filed his lawsuit in federal district court in March 2000 after an investigation by the Detroit office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that his complaint had merit. The United States intervened in October 2000, alleging that the L'Anse Area Schools subjected Mr. Owen to religious harassment while he was employed by the school district. The United States alleged that Mr. Owen had been the target of numerous incidents of anti-Semitic harassment by his students, including the drawing and etching of swastikas and hate messages such as "Die Jews," "Kill Owen," "KKK," and "White Power" in and around his classroom on multiple occasions and the placement of a hangman's noose on his classroom door. The United States alleged that the school district failed to take effective measures to remedy the harassment and to keep it from recurring despite Mr. Owen's repeated complaints. Further, the United States alleged that as a result of the harassment, Mr. Owen was forced to take an extended medical leave and ultimately retire from the school district.

Following discovery and an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment by the school district, the parties entered mediation, reaching a settlement agreement in March 2002. Under the agreement , which the district court approved on April 11, 2002, Mr. Owen was paid $265,000. The agreement also required the school district to review and revise its policies ; train its employees to recognize, investigate and address harassment and discrimination; and educate its students about the inappropriateness of harassment and discrimination. In addition, the agreement required the district’s faculty and staff to report actual or suspected incidents of harassment or discrimination to appropriate school officials. The Justice Department monitored the school district's compliance with the settlement agreement for three years, and the case was dismissed on December 15, 2005.

In September and November 2011, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice notified the School District of Palm Beach County that it had received complaints regarding the District's enrollment and registration practices, as well as its practices of administering school discipline. The Division then conducted an investigation, including reviewing documents and data; conducting a site visit that included tours of schools and interviews with Principals, Area Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, District Office staff, the School District of Palm Beach County Police Department, and the Superintendent; meeting with community members and local stakeholders; and reviewing and providing comments regarding the District's enrollment and discipline policies. The United States conducted its investigation with the full cooperation of the District.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a settlement agreement signed by the Parties on February 26, 2013. Under the settlement agreement, the district will enroll all area students regardless of background and will provide translation and interpretation services throughout the registration process. The district will also limit the use of disciplinary measures that remove students from the classroom and implement behavior management and discipline practices that support and protect students. Among other things, the agreement requires that ELL students and parents who are limited English proficient receive translation and interpretation services throughout the enrollment and discipline processes; expands the use of language-accessible positive behavior interventions and supports ("PBIS"); places limits on the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; establishes clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; requires school law enforcement officers to communicate with students in a language the student understands, including by securing an interpreter when appropriate; requires providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and requires expanding data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On July 25, 2016, the parties agreed to an eighteen month extension of the Agreement . 

On March 5, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Pasco County School District in Pasco County, Florida to resolve the department’s investigation into alleged discrimination against students with disabilities in school discipline, threat assessment practices and referrals of students to law enforcement. The agreement followed an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The investigation found that the district routinely suspended students or called police for disability-related behavior that could have been addressed through proper support and de-escalation. The investigation also found problems with how the district conducted threat assessments (a process to identify, evaluate and respond to potential school security concerns). When these assessments involved students with disabilities, the district systematically failed to consider the relationship between a student’s disability and their behavior, and whether appropriate support for the student would address the behavior that prompted the assessment. Instead, the district often unnecessarily referred students to law enforcement to be arrested or to start the process for an involuntary admission into a mental health facility under Florida’s Baker Act. 

Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: ensure that personnel accurately assess disability-related behaviors, identify appropriate interventions, and monitor their implementation; hire a consultant who will assist in updating policies and practices; update its student code of conduct, threat assessment process, and law enforcement referral process to ensure that the district is adequately considering disability-related behaviors; improve data collection and analysis and regularly evaluate data to ensure students with disabilities do not face discrimination as a result of the district’s discipline, threat assessment and law enforcement referral practices. The Section will monitor the district’s implementation of the agreement and will also continue to monitor and enforce an ongoing desegregation order that covers the district.

For more information, please see this letter , press release ( español ), and summary of the settlement agreement .

In this matter involving sex discrimination, several high school girls and their representatives filed a complaint alleging that the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the SDHSAA discriminated against female athletes by requiring girls to play certain sports (basketball and volleyball) in disadvantageous seasons. Playing in disadvantageous seasons can result in substantial harms that deny female high school athletes equal athletic opportunities, including, among others, the ability to participate in interstate competition and club competition, the opportunity to be recruited for collegiate-level sports programs, and the opportunity to have the same number of games and practices as similarly-situated boys' sports teams.

On October 17, 2000, the Department was granted leave to intervene in the lawsuit as a plaintiff-party in support of the high school girls. Subsequently, the SDHSAA moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether the association was subject to Title IX and whether it is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before any further briefing was completed, however, the parties agreed to engage in mediation and ultimately reached a settlement. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court entered a Consent Order on December 5, 2000, requiring the SDHSAA to schedule girls' high school volleyball during the traditional fall season and girls' high school basketball during the traditional winter season beginning with the 2002-03 school year. The SDHSAA submitted a detailed plan which was subsequently agreed to by the plaintiff-parties and approved by the Court.

In June of 2002 and shortly before the season switch was to take place, a group of parents and students filed a separate lawsuit in state court that was removed to federal court, Hoffman v. South Dakota High Sch. Activities Ass'n , C.A. No. 02-4127 (D. S.D.), seeking to challenge the Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case, or in the alternative, to delay the season switch for four more years. The Hoffman plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the season switch immediately. The Department moved to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant to uphold the prior Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case and the district court granted the Department's motion to intervene. The Department also filed a motion to dismiss the Hoffman lawsuit on procedural grounds that the district court held in abeyance until after the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Hoffman case at which the Department presented evidence. Shortly thereafter, the district court issued an opinion denying the Hoffman plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 22, 2003, the district court granted the Department's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Hoffman lawsuit with prejudice.

In this matter involving the Plainfield, New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on June 30, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure that it complies with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on June 30, 2006.

In April 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging, inter alia, that the Indian River Central School District, its Board of Education, and eight of its employees violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. On June 11, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX claims. On August 13, 2010, the United States filed a motion seeking leave to participate as amicus curiae in order to provide the court with the proper legal standards governing harassment on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The United States argues in its amicus brief that harassment based on sex stereotyping is a legally cognizable claim under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause; that sexual orientation harassment does not preclude a harassment claim based on non-conformity to sex stereotypes; and that a hostile environment claim in primary and secondary schools can span classes, grades, and schools.

In this matter involving the Prince William County School District, the Section conducted a compliance review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and other services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On September 5, 2013, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps the district will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement requires the district to: provide all ELL students with adequate English Language Development and sheltered content instruction by qualified ELL teachers; ensure that ELL teachers and administrators receive appropriate training; monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its ELL programs; modify its enrollment and registration practices to ensure that students have access to educational programs regardless of race, national origin, or immigration status; provide ELL students and Limited English Proficient parents meaningful access to district and school-level information, such as discipline and special education forms and meetings; and take measures to ensure discipline is administered in a nondiscriminatory way, such as instituting cultural responsiveness training for teachers. The district-wide review and agreement grew out of an investigation of a complaint regarding the Fred Lynn Middle School. That investigation resulted in a 2010 agreement requiring remedial measures at that school, which was later amended by a 2011 agreement . This school and all others in the district are now subject to the 2013 agreement , which requires the district to report to the Section on the agreement's implementation through 2016.

In this matter involving the Providence Public Schools (“the District”) and the Rhode Island Department of Education (“RIDE”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island examined whether the District was identifying and serving its approximately 8,000 English Learner (“EL”) students as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On August 9, 2018, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and to ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; ensure that the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) components of its EL program are taught by ESL-certified teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities; provide equal opportunities for EL students to participate in specialized programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  On November 1, 2019, RIDE took control over the District, and on December 19, 2019, the parties agreed that the 2018 EL agreement would be binding upon both the District and RIDE.  On September 29, 2021, the parties executed a letter agreement , which modifies and extends the 2018 EL settlement agreement through at least the 2022-2023 school year.

2021 Letter Agreement: English  |  Español (Spanish)  | العربية (Arabic) | ខ្មែរ (Khmer) |  Kiswahili (Swahili)

In this peer-on-peer sexual harassment case, a student alleged his rights were violated under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the student contended the school district failed to take adequate steps to protect him from an ongoing campaign of sexual harassment by his peers.

The harassment included: three written death threats, repeated and unwanted sexual contact, offensive and hostile verbal abuse, and other acts involving intimidation and humiliation.

In response to defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Section submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff. In this brief, the Section argued a Title IX claim was appropriate because of the nature and severity of harassment involving conduct of a sexual nature. Furthermore, the Section argued the student's Equal Protection claim, challenging discrimination based on his actual or perceived sexual orientation, should not be dismissed. Following the amicus participation of the Section and mediation between the plaintiff and defendants, the case settled. In addition to monetary relief for the plaintiff, the school district modified its sexual harassment policies, applicable to both students and employees, to prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. The modified policies also describe the school district's responsibilities and the recourse available to victims of discrimination.

On August 19, 2024, the Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Rinderle, et al. v. Cobb County School District, et al. The plaintiffs are students and current and former educators in the District who alleged that the District’s implementation of policies prohibiting employees from using classroom instruction time to espouse personal political beliefs concerning “divisive concepts” violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The United States’ brief sets out the applicable legal standards for private retaliation claims for damages under Title IX. The brief then explains how, when assessing whether a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title IX had a reasonable, good faith belief that a hostile educational environment based on sex existed, the Court should consider as part of the totality of the circumstances the alleged effect of the District’s policies on the educational environment.

In this matter involving the Robertson County Schools in Tennessee, the United States reviewed the status of the District's compliance with its desegregation obligations as a former de jure segregated public school system. The Section determined that the district had not complied with its desegregation obligations in the areas of student assignment and school construction. In its letter of September 5, 2014 , the Section identified a series of district decisions that, over decades, impeded desegregation by building and expanding almost all-white schools while leaving African-American students disproportionately in overcrowded schools with portable classrooms. In February, 2015, the United States and the district entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the district's noncompliance with federal law. The agreement requires the district to: assign students and construct and maintain schools in a desegregated and nondiscriminatory manner; implement a new elementary school plan that furthers desegregation; eliminate overcrowding at predominately minority schools; develop a secondary school student assignment plan that will further desegregation; and provide cultural sensitivity and competency training for teachers and staff. On August 4, 2015, the United States and the district entered into another settlement agreement to further desegregation in the secondary schools through a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) magnet program and attendance zone line changes. For more information about the February 2015 agreement, please see this press release . For more information about the August 2015 agreement, please see this press release .

On August 8, 2023, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho filed a  statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho in  Roe, et. al. v. Critchfield, et. al .  The plaintiffs in this case are transgender students attending K-12 public schools in Idaho who are challenging S.B. 1100, a state law that prohibits transgender students from using public school facilities, including restrooms and changing facilities, consistent with their gender identity.  The United States’ brief provides its view that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Title IX and Equal Protection Clause claims.   

In this matter involving the Rowan-Salisbury School System (“the District”) in North Carolina, the Section investigated whether the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation found system-wide failures to provide these students with the instruction and support they need to learn English and fully participate in school.  On June 17, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to increase language instruction for all EL students, including those with disabilities, so they can become fluent in English.  The District will also train its teachers and administrators on how to support EL students in academic subjects such as math, science, and social studies.  The District will continue to improve its translation and interpretation services for Limited English Proficient parents so all parents can fully participate in their children’s education.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years.  For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish .

On December 15, 2022, the Educational Opportunities Section along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California entered into an agreement with the San Bernardino City Unified School District resolving a multi-year investigation of the district’s English learner program under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. During the investigation, the United States found that the district failed to offer adequate instruction to English learners, in either the English language or in core content areas like math, science and social studies. In addition, the United States identified problems with the special education evaluations conducted by the district and the services offered to English learners with disabilities. The United States also found that English learners did not have equal access to the district’s gifted programs, and advanced coursework. In the out-of-court settlement agreement the district will ensure that students receive adequate English language instruction from trained and certified personnel. It will train core content teachers on how to work with English learners, and it will update its special education policies and trainings to meet the needs of English learners with disabilities. In addition, the district will take steps to improve access to gifted and advanced programs for English learners. The agreement will remain in place for three years. For more information please see this press release in English and Spanish ( español ).

On June 29, 2020, the Educational Opportunities Section and United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California initiated a Title IX compliance review of San José State University (“SJSU”).  The Department’s investigation principally focused on SJSU’s response to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, by an athletic trainer spanning more than a decade.  The Department also investigated reports of retaliation against two SJSU Athletics Department employees.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of SJSU’s policies, grievance procedures, training, and response to reports of sexual harassment and retaliation, the Department concluded that SJSU violated Title IX.

On September 21, 2021, the Department reached a resolution agreement with SJSU to address its noncompliance under Title IX and issued a letter  summarizing the Title IX violations.  Under the terms of the agreement, SJSU agreed to take significant steps including, among others: providing resources to the Title IX Office; publicizing Title IX policies and protocols and improving SJSU’s response to complaints of sex discrimination; developing informational materials to educate the SJSU community how to report Title IX concerns; delivering training to student-athletes and SJSU Athletics employees on giving and receiving informed consent for medical treatments and athletic training services; and providing supportive measures and remedies to student-athletes who were sexually harassed by the athletic trainer.  The agreement also requires SJSU to pay a total of $1.625 million in financial relief to individuals who were sexually harassed by the athletic trainer and participated in the Department’s or SJSU’s investigations.  The Department will carefully monitor the University’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place through the 2024-2025 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release .   

The Tri-Creek Corporation School District in Indiana had an attendance policy that allowed for only one day of excused absences for religious observance. After a student missed more than one day for religious worship, the District’s attendance policy stated that the student would be given an unexcused absence and subjected to various sanctions including loss of academic credit, inability to make up work, and suspension. The policy also stated that legal action may be taken against the parent.

After receiving a complaint about the enforcement of Tri-Creek’s policy, the United States intervened in the case on behalf of Ruth Scheidt and her son, M.S., both adherents to the religious tenets of the United Church of God. During the 2004-05 school year, M.S. was given eight unexcused absences for documented religious attendance; teachers failed to allow him to make up classwork and the district threatened expulsion and legal action, including the filing of educational neglect charges against Ms. Scheidt. On August 10, 2005, the Section filed a brief asserting that Tri-Creek’s attendance policy violated Ms. Scheidt and her son’s right to exercise their religion freely, and Ms. Scheidt’s right to raise her son consistent with her religious beliefs.

Shortly after the Section's intervention, the District and the plaintiffs reached a settlement that: (1) absences for religious observances will be recorded as “excused” and credit given for timely make-up work; and (2) school attendance policies will be revised to accommodate religious observances. Unlike in the past, there is now no limit on the number of excused absences a student may receive for religious observance.

In this race discrimination case, the plaintiffs sued the University of South Florida (USF), alleging that it had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by retaliating against black players on the USF women's basketball team who had complained to university officials about discriminatory treatment by the head coach. At the summary judgment stage, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that Title VI prohibits retaliation against individuals who complain of racially discriminatory treatment, and that this prohibition is necessary to protect the victims of racial discrimination and concerned third parties who come forward with their complaints. Prior to the court ruling on the summary judgment motion, the parties settled the case.

On January 30, 1970, the Court ordered Defendants, including the Concordia Parish School Board, to adopt a desegregation plan.  Concordia Parish School District (“District”) is still operating under the requirements of this 1970 federal desegregation order and further orders mandating the desegregation of the District.  A January 4, 2013 consent order addressed a new charter school’s obligations to comply with the court’s orders in the case and take measures to ensure equal access to the school.

A review of the Somerville School District in Massachusetts concerning the instruction and services provided to English Language Learners (ELLs) revealed the school district was not comporting with the requirements of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On November 25, 2008, the Section and the Somerville School District entered into a settlement agreement addressing concerns raised by the Section including specific provisions requiring: adequate registration, identification, and placement of all ELLs; ongoing training of all personnel involved in the registration, identification, and placement process; maintenance of a database of qualified and available translation and interpretation services; sufficient and appropriate instruction for ELLs; development of an English Language Development (ELD)/English as a Second Language (ESL) curricula; qualified and trained teachers of ELLs; the provision of adequate materials; appropriate special education services and language services for ELLs who are eligible for both services; careful monitoring of current and exited ELLs; and evaluation of the district’s ELL program.

On April 17, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement  with the Spokane Public Schools in Spokane, Washington to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into complaints that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained children with disabilities and failed to use appropriate behavior interventions.  The Department’s investigation concluded that the school district inappropriately and repeatedly secluded and restrained students with disabilities and did not limit its use of restraint and seclusion to emergency situations, as required by state law and the district policy.  Instead, the district restrained and secluded students with disabilities to address noncompliant behavior, even when those actions appeared to escalate the behavior or when students showed clear signs of trauma.  As a result, the District’s restraint and seclusion practices segregated hundreds of students with disabilities from their classmates and resulted in students missing hundreds of hours of instructional time.

Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students on the basis of disability. The district will, among other steps: prohibit the use of seclusion; limit the use of restraint; document and report all instances of seclusion and restraint; appoint a district-level administrator to review all incidents of seclusion and restraint to ensure proper follow-up occurs; create classroom-wide Behavior Management Plans for its programs serving students with high-intensity behaviors that are based on data analysis and that promote and reinforce positive behaviors; provide copies of and explain classroom plans to parents and guardians; develop a complaint procedure and respond in a timely fashion to all complaints regarding the use of restraint or seclusion; offer counseling and compensatory education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this letter ,  press release , and  summary of settlement agreement .

In this matter involving the Stamford Public School District, the Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut (“USAO”) conducted a comprehensive review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner (“ELL”)  students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).  On February 28, 2014, the Section, the USAO, and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the EEOA.  The agreement requires the district to: provide language acquisition services to all ELL students until they reach the state’s English proficiency criteria; ensure that teachers of ELL students are qualified to provide these services; make appropriate language services available for ELL students with disabilities; obtain adequate materials for ELL students; and monitor students after they exit ELL services to ensure they are participating meaningfully and equally in the district’s instructional program.  Under the Agreement, the district will implement a tiered services plan to ensure that ELL services are appropriate to ELL students’ English language proficiency levels, designed to address their individualized needs, and effective.  The district will ensure that ELL students who are not making sufficient yearly progress receive additional ELL services.  For more information, please see this press release .

In February of 1970, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi entered separate orders requiring the Starkville Municipal Separate School District and the Oktibbeha County School District to desegregate. In 2015, the Mississippi Legislature consolidated the two school districts, and, in 2016, the new Starkville-Oktibbeha Consolidated School District (the “District”) and the United States filed a joint motion to approve a new desegregation order. The District Court granted the motion and approved the consent order on March 3, 2016.

The consent order requires the District to eliminate segregative policies and practices in its operations regarding student assignment, faculty and staff hiring, transportation, extracurriculars, and facilities. Specific provisions in the consent order require the District to, among other things, provide equal access to gifted-and-talented and advanced programs; analyze the equity of bus assignments and routes; and hire, promote, pay, demote, discipline, non-renew, and dismiss faculty and staff without regard to race, color, or national origin. The District must also have a Biracial Advisory Committee, which will advise the District on the desegregation plan.  The Section is monitoring the District’s efforts to achieve unitary status and comply with the consent order.

This case involves claims against the Department of Education of the State of Hawaii and various government officials for alleged violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants intentionally discriminated against Aaron L. because of his disability (Down Syndrome), failed to provide him with appropriate special education services, and denied him a free appropriate public education, all in violation of Section 504 and the IDEA. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief.

Both defendants and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs asserted that they should be able to demonstrate discriminatory intent, for purposes of obtaining compensatory damages under Section 504, with evidence that defendants acted with deliberate indifference or conscious disregard for their federal rights.

In its intervention brief filed on May 25, 2001, the Section defended the constitutionality of Section 504 and the IDEA. The Section also filed an amicus brief arguing that a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages under Section 504 may rely on the deliberate indifference standard to prove discriminatory intent.

On June 18, 2001, the district court upheld the constitutionality of Section 504 and the IDEA, and ruled that a plaintiff seeking compensatory damages under Section 504 may establish intentional discrimination by showing that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's federally protected rights.

On June 30, 2011, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the Tehachapi Unified School District in Tehachapi, California, to resolve a complaint regarding the harassment of a middle school student based on his nonconformity with gender stereotypes. The complaint arose from the September 2010 death of Jacobsen Middle School student Seth Walsh, who took his own life at the age of 13. Following OCR's investigation, the Section joined OCR in working with the school district to resolve the complaint. The investigation found that Walsh suffered sexual and gender-based harassment by his peers for more than two school years because of his nonconformity with gender stereotypes.

As summarized in a detailed letter of findings , the departments determined that the harassment, which included ongoing and escalating verbal, physical and sexual harassment by other students at school, was sufficiently severe, pervasive and persistent to interfere with his educational opportunities, and that the school district failed to appropriately respond to notice of the harassment. The departments concluded that the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights of 1964, both of which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes and sexual harassment. Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent sexual and gender-based harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. These steps include adopting revised policies and procedures for handling sexual and gender-based harassment complaints, conducting trainings for faculty, staff, and students, and reporting data to OCR and DOJ for five years. For more information, please see this press release.

On July 20, 2023, the Section entered into a resolution agreement with Teton County School District #1 in Wyoming to resolve the department’s investigation into the district’s responses to alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, and disability discrimination conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The agreement requires the school district to work with a consultant to review and revise its anti-harassment policies and practices and ensure it responds appropriately to discrimination complaints and adopts appropriate supportive and remedial measures using the district’s Multi-Tiered Support System.  The district also will: prohibit and take reasonable steps to prevent retaliation; implement school climate assessments; implement an engagement plan; train its civil rights coordinator and other staff on their obligations under the district’s antidiscrimination policies and resolution procedures; and institute internal monitoring and auditing procedures to ensure compliance and regularly evaluate its antidiscrimination program. For more information, please see the press release .

On June 11, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska in evaluating the Title IX peer sexual assault and retaliation claims for damages in Thomas v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska , Case No. 4:20-cv-03081. In this case, the plaintiffs, current and former students of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), allege that UNL discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when UNL allegedly responded to their reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and/or retaliation with deliberate indifference that created and/or left them in a hostile educational environment. Plaintiffs also allege that UNL violated Title IX by engaging in retaliatory actions against them in response to their reports of peer retaliation and sexual assault. In the statement of interest responding to UNL’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the United States set forth the proper legal standards for the court to apply to plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages based on alleged sexual assaults and retaliation. The United States took no position on whether plaintiffs’ allegations in their complaint state plausible Title IX claims for damages under those legal standards.

This is a longstanding desegregation case in the Western District of Louisiana, where the St. Martin Parish School Board has not fulfilled its desegregation obligations in the following areas: student assignment, faculty assignment, and quality of education in graduation pathways and discipline.  To remedy the student assignment issues, the United States, the School Board, and the Private Plaintiffs represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, entered into a consent order on June 9, 2023 . The 2023 consent order provides for  student transfers to promote desegregation across the District and establishes a plan to develop a robust magnet program to further desegregate the St. Martinville zone.  The parties are still negotiating and litigating remedial measures for creating attendance zone changes that  desegregate the District’s schools.  Following a period of litigation from 2021-2023 regarding the District’s compliance with a 2016 Superseding Consent Order , the District Court  entered an order on May 25, 2023 that requires the District to take additional steps regarding faculty assignment, graduation pathways, and discipline.  The Court will retain jurisdiction over the case and consent order, and the Justice Department will monitor the District’s compliance.  For more information, please see this press release .

Additional Documents:

On July 31, 2020, the district and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address and prevent discriminatory discipline of students based on race or disability and to require appropriate language services for limited English proficient (LEP) parents on matters essential to their children’s education.  The agreement followed a federal civil rights investigation by the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio into complaints of discriminatory treatment of African-American students and students with disabilities in school suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement agencies, which was conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  The Department also investigated under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 allegations concerning the district’s communications with parents and guardians with language barriers.  Under the settlement agreement, the district will take proactive steps to ensure its discipline practices do not discriminate against students based on race or disability.  The district will, among other things, regularly review how schools handle discipline incidents to ensure non-discriminatory treatment, expand its use of positive behavior supports, and provide appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement, including training for teachers, administrators, and school safety officers.  In addition, for parents and guardians with language barriers, the district will ensure it communicates essential school-related information in a language that they understand so their children can access the district’s instructional programs.  The United States will monitor compliance with the terms of the three-year agreement.  For more information, please see this press release .  On December 15, 2023, the parties executed an extension agreement , which modifies and extends the 2020 settlement agreement through the 2024-2025 school year.

Settlement Agreement: English  |  Acuerdo de Conciliación:  Español (Spanish)  | Extension Agreement

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest  on February 20, 2015 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Tooley v. Van Buren Public Schools. In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that several Michigan school districts unlawfully subjected him to harassment and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex. In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, or nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments concluded that plaintiff's allegations of sex discrimination on each of these bases under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause were sufficient to deny the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Wyandotte Public Schools.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest on January 25, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in T.R. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 15-04782.  This case involves Limited English Proficient (LEP) parents of students with disabilities who allege that the Philadelphia School District intentionally discriminates against them based on national origin by not providing complete and timely translations and interpretations of special education and regular education documents.  In the statement of interest, the departments explained that under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 case law and federal regulations and guidance, school districts have an obligation to provide LEP parents with a meaningful opportunity to participate in their children’s education.  The statement of interest also supported the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) by explaining that “appropriate action” under the EEOA includes translations and interpretations for LEP parents.  On November 30, 2016, the court issued a memorandum opinion denying the district’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and relied on the United States’ brief in the discussion of why the court was not dismissing the EEOA and Title VI claims.

On March 16, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Twin Valley School District in Whitingham, VT to address the District’s response to complaints of student-on-student harassment based on race and sex. The Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont jointly conducted the investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq . Under the settlement agreement, the school district will implement the following reforms: modify district policies and procedures to prevent and address peer harassment; undertake periodic assessments of school climate at Twin Valley Middle-High School and implement responsive programming to remedy hostile educational environments; and improve training for district employees who receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints of harassment. For more information, please see this cover letter and press release .

In this matter involving Union Public Schools, the Section examined whether the Oklahoma school district was providing appropriate services to its approximately 3,500 English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On June 26, 2018, the Section and the District entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the District will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; ensure that the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) components of its EL program are taught by ESL-certified teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  The parties anticipate the agreement will remain in place through 2021. 

This desegregation case was in active litigation for two years when the school district moved to have the case dismissed in November 1998. Following a review of information provided by the district, a tour of district schools and subsequent rulings by the court, the parties entered into a consent order in November 1999. The agreement set forth a plan for the district to take additional steps to desegregate the school system and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination from the former segregated system.

Under the settlement, the district agreed to: (1) implement a new elementary school assignment plan and convert two historically minority schools into magnet schools; (2) eliminate general tracks in secondary schools while keeping certain advanced and gifted and talented tracks; (3) implement reforms to its bilingual education and English as a Second Language programs; (4) develop an action plan in each secondary school to increase minority participation in extracurricular activities; and (5) implement a mentoring program to identify potential minority candidates for administrative intern and teaching positions. As a result, minority enrollment increased in advanced and gifted classes, the magnet schools enrolled diverse student bodies, and the English Language Learner program was significantly improved. On September 12, 2002, the court declared the district unitary and dismissed the case.

This English Language Learner (“ELL”) case originally arose from a desegregation order entered against the State of Texas and the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”). In 1972, the League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”) and GI Forum were allowed to intervene in the desegregation case as representatives of Mexican Americans in Texas. Most recently, on February 9, 2006, LULAC and GI Forum filed a motion for further relief under the statewide desegregation order and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). Their motion alleges that Texas and TEA have failed to sufficiently monitor and enforce programs for ELL students in public schools across the state, thereby wrongfully denying those students equal educational opportunities.

In their briefs responding to the motion for further relief, the state defendants claimed immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and argued that the EEOA failed to validly abrogate this immunity. On July 10, 2006, the Section filed a response to these briefs, asserting that the EEOA abrogated states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity because the statute constituted a reasonably tailored legislative response to a long history of unconstitutional discrimination against national origin minorities. In its August 11, 2006 memorandum opinion , the district court agreed with the Section’s analysis and held that the EEOA abrogated the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.

On November 30, 2007, the United States filed a motion for further relief asserting that the Evangeline Parish School Board had failed to fully implement an earlier agreed upon school reorganization plan. The United States sought additional relief, including, either, completion of certain renovations at a majority black high school, construction of a new facility at this high school, or grade restructuring and mandatory reassignment of students from other schools to eliminate the racial identifiability of the school. On December 22, 2009, after significant litigation the court entered a consent order negotiated by the parties that requires the District to take remedial measures in the areas of personnel assignment, facilities, student assignment and quality of education.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Board of Visitors of The Citadel voted to admit women to its Corps of Cadets, and, in August 1996, four women joined the entering class of students. When allegations surfaced in December 1996 that two of the women had been harassed and physically abused, the United States initiated an investigation into The Citadel's assimilation efforts. This investigation was separate and apart from the contemporaneous criminal investigation initiated by federal and state law enforcement authorities.

Subsequently the court required The Citadel to submit a revised plan for the assimilation of women. This led to a consent order that, among other things, required The Citadel to: hire a full-time Assistant Commandant to coordinate the assimilation of women into the Corps of Cadets, a fulltime Dean of Women and a full-time recruiter to coordinate female recruitment efforts; institute regular, mandatory sexual harassment-prevention training of all students and staff; undertake specific efforts to recruit women; develop formal assessment tools to evaluate assimilation; hire and station eight additional adult officers in each of the barracks to increase supervision; establish a female assimilation study group to evaluate assimilation efforts and make reports to the president of the college; promptly complete all facilities modifications to accommodate women in all barracks; revise school publications to eliminate sex-restrictive language; and establish informal complaint reporting mechanisms, including the establishment of a college Ombudsman to serve as a confidential recipient of complaints of harassment or abuse. On March 28, 2002, the court entered an agreed order of dismissal to which the parents had agreed, thereby dismissing the case.

The Section filed a complaint alleging that defendants engaged in race discrimination by failing to provide equal educational opportunities for the American Indian students residing in Navajo Mountain. Specifically, the district failed to provide a secondary school located reasonably near their place of residence, as is done for all other students residing in the district. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, American Indian students who lived in the Navajo Mountain community attended boarding schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 90 miles away from home. The nearest district high school was 171 miles away from the Navajo Mountain area. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. One year later, the parties entered into a settlement agreement , and the new Navajo Mountain High School opened for classes in 1998.

This case arose out of a long-standing school desegregation suit filed by the United States against the State of Texas, Texas Education Agency (“TEA”), and various school districts. In 1971, the district court entered a desegregation order that, among other things, prohibited TEA from approving or funding interdistrict student transfers that have the cumulative effect of reducing or impeding desegregation in one of the districts. In 2003, Hearne Independent School District (“Hearne”) intervened in the underlying suit, claiming that transfers from Hearne to Mumford Independent School District (“Mumford”) had reduced or impeded desegregation in Hearne, and that TEA improperly continued to fund those transfers. In 2004, the Division filed a motion to enforce the desegregation order against TEA and Mumford.

After a bench trial, the district court found that the transfers from Hearne to Mumford reduced desegregation in Hearne, that Mumford had engaged in fraudulent conduct to circumvent the requirements of the desegregation order, and that the TEA had not complied with the order. The district court enjoined Mumford from accepting–and TEA from funding–all of the transfers that reduced or impeded desegregation in Hearne. Mumford and TEA subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 24, 2006, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s judgment. In its opinion , the Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and that its remedy was overly broad. The Fifth Circuit further held that Mumford could not be held liable for violating the desegregation order without a finding that it intentionally engaged in segregative conduct because it was not a party defendant to the original desegregation lawsuit.

This is a long-standing desegregation case in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 9, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that obliges the district to take measures in the areas of student attendance and assignment, facilities, employee assignment, and student transfers. These measures include, but are not limited to: maintaining facilities and resources at Ruth Hill, a former black school, that are comparable to those at other elementary schools; implementing new attendance zones and policies; and assigning principals and instructional staff in a manner that does not identify a school as intended for one race.

The Section assessed whether the Dublin City School District (Dublin) was complying with its school desegregation orders and applicable federal law. In the course of its review, the Section determined that Dublin’s ability grouping and heterogeneous class assignments were violating a desegregation order. The Section also determined that Dublin was using race-based class assignments to dissuade white students from transferring to the surrounding majority white district of Laurens County (Laurens) and that transfers from Dublin to Laurens were negatively impacting desegregation in Dublin’s schools. The Section attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate voluntary relief with Dublin and Laurens.

On April 15, 2004, the Section filed a motion and supporting memorandum to hold Dublin in contempt for its class assignment violations and for further relief against Dublin and Laurens to enforce an order governing interdistrict transfers. Dublin moved for unitary status, and the Section filed an opposition . Pursuant to the court’s instructions, the United States filed a motion to join Laurens as a necessary defendant and a supplemental complaint against Laurens.

On June 23, 2005, after extensive discovery, the United States and Dublin agreed to a consent order and a settlement agreement that resolved all issues between them, except for the interdistrict transfer issue. The consent order , which was approved by the court on July 1, 2005, governs student assignments to classes and schools, extracurricular activities, and transportation. The settlement agreement governs faculty, administrators, staff, gifted programs, special education, and diploma tracks. Many of the black students improperly classified as having a Mild Intellectual Disability or an Emotional/Behavioral Disorder have been exited from special education under the agreement.

On February 21, 2006, the Section moved for summary judgment against Laurens on the interdistrict transfer issue. Laurens filed an opposition, and the Section filed a reply . The Section also moved for summary judgment against Dublin. Dublin opposed by adopting Laurens’s opposition. Laurens moved for summary judgment on the transfer issue, but Dublin did not. The Section filed an opposition to Laurens’s motion and a motion to exclude Laurens’s expert report. This motion and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment are fully briefed and pending before the court. To obtain copies of the unsealed exhibits to any of the linked documents, please call (202) 514-4092.

This case arose out of a long-standing school desegregation suit filed by the United States on August 1, 1969 against the State of Georgia and 81 individual school districts. Subsequent to substantive rulings from the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the District Court approved a comprehensive consent decree in 1974.  Thereafter, in March 2013, the District Court approved a consent decree with provisions addressing each of the Green factors: (1) student assignment, including school assignment, student transfers, classroom assignment, gifted and talented, and discipline; (2) faculty and staff, including faculty assignment and faculty hiring; (3) transportation; (4) facilities; and (5) extracurricular activities. On May 25, 2017, the District Court approved a new consent decree , which replaced the March 2013 consent decree and all previous orders in the matter. The May 2017 consent decree provides that the district has satisfied its obligations in the areas of transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities, and includes remedial measures to address outstanding concerns related to the remaining Green factors, student assignment and faculty and staff. The consent decree is intended to enable the district to establish the record needed for a declaration of full unitary status.

In the late 1980's, the litigation was reactivated when the United States and the plaintiff-intervenors moved to compel Meriwether to comply with the July 23, 1973 permanent injunction. Those proceedings resulted in an order dated June 28, 1990, which established a new student attendance zone plan, prohibited most intra-district and inter-district transfers, and required teaching and staff assignments at schools to remain within 5% of the district-wide racial percentages for teachers and staff. The court also ordered Meriwether to offer the same courses above the core curriculum at both Manchester and Greenville High Schools. In 1996, the court approved a five-year facilities plan proposed by the district. In 1999, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s approval of the plan. United States & Ridley v. State of Georgia (Meriwether Co. Bd. Of Educ.) , 171 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 1999).

On August 28, 2003, Meriwether moved for a declaration of unitary status. The United States objected to the district’s motion. Subsequent to comprehensive discovery and negotiations, the court approved a Consent Decree on October 21, 2004, which essentially requires the district to fully implement the plan previously approved by the court and to see unitary status in 2007.

The Section intervened in a suit filed by plaintiffs who sought relief from violations of a court-ordered settlement agreement made between private plaintiffs and the district in 1976. The suit involved allegations that defendants failed to provide equal educational services to American Indian students in the district. Our complaint-in-intervention alleged that the district failed to provide equal educational opportunities to American Indian students and failed to provide an appropriate program of education for limited-English-proficient Navajo students. The case was settled by consent agreement and covered the issues raised in our complaint. The settlement called for the establishment of four committees to review the district's programs in general curriculum, special education, and bilingual education and to hear disputes that arise under the agreement. The district has adjusted its educational programs accordingly, including its program for students who are limited English proficient.

This case was brought by the Section in 1980 as both an education and housing desegregation case against the City of Yonkers, the Yonkers Board of Education (YBOE), and the Yonkers Community Development agency. The Yonkers Branch of the NAACP (NAACP) intervened as plaintiffs in 1981, and the case was certified as a class action on behalf of all parents of minority (black and Hispanic) children attending the Yonkers Public Schools (YPS) and all minority residents of Yonkers currently residing in, or eligible to reside in, publicly assisted housing. In 1985, the district court found that the defendants had intentionally segregated the City's public schools and housing over a forty-year period. The court order designed to desegregate the schools became known as the Educational Improvement Plan I (EIP I). EIP I, which primarily involved a magnet school program, desegregated the district with respect to student and faculty assignment.

In September 1987, the YBOE filed a cross-claim against the State of New York, alleging that the State also was liable for the prior segregation in housing and education and that there were continuing vestiges of the prior school segregation that were not being addressed by EIP I. In 1993, the district court found that vestiges of segregation existed in the YPS but that precedent from the Second Circuit precluded the court from holding the State liable as a defendant. In 1996, a panel of the Second Circuit distinguished this precedent and ruled that the State could be held liable for the prior segregation. In 1996,the City filed a third-party cross-claim against the State to obtain state contributions to the costs of implementing the school desegregation orders. In 1997, the district court held that the same vestiges identified in 1993 still existed in 1997, and it ordered the State and City to fund a remedial plan known as EIP II. These defendants appealed.

In June 1999, a panel of the Second Circuit initially reversed the district court's 1993 and 1997 vestiges findings and remanded the case to end the action. In a November 1999 decision, the panel withdrew the June 1999 decision, but maintained its reversal of the vestiges findings and remanded the case to the district court to determine if any other vestiges existed. In November 2000, the district court found that five vestiges of segregation existed in YPS as of 1997: (1) disproportionate academic tracking of minority students into the least demanding classes; (2) disproportionately high discipline of minority students; (3) disproportionately high referrals of minorities to special education; (4) inadequate pupil personnel services; and (5) inadequate services for limited-English-proficient students. The court directed the court-appointed monitor to determine whether evidence since 1997 showed that these five vestiges still existed, and it urged the parties to settle the case.

The Section and the other parties were actively involved in negotiations until they reached a settlement of the case in January 2002. In March 2002, the court conducted a fairness hearing and approved the settlement . The settlement dismissed the education portion of the case with prejudice while retaining court jurisdiction to enforce the settlement's terms. In the settlement, the parties did not agree that the YPS was entitled to a court declaration of unitary status, but rather that the YPS was unitary with respect to the six Green factors and that disputed issues regarding vestiges were resolved by the educational programs and funding provided under the settlement. The settlement required the State to provide $300 million over a five-year period to fund over forty remedial educational programs. The settlement ended on its own terms on June 30, 2006, effectively ending the case.

In this long-standing desegregation case, a consent decree negotiated between the Section and the school district was approved by the court on October 15, 2004. The consent decree includes provisions requiring the district to: cease assigning students to classrooms in a manner that creates racially segregated classrooms; conduct an investigation of racial differences in assignment to its gifted and talented program; alter its method for assigning students to honors classes; cease allowing the use of race-conscious policies or procedures in all of its extracurricular activities; and desegregate certain bus routes.

This longstanding desegregation case was filed by the United States in 1967, and a private plaintiff was granted the right to intervene in 1987. On July 23, 1969, the court approved the school district's first desegregation plan, and, in response to a motion for further relief, the court issued a new order concerning student assignment on April 20, 1987, which was subsequently modified in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, and 2005. On May 28, 2009, the court issued an order granting, in part, and denying, in part, a motion filed by the school district for approval of a new desegregation plan. The court subsequently declared the school district partially unitary status in the areas of transportation (March 9, 2012), faculty and staff assignment (Sept. 2, 2012), and extracurricular activities (Dec. 14, 2012). The school district also filed a motion for a declaration of partial unitary status in the area of facilities, which was denied and later renewed on August 18, 2013. On April 6, 2014, the district filed a motion for a declaration of full unitary status, which the United States opposed on June 3, 2014. On October 8, 2014, the court issued an order directing the parties to participate in mediation on all unresolved issues, and on May 21, 2015 approved a negotiated consent order that requires the district to implement a new student assignment and transfer policy; adopt new outreach and admission procedures at the district's charter and magnet schools; and implement a new student discipline policy.

In this long-standing desegregation case involving the Bertie County (North Carolina) Board of Education, the Section commenced informal discovery to assess whether the school district was complying with its desegregation order and applicable federal law. Based on its review of the district, the Section identified concerns regarding the school district’s assignment of students, faculty and staff assignments, and student transfer policies. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, but were not able to develop a mutually satisfactory agreement.

On September 26, 2002, the Section filed a motion requesting further relief. In its supporting memorandum of law , the Section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student, faculty, and staff assignments as well as student transfers. On April 22, 2003, the district court issued an order granting the Section's motion and directing the school district to file a new desegregation plan to address the vestiges identified in the Section's motion.

On December 19, 2003, the school district filed its proposed desegregation plan. After discovery and negotiations, the Section filed a response to the plan on February 24, 2005. In this response, the Section objected only in part to the proposed student assignment plan, which would have failed to desegregate Askewville Elementary School to the extent practicable. The Section also recommended consideration of more effective alternatives for desegregation and raised the issue of the poor condition of JP Law Elementary School, a small historically black school with declining enrollment. The parties reached an interim agreement on these lingering issues, which culminated in a consent order entered on June 24, 2005. This order called for the reconfiguration of attendance zone lines for Askewville, an independent facilities assessment of the elementary and middle schools in the district, and the development of a new student assignment plan.

Following the completion of the facilities assessment and further negotiations, the parties reached agreement about student assignment, transfers, and facilities. This agreement, reflected in the court-approved consent order of March 17, 2006, established a timeline for closing Askewville and JP Law Elementary Schools and required the re-drawing of elementary school attendance zone lines. The order also prohibited the consideration of race in classroom assignments in other elementary schools and enumerated annual reporting requirements. Finally, the order declared that the school district had complied with its desegregation obligations with respect to transportation, extra-curricular activities, and faculty and staff assignment.

This longstanding school desegregation case was initiated by the United States in 1970.  On January 13, 2017, the United States and the Hendry County School Board filed a joint motion for declaration of partial unitary status and sought court approval of a stipulation governing faculty and staff recruiting and student discipline.  On January 23, 2017, the court granted the parties’ motion , declaring that the school district had achieved partial unitary status with respect to student assignment between schools, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities.  The court also approved the parties’ stipulation regarding faculty and staff recruiting and student discipline and will retain jurisdiction over these areas.

In 1980, the United States filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education alleging the board was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by unlawfully segregating students in its schools on the basis of race and national origin. On the same day the United States filed its complaint, the parties filed a school desegregation consent decree the court entered on September 24, 1980.

In January 2003, the court directed the parties to examine the continued viability of the 1980 consent decree. The parties evaluated the board’s compliance with its desegregation obligations and jointly developed a modified consent decree sought to achieve the goals of the original consent decree under the changed factual and legal circumstances facing the board. On March 1, 2004, the Court approved the modified consent decree , which required the board to fulfill obligations in the following areas: student assignment; faculty assignment; facilities; transportation; compensatory and supplemental programs; desegregation funding; discipline; higher level course offerings; extracurricular activities; and English Language Learner (“ELL”) programs.

The United States moved to enforce the modified consent decree on four occasions. On one such occasion, the United States filed a motion to enforce the board’s desegregation funding obligations and its duty to provide majority-to-minority (“M-to-M transfers”). The board filed an opposition, and the United States filed a reply . On December 7, 2004, the court issued an opinion in favor of the United States. On August 26, 2005, the United States filed a motion to show cause because the board once again failed to comply with its desegregation funding duties. The board filed an opposition, and the United States filed a reply . On September 21, 2005, the court ruled that the board’s 2005-06 desegregation budget did not comply with the modified consent decree. The parties resolved this dispute through a stipulated settlement the court approved on November 9, 2005.

In the fall of 2005, the court asked the parties and amici to file position papers on whether the modified consent decree should be dismissed or continued in an altered form. The parties filed briefs requesting court approval of a second amended consent approving the parties’ settlement with slight modifications. The August 10, 2006 order requires the board to: continue magnet and specialized schools, offer M-to-M transfers, monitor open enrollment transfers to ensure they do not negatively impact desegregation, fund compensatory programs at racially isolated schools, take steps to diversify the applicant pool for principals, and provide adequate services to ELL students.

On February 16, 2008, the United States filed a motion to enforce the ELL provisions of the 2006 amended consent decree. The United States argued the board had failed to comply with these ELL provisions in three ways: (1)the board had not demonstrated 30% of its special education ELLs were appropriately served, (2) thousands of ELLs received no ELL services or untimely and inadequate ELL services, and(3)the board failed to provide native language instruction and materials for many of its Transitional Bilingual Education programs. After conducting fact and expert discovery, the parties participated in a twelve-day trial in early 2009 regarding whether the board had achieved unitary status in all areas. At the trial, the board sought dismissal of the entire case, and the United States vigorously opposed dismissal of the ELL provisions. On February 20, 2009, the United States filed a post-trial brief, urging the court to require the board to file a proposal regarding how it intends to operate the magnet and specialized schools so the court can assess the board’s good faith, and to order appropriate relief to ensure ELLs receive the services required by the August 10, 2006 order. The parties await a ruling from the court.

On February 20, 2009, the United States filed a post-trial brief , urging the court to require the board to file a proposal regarding how it intends to operate the magnet and specialized schools so the court can assess the board’s good faith, and to order appropriate relief to ensure ELLs receive the services required by the August 10, 2006 order. On September 3, 2009, the United States filed a supplemental brief in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Horne v. Flores. On September 24, 2009, the court vacated the August 10, 2006 order and dismissed the case.

In this longstanding desegregation case, January 7, 2009, the Court entered a consent decree negotiated by the parties finds the district unitary in all areas except student assignment and quality of education. Pursuant to the terms of the consent decree, the District will seek the Southeastern Equity Center’s assistance in the administration of disciplinary measures and ensuring students equal access to admission in the District’s gifted programs.

This school desegregation lawsuit was initiated by the United States on November 30, 1970. On April 1, 1971, the court ordered defendants to implement a desegregation plan, which was modified by subsequent court orders in 1979, 1981, and 1992. On June 30, 2008, the court approved a consent decree declaring the school district partially unitary in the areas of student assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. To address the United States' concerns that a number of Valdosta's schools were racially identifiable in terms of the demographics of school-based personnel, the 2008 consent decree required the Board to take additional steps to meet its obligations in the areas of faculty and staff. The Board was required to develop personnel policies and procedures related to the recruitment, hiring, and assignment of faculty and certified staff; to assign school-based personnel so that no school would be racially identifiable by its faculty; to maintain applications for employment for a three-year period; and to submit periodic compliance reports to the United States and the court. On March 21, 2011, the Board filed a motion for unitary status and motion to dismiss. The United States, finding that the Board had not fully complied with the terms of the 2008 Consent Decree, opposed the Board's motions in a response filed on November 21, 2011. Following settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order , approved by the court on February 29, 2012, which modifies and extends the terms of the 2008 Consent Decree for two years. Pursuant to the 2012 Consent Order, the Board agreed to withdraw its motion for unitary status and motion to dismiss. For more information on the 2012 Consent Order, please see this press release .

In this desegregation case, the United States determined that the Calhoun County school district was permitting students to transfer to any school in the district without regard to the impact these transfers had on the school district's desegregation obligations. The United States and the school district agreed on a transfer policy that governs the transfer of students within the school district and to other school districts. The parties presented the transfer policy as part of a consent decree that was submitted to the federal district court for its consideration and approval. In 2004, the parties also agreed to the consolidation of all middle school grades at one school located in the district. This agreement was approved by the court and became effective in the 2004-05 school year.

In 2001, the Section received complaints from Asian students at Lafayette High School (LHS) in Brooklyn, NY that alleged numerous instances of national origin discrimination. This discrimination took many forms, ranging from inadequate services for English Language Learner (ELL) students to school officials’ indifferent reaction to persistent verbal and physical peer harassment of Asian students. In one well-publicized case, four Chinese students returning to LHS for their senior year were informed that they had graduated the previous year, though guidance counselors had erroneously informed them otherwise. School officials initially prohibited the graduated students from returning to high school for an additional year of college preparation, notwithstanding the fact that it was too late for them to apply for college admission or receive financial aid. In other cases, Asian students at LHS who assumed they were on track to graduate were forced to return for additional semesters after falling one or two credits short of their graduation requirement when counselors failed to schedule them for the correct classes.

After a lengthy investigation the United States filed a complaint against the City of New York and the Board of Education of the New York City School District on February 2, 2004. The United States alleged violations of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act stemming from defendants’ failure to ameliorate the hostile environment for Asian students at LHS, and further charged that defendants violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) by failing to take appropriate action to help ELL students overcome their language barriers. Four months later, the parties entered into a consent decree that obliged defendants to develop a compliance plan to remedy the transgressions alleged in the United States’ complaint. The Section, in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York, is currently monitoring the defendants’ performance under the compliance plan to ensure that there is no recurrence of the events that gave rise to the complaint.

The Section brought suit against Virginia in 1990 under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after receiving a signed, written complaint from a female high school student in Virginia about the males-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia had failed to justify its exclusion of women from VMI's unique educational program.

Following the Supreme Court's decision and VMI's admission of women in 1997, the Section monitored the integration of women into the institution. As a result of a March 21, 2000 Order requiring Virginia to provide more extensive information on its integration efforts at VMI, the Section reviewed reports regarding male and female students in the areas of recruitment and admissions, retention, financial aid, gender relations, physical training, and women's varsity athletics. The Section worked cooperatively with Virginia to resolve its concerns arising from information contained in the reports, and, as a result, the parties signed and the court entered a Joint Motion for Dismissal on December 6, 2001.

On February 23, 2024, the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas approved a consent order in the England School District desegregation case to ensure the District broadens its recruitment efforts and conduct hiring on a non-discriminatory basis. As part of the consent order, the district will be required to:

• Collect data on the race of applicants for administrator and Certified Staff vacancies, track whom the District interviews, selects and hires for those positions, and to document the reasons for the hiring decisions;
• Maintain a recruitment and retention team;
• Ensure vacancies are properly advertised on employment sites, social media, and local sources of publicity;
• Develop recruiting partnerships with specific colleges; and
• File with the Court twice yearly status updates and share the information in those status reports with the public at school board meetings.

The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, which is expected to last two years, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance.  

On December 6, 2016, the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas approved a consent order to address the remaining issue in the Watson Chapel School District desegregation case, the administration of school discipline. The consent order will replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate.   As part of the consent order, the district will be required to:

• Revise its Code of Conduct, which currently allows the harshest discipline to be imposed for the most minor offense, to instead strictly limit the use of exclusionary discipline, including prohibiting expulsions or out-of-school suspensions for offenses that do not threaten safety;
• Stop the use of corporal punishment, which has been disproportionately applied against black students and undermined the creation of a positive school climate;
• Assess the district’s support services for students with disabilities to ensure that students, particularly students of color, are not disciplined for their disabilities; and
• Enter into an agreement with the law enforcement agencies that provide School Resource Officers to the district that makes clear that Officers will not become involved in enforcing school discipline rules, prevents students from being arrested for minor misconduct and requires the Officer to provide a report to the District any time the Officer becomes involved in an incident at a school.

The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, which is expected to last three years, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance.  For more information, please see this press release .

In this long-standing desegregation case involving the Covington County (Mississippi) School District, the Section had concerns about the district’s two virtually one-race schools, how the district’s staff assignment and school construction have reinforced those two virtually one-race schools, and the district’s use of race in extracurricular activities and awards (to include race-based homecoming queens). Despite the fact that the district overall enrolled about half-black students and half-white students, the district nevertheless maintained one virtually one-race black elementary school, Hopewell (grades K-6), and one virtually one-race white attendance center, Seminary (grades K-12), that enrolled over 60% of all of the white students in the district. Hopewell is the only school in the district without a neighborhood middle or high school. Upon graduating from Hopewell, Hopewell students attended grades 7-12 at a majority black middle and high school (ranked passing and Level III in academic achievement by the state) about 10-12 minutes by bus from Seminary (ranked highest achieving and Level V in academic achievement by the state). The district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, but were not able to develop a mutually satisfactory agreement.

On November 25, 2003, the Section filed a motion requesting further relief and a memorandum of law in support of that motion. In its filings, the Section asked the district court to order the school district to develop a new desegregation plan that would address vestiges of segregation in student assignment, staff assignment, school construction, and extracurricular activities.

On April 28, 2005, the United States filed a motion for partial summary judgment, challenging the district’s race-based extracurricular activities. The district then agreed to enter into a Consent Decree that required it to cease any practices utilizing a student’s race, color, or national origin in the selection or eligibility for participation in any extracurricular activity and to develop written racially non-discriminatory extracurricular activity policies.

On March 8, 2006, after additional discovery and extensive settlement discussions, the district and the United States entered into a Consent Decree resolving the remaining issues in the case. As a result of this Consent Decree, the district made the following modifications, among others, to its existing desegregation plan for the following school year: (1) all students attending Hopewell for grades K-6 will attend Seminary for grades 7-12, thereby eventually desegregating Seminary for grades 7-12; (2) the district committed to publicize its Majority-to-Minority transfer program; (3) the district committed to implement a compensatory enrichment program at Hopewell (a pre-K program) with the primary purpose to “enhance education” at Hopewell and the secondary purpose to “encourage white students who reside in other attendance zones” to attend Hopewell; (4) the district is required to conduct a facilities organization study and to submit all plans for construction and renovation to the United States prior to commencing any construction and renovation at Seminary; and (5) the district is required to engage in a comprehensive analysis of the bus routes for Hopewell students in order to reduce the length of all such bus routes to the extent practicable.

This longstanding school desegregation case was initiated by the United States in 1970.  On February 21, 2018, the United States and the Jackson County School Board filed a  joint motion for declaration of partial unitary status and sought court approval of a stipulation  governing faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, and promotion, and student discipline.  On February 23, 2018,  the court granted the parties’ motion , declaring that the school district had achieved partial unitary status with respect to student assignment between schools, transportation, facilities, and extracurricular activities.  The court also approved the parties’ stipulation regarding faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, and promotion, and student discipline and will retain jurisdiction over these areas.  For more information, please see this press release .

This school desegregation lawsuit was initiated by the United States on June 8, 1966. In a decree dated August 1, 1969, the Court ordered a desegregation plan for the district's schools, subsequently modified by a 1970 order and 1971 consent decree . Pursuant to a Fifth Circuit Decision , dated July 13, 1979, the public laboratory schools at Grambling State University and Louisiana Tech University were added to the case. A 1984 consent decree addressed the desegregation obligations of the lab schools. In 2011, following a unitary status review, the Department of Justice submitted a status report to the Court identifying areas of noncompliance by the defendants. The school board filed responses to the status report on September 15, 2011 and October 15, 2011 . Grambling State University and Louisiana Tech University each filed responses on October 17, 2011. Following negotiations, the Department of Justice and the school board submitted a superseding consent order , approved by the Court on May 24, 2012, which granted the Board partial unitary status in the areas of faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. The superseding consent order required the board to implement a school pairing plan to desegregate the four K-5 elementary schools in the board's Ruston attendance zone and to implement revised intra-district student transfer policies. For additional information on the superseding consent order, please see this press release .

On June 2, 2015, the Court approved a supplemental consent order , in which the Board agreed to address the Division's concerns regarding the Board's classroom assignment practices at the four elementary schools located in the Ruston attendance zone. Under the supplemental consent order, the Board will implement the following key changes at the four elementary schools: (1) assign students to homerooms so that the percentage of black and white students in each homeroom reflects the percentage of black and white students in each grade level at each school; (2) refrain from grouping students into homerooms based on students' perceived abilities and ensure that students of all academic levels are assigned to each homeroom; (3) ensure that no homeroom class has more than forty percent special education inclusion students; and (4) transform the Advanced Learning Academy ("ALA") program into a school-wide, racially diverse enrichment program designed to develop the gifts and talents of all students (if the Board chooses to continue operating the ALA program). For additional information on the supplemental consent order, please see this press release .

In 2002 and 2003, private plaintiffs brought suits against the he Lowndes County school district asserting non-compliance with its desegregation obligations, primarily in West Lowndes, an almost all-black area of the district, pursuant to a pursuant to a desegregation order that the district has been operating under since 1970. In 2004, these complaints were consolidated with the United States’ case, and in January 2006, the Court signed a consent order requiring the district to make significant changes to further desegregation. The district was to make improvements to the virtually all-black high school to make them comparable to the majority white high schools including district requirements to: purchase land adjacent to the West Lowndes High School and build a baseball field, upgrade facilities at the virtually all-black high school to make them comparable to the majority white high schools, create band and football practice fields at the virtually all-black high school, remedy short-comings at the virtually all-black elementary and middle schools including upgrading certain classrooms, renovating an auditorium/gymnasium, and removing unseemly sewage lagoons on these premises, implement educational programming at the West Lowndes Middle and High Schools to foster future AP and advanced classes at the high school, teaching advanced classes (AP) on par with the array of course offerings at the majority white schools even if only requested by one child, and to cease using race-conscious policies in the selection of extracurricular activities such as class superlatives and homecoming courts.

In 2007, the Section determined the district was not in compliance with the 2006 order. Nonetheless, on August 21, 2008, the District filed a motion for unitary status. The Section opposed the district’s motion and moved to enforce the 2006 order on the grounds the district: (1) failed to built a baseball facility as ordered (2) failed to install facilities improvements properly resulting in leaks at the entryway to the building; (3) failed to develop policies and procedures related to advanced instruction; and (4) failed to recognize continued complaints of racial harassment and discrimination by community in the district’s majority white schools. On October 15, 2008, the parties withdrew their motions, initiated negotiations, and on February 3, 2009, the court entered a consent order requiring the district to repair the baseball field and entryway at the virtually-all-black high school, develop and support an advanced instruction curriculum (AP) at the virtually-all-black middle school and high school, and adopt and implement a non-discrimination policy to systemically address continued community and parent concerns.

In 1978, the United States sued the Marion County School District (Florida) for maintaining a segregated school system. In 1983, the district court approved a Stipulated Agreement of the parties that, among other things, implemented a plan for further desegregation of the district, including the conversion of two de jure and almost 100% black schools into a district-wide magnet. Since that time, the court entered a decree in 1995 and a modified decree in 2004 to resolve the outstanding desegregation issues. The 2004 modified decree clarified the requirements in the 1995 decree and set forth detailed provisions regarding student assignment (including a policy on out-of-area transfers), the magnet schools, new school construction, staff assignment and recruitment, and the district's reporting obligations.

After finding noncompliance with the extant desegregation order in this case, the Division negotiated a settlement agreement with the district in 2001. In 2003, the school district moved for unitary status and dismissal of the case despite its noncompliance with the 2001 agreement. The Division filed an opposition to the motion on grounds of noncompliance. Following briefing on the issues, the parties negotiated a new agreement that required the district to take specified steps in the areas of student and faculty assignment. Under the agreement , the district agreed to establish a magnet program at a historically black school, to strictly enforce its student transfer policies, and to assign faculty and staff in a way that does not perpetuate the historic racial identifiability of the district's schools. In 2007, the district again moved for unitary status. The Division filed an opposition and a motion for further relief on the grounds that the district had failed to comply with the portions of the 2003 agreement pertaining to transfer policies and faculty assignment.

On July 21, 1966, the United States initiated this lawsuit against the Richland Parish School District.  On July 31, 1969, the Court entered a decree setting forth a plan to desegregate the school district.   In 2010, the United States with the cooperation of the School Board began a comprehensive review of the School Board’s compliance with its obligations under the operative court orders in this case.   Upon completion of its review, the United States concluded that the School Board satisfied the requirements for unitary status with respect to facilities, extracurricular activities, and transportation.  On March 17, 2013, the Court granted the District’s c onsent order declaring partial unitary status and dismissal in the areas of facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities.  The parties continue to negotiate the remaining areas of student assignment, faculty, and staff.

This longstanding desegregation case was filed by the United States in 1970.  On August 14, 1970, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, issued an order requiring the District to adopt and implement a school desegregation plan.  On August 17, 1971, the Court amended its previous desegregation order and required the District to implement a student assignment plan in accordance with the principles established in Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1970), and to follow provisions regarding faculty desegregation, transportation, school construction and site selection, student transfers, and extracurricular activities.  On May 7, 1980, the Court removed the case from its active civil docket but the District remained subject to the 1971 Order, including its reporting obligations.  On October 26, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Declaration of Partial Unitary Status and for Approval of Stipulation regarding Faculty and Staff Recruiting .  The order declares the District partially unitary with respect to student assignment, including student transfers, facilities, transportation, and extracurricular activities.  In addition, the order approves the Parties’ Stipulation Regarding Faculty and Staff Recruitment .  The Section is monitoring compliance with the 2016 Order and Stipulation.

In this longstanding school desegregation case, the district court entered an order on December 18, 2014, approving the proposed consent order jointly submitted by the United States and the Suffolk City School Board. The consent order modified the School Board's student assignment plan by establishing zone lines for a new elementary school and implementing a voluntary majority-to-minority ("M-to-M") transfer program that furthers desegregation in the district. On March 20, 2017, the district court approved a subsequent consent order that declares the district has achieved partial unitary status in the areas of facilities, extracurricular activities, transportation, and faculty and staff assignment. The consent order retains judicial supervision over the area of student assignment--including the implementation and expansion of the M-to-M program, anticipated changes to school attendance zones, and student disciplinary practices--through the 2019-20 school year. For more information, please see this press release .

The United States filed this school desegregation case in 1980.  The Court entered a Consent Order shortly thereafter on February 8, 1980.  On April 17, 1980, the Court approved the District’s Desegregation Plan, which went into effect for the 1981-1982 school year and was subsequently modified with the Court’s approval in 1992, 2002, 2010, and 2015.  In the fall of 2017, the District proposed a new student assignment plan for elementary and middle schools called “Focus 2018.”  On April 30, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion and stipulation to obtain court approval of Focus 2018 and address the School Board’s forthcoming steps to further desegregation in other areas of the case.  On June 7, 2018, the Court approved the new plan and the stipulation, which required the parties to identify agreed upon action steps regarding the other areas by August 31, 2018.  On that date, the parties filed a joint motion and stipulation regarding consent decree compliance.  On September 4, 2018, the Court approved this second stipulation , which requires the District to further desegregation by ensuring non-discrimination in student discipline, equitable student transportation, and continued review of high school programs and student enrollment practices.  The stipulation also established monitoring and reporting requirements to promote District compliance with the Consent Order.

On July 15, 2015, the United States sent its findings  to the State of Georgia stating that the State’s administration of the Georgia Network of Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS) program violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities from their peers in school.  The State fails to ensure that students with behavior-related disabilities receive services and supports that could enable them to remain in, or return to, the most integrated educational placements appropriate to their needs.

On August 23, 2016, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia in federal district court to remedy violations of the ADA pertaining to the State’s failure to provide thousands of public school students with behavior-related disabilities with appropriate mental health and therapeutic educational services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Georgia plans, funds, administers, and delivers its mental health and therapeutic educational services through the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support Program (“GNETS Program”), students with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated and provided unequal educational opportunities in GNETS Centers and Classrooms, where they are isolated from their non-disabled peers, when they could be served in general education classrooms. The lawsuit further alleges that other students with behavior-related disabilities are placed at serious risk of segregation in the GNETS Program.  For more information, please see this press release .

In this desegregation case, the Section determined the McComb Municipal Separate School District had violated the terms of the governing desegregation order and federal law by clustering white students into particular classrooms in a manner resulted in a significant number of segregated, all-black classrooms at the District’s two elementary schools. Additionally, the District was impermissibly using raced-based procedures to select students for certain school-sponsored accolades, including McComb High School’s homecoming queen and court. These procedures had the effect of establishing separate elections for black and white candidates.

In March 2004, the district moved for unitary status. The United States filed a response and a motion for further relief . After discovery, the United States filed an opposition to the District’s motion for unitary status, which stated the United States' objections to unitary status in the areas of student assignment and extracurricular activities, but stipulated to unitary status and dismissal in the areas of transportation, hiring of faculty and administrators, facilities, and resource management. On July 13, 2006, the Court held a hearing to address the areas of dispute. The Court issued a memorandum opinion and order on April 18, 2008, that denied the district’s motion for unitary status and ordered the district to devise an assignment policy that results in meaningful racial interaction for all of the students attending the two elementary schools in question. To execute the requirements of the Court’s order, the court entered a consent decree on September 18, 2008, negotiated by the parties that establishes protocols for student assignment at the two elementary schools and establishes voting procedures for McComb High School’s homecoming court.

The Simpson County School District is under a desegregation order and a 1983 Consent Decree specifically governing employment procedures. The District moved for unitary status in November 2001, and the United States thereafter participated in discovery to evaluate the district's progress toward complete desegregation. The United States learned in March 2003 that the District was not following the specific hiring procedures mandated by the 1983 Consent Decree. To address allegations of racial discrimination in employment, the Consent Decree requires the District actively to recruit black applicants for faculty and administrative positions and to do so by advertising all such vacancies outside the district in regional newspapers and with various universities in the state. The District, however, followed a policy of advertising vacancies first within the District and then outside the district only if no qualified applicants were found within. The United States learned that the District sought to fill three vacancies in principal positions this past winter following that practice rather than the procedures mandated by the Consent Decree. Because the District employed no black personnel with the administrative certification necessary for the positions, the District made the positions available only to white persons and considered no black applicants for the job. The practice therefore contravened the purpose of the 1983 Consent Decree, and the United States filed a motion with a supporting memorandum in April 2003 and a reply to enforce the employment procedures detailed therein. A hearing was held on the motion in July 2003, and the court subsequently granted the United States' motion. The court's order required the District to reopen the three principal positions for the 2004-05 school year and to advertise the vacancies according to the requirements of the Consent Decree. Subsequently, the district moved for unitary status and we opposed. The court ruled in our favor and the district has appealed.

In this longstanding desegregation case, the Wayne County School District is subject to several court orders prohibiting the use of race in classroom assignment decisions and inter-district student transfers that impede the desegregation of the district's schools. In an August 10, 1970 order, the court ordered the district to adopt a desegregation plan, which was modified by several subsequent orders. On May 16, 2006, the court approved a consent order, which declared the district partially unitary in the areas of faculty assignment, staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. The 2006 consent order required the district to address the impermissible use of race in classroom assignment decisions at Waynesboro Elementary School (WES). On August 8, 2008, the court approved a consent order increasing the district's reporting requirements. In 2011, the United States notified the District of its determination that WES officials continued to use race as a factor in classroom assignment decisions and that white students residing in a majority-black attendance zone were impermissibly transferring to schools in a majority-white zone. To address these issues, the parties agreed to a consent order , approved by the court on January 3, 2012, requiring the district to adopt a random assignment system for classroom assignment at WES and to take steps to stop impermissible student transfers.

In December of 2009, the Section received a complaint from the Asian American Legal Defense Fund (AALDEF) on behalf of community advocates and Asian students at South Philadelphia High School (SPHS) in Philadelphia, PA that alleged numerous instances of national origin discrimination. This discrimination took many forms, including indifferent reaction to persistent verbal and physical peer harassment of Asian students. This discrimination culminated in one well-publicized instance where Asian students were violently attacked by their peers in and around school grounds. These attacks led to roughly a dozen Asian students being sent to the hospital, twenty-two suspension hearings and the transfer of several students to disciplinary or other schools.

After a lengthy investigation the United States filed a complaint and settlement agreement against the School District of Philadelphia and the School Reform Commission on December 15, 2010. The United States alleged violations of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act stemming from defendants’ failure to ameliorate the hostile environment for Asian students at SPHS, and further charged that defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution due to their deliberate indifference to known instances of severe and pervasive harassment. The settlement agreement obliges defendants to develop an action plan to remedy the transgressions alleged in the United States’ complaint. The Section, in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, is currently monitoring the defendants’ performance under the action plan to ensure that there is no recurrence of the events that gave rise to the complaint.

In this school construction case, the Section investigated the school district's plans to build a new elementary school in a particular section of Tunica County, Mississippi. This district has a majority black population, and concerns were raised that the proposed school would serve primarily white students and would cause further housing segregation in the county.

Because the school district was under order to desegregate its schools, the district had to obtain the court's approval for its plan. The Section submitted a brief providing the relevant legal standards for evaluating both the need for a new school and the appropriateness of the proposed location. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into a consent order . As a result of the November 29, 1999 consent order, the District’s new elementary school was built two miles south of the originally proposed location, at a site that is closer to existing black communities.

In the course of reviewing the West Carroll Parish school district's compliance with its desegregation orders, the Section identified zone jumping within the district and student transfers from outside of the district. As a result, the United States negotiated Agreed Modifications to the Residency Verification and Transfer Provisions of the 1991 Consent Order , which were approved by the Court on August 11, 2003. The Section continues to monitor the district’s compliance with these strengthened transfer obligations and the elimination of its race-based homecoming election practices.

To address the persistence of three virtually all white schools and two other racially identifiable schools in this eight-school district, the Section proposed five student assignment plans to further school desegregation. The district rejected the proposed plans, and the Section filed a motion for further relief on November 29, 2005. The United States argued that the district never desegregated these three white schools and that the pre- Swann desegregation plan implemented by the district falls short of eliminating the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable. The district filed an opposition, which also served as a motion for unitary status, and the Section filed a reply .

On December 22, 2006, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment , arguing that the evidence obtained in discovery established that the district had failed to eliminate its one-race schools to the extent practicable. The district moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had achieved unitary status in the area of student assignment to schools. The United States filed an opposition to the district's motion on January 12, 2007, and a reply in support of its own motion on January 26, 2007. On February 14, 2007, the court issued a ruling granting the United States' summary judgment motion and denying that of the district. The court found that the district had failed to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable and ordered that the trial set for February 26, 2007, proceed to consider an appropriate student assignment plan. In lieu of going to trial, the district and the United States reached agreement on a new desegregation plan in a three-year consent order , which the court approved on March 21, 2007.

On April 10, 2012, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the University of California, San Diego ("UCSD"), in San Diego, Calif., to resolve an investigation into complaints of racial harassment against African-American students on campus.

The investigation and settlement focused on multiple incidents beginning in February 2010, including public displays of nooses and a Ku Klux Klan-style hood, and the hosting of an off-campus party where students were invited to dress as stereotypes of African-Americans, as well as UCSD's response to the incidents. Following DOJ's and OCR's investigation, UCSD voluntarily entered into a resolution agreement with the departments.

Under the terms of the resolution agreement, UCSD will take steps to prevent racial harassment on campus, respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and eliminate any hostile environment resulting from harassment. The university has agreed to revise its campus policies and procedures related to racial harassment to ensure they are consistent with federal civil rights laws; maintain an Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of harassment and discrimination; and provide mandatory trainings for staff and students on the university's anti-discrimination policies and procedures. The university also voluntarily initiated a number of additional programs to address campus climate issues, and the departments will monitor the implementation of those programs to evaluate their impact on resolving the departments' concerns. For more information, please see this press release .

On March 18, 2024, the Department  notified the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) that the University had violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The Department found that from 2015 to 2020, UMBC failed to respond adequately to known allegations of sex discrimination in the Athletics Department.  As a result, a former head coach engaged in sex-based harassment, including sexual assault, of male student-athletes, as well as discrimination on the basis of sex of female student-athletes, on an ongoing basis for years. 

On April 3, 2024, the Department and UMBC reached a settlement agreement to address UMBC’s noncompliance with Title IX.  The agreement followed the Department’s March 18, 2024 letter notifying UMBC that it did not comply with Title IX when, between 2015 and 2020, it failed to respond adequately to known allegations of sex discrimination in the Athletics Department.  Under the agreement’s terms, UMBC will, among other things, ensure sufficient staffing and funding to maintain an effective Title IX compliance program; employ full-time staff to support individuals who have experienced sexual assault; promote greater awareness of its revised Title IX policy and protocols; provide targeted training to student-athletes and Athletics Department staff; create a policy outlining behavioral expectations for coaching staff; and implement climate surveys to identify and respond to the needs of student-athletes. The agreement also requires UMBC to pay up to $4.14 million in financial relief to individuals who the Department found experienced sex discrimination by the former head coach.  The Department will monitor the UMBC’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2028-2029 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release and plain-language summary of the agreement.  

University of Montana-Missoula

On May 1, 2012, the Civil Rights Division formally launched a Title IX compliance review and Title IV investigation of the University of Montana-Missoula's (the University) handling of student reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment. That same day, the Division launched a companion investigation of the University's campus police under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Section 14141), and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Safe Streets Act). See May 1, 2012 Press Release .

Shortly thereafter, the Division combined its Title IX compliance review with one initiated by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Title IX and Title IV both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University's policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the Division and OCR identified a number of areas where the University needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and Title IV.

On May 9, 2013, the Division and OCR reached a resolution agreement with the University to resolve their findings under Title IX and Title IV, and the Division reached a separate agreement to resolve its findings under Section 14141 and the Safe Streets Act. Under the terms of the Title IX-Title IV agreement , the University agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation; and to fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment. These steps include: adopting revised policies and procedures for handling sex-based discrimination complaints, conducting training for all employees and students, disseminating information more clearly and broadly about how to report sexual harassment and assault, conducting annual climate surveys to assess students' knowledge of these issues and any barriers to their reporting, and evaluating the effect of the Agreement's remedies over time to ensure that they are effective. The Division and OCR will carefully monitor the University's implementation of the Agreement to ensure that the relief it provides reaches students quickly.

On December 5, 2014, the Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office, New Mexico, formally launched a Title IX compliance review and Title IV investigation of the University of New Mexico's (the University) handling of student reports of sexual assault. Title IX and Title IV both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University's policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, and responses to reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment, DOJ issued a Letter of Findings on April 16, 2016 which identified a number of areas where the University needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and Title IV.

On October 17, 2016, DOJ reached an agreement with the University to resolve their findings under Title IX and Title IV. Under the terms of the Title IX-Title IV agreement, the University agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault; and to fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment. These steps include: adopting revised policies and procedures for handling complaints of sexual harassment, conducting training for all students and responsible employees, disseminating information more clearly and broadly about how to report sexual harassment and assault, conducting annual climate surveys to assess students' knowledge of these issues and any barriers to their reporting, and evaluating the effect of the Agreement's remedies over time to ensure that they are effective. DOJ will carefully monitor the University's implementation of the Agreement to ensure that the relief it provides reaches students quickly. For more information, please see this press release .

In this matter involving the University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC), Tennessee, the Department investigated a complaint alleging, in part, that UTHSC violated of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq ., by failing to reasonably modify policies, practices, and procedures when it employed a threat assessment process and placed a student on a mandatory medical leave of absence from her academic program because of her mental health condition without first considering accommodations to facilitate her continued enrollment.  On July 22, 2016, the Department and UTHSC entered into a Settlement Agreement that prohibits the university from discriminating against any person on the basis of disability and from excluding any person with a disability from participation in or benefiting from its services, programs, or activities.  In addition, the Agreement requires UTHSC to change its leave and withdrawal policies, and provide annual ADA training to faculty and staff.  UTHSC also must ensure that the process it uses to evaluate a student’s request for accommodation or reasonable modification of policies is conducted independently from other campus administrative or discipline processes, and that any threat assessment involving a student with a disability is supported by an appropriate factual record and based on legitimate safety concerns, and not on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about persons with disabilities.  Finally, the Agreement allows the complainant to recover $45,000 in compensation, and requires UTHSC to amend the student's academic record; destroy specified documents, including the complainant’s medical records; and take other steps to remedy the alleged discrimination.

After learning of allegations that Utah State University (the “University”) failed to respond to numerous reports of serious student-on-student sexual assault, the Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah (collectively, the “United States”) initiated a Title IX compliance review of the University.  The United States reviewed the University’s response(s) to sexual assault and harassment complaint(s) over a more than four-year period.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the University’s policies, grievance procedures, training, student education efforts, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the United States identified areas of noncompliance with Title IX.

On February 12, 2020, the United States reached a settlement agreement with the University to address the areas of noncompliance.  Under the terms of the agreement, the University agreed to take significant steps including, among others: revising its notice of nondiscrimination and relevant sexual harassment policies, procedures, and practices; responding promptly, equitably, and adequately to known sexual harassment that has created a hostile environment; and training students and employees on University policies and federal laws pertaining to sexual harassment, how and to whom they can report allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, the resources available and how to access them, and the University’s Title IX grievance procedures and potential outcomes.  The United States will carefully monitor the University’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place through the 2022-2023 academic year.  For more information, please see the press release . 

On July 28, 2020, the United States executed a letter agreement with the University, extending the deadlines in the original settlement agreement. On May 20, 2024, the United States and Utah State University executed an extension to the agreement through the 2024-25 academic year.

On January 13, 2003, the Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club and some of its student members filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that the Westfield Public Schools and officials discriminated against their religious beliefs by refusing to allow them to distribute pamphlets containing a religious message, even though defendants permitted the distribution of secular pamphlets by these same students the year before. The plaintiffs alleged that this violated their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and their rights to equal protection under the laws pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States' motion on February 26, 2003.

The United States filed a brief in support of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction. The United States argued that the school's restrictions on plaintiffs' speech violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments proscribing government regulations of speech that discriminate against a particular point of view – here a religious viewpoint.

On March 17, 2003, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from prohibiting the students and the L.I.F.E. Club from distributing literature to fellow students, during non-instructional time, based on the content of the literature.

On June 16, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree in which the district agreed to use a revised Free Speech Policy and not to impose any prior restraints upon the plaintiffs to distribute literature unless the distribution failed to comply with the policy.

In this matter involving the Westminster Public Schools, the Section and the District of Colorado USAO examined whether the District was identifying and serving its English Learner (“EL”) students in compliance with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).   EL students comprise approximately 46% of the District’s student population.  On February 27, 2018, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s noncompliance with the EEOA and ensure that EL students receive the support they need to succeed in the District’s educational programs.  Under the agreement, the District will: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; ensure that all ELs, including those with disabilities, receive adequate language services so that they can become proficient in English; provide ELs with access to appropriate grade-level content within the District’s Competency Based System; train teachers and administrators who implement the EL program adequately; monitor the academic performance of current, former, and long-term EL students; evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time; and ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for three full school years.

On August 31, 2015, the Division formally launched a Title IX investigation and compliance review of Wheaton College after receiving a complaint regarding the College’s handling of a student’s report of sexual assault.  The Division reviewed the College’s response to sexual assault and harassment complaints over an approximately three and a half-year period.  After conducting numerous interviews and an extensive review of the College’s policies, grievance procedures, investigative practices, training, student education efforts, and responses to reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliation, the Division identified areas where the College needed to take further steps to ensure compliance with Title IX and its regulations. On September 21, 2106, the Division reached a settlement agreement with the College to address these areas and bring it into compliance.  Under the terms of the agreement, the College agreed to take significant, additional steps to: prevent sexual harassment and assault; respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation; and fully eliminate the effects of the hostile environment resulting from such harassment.  These steps include, among others: revising its policies, procedures, and investigative practices to ensure the prompt and equitable resolution of sexual assault and harassment allegations; adequately investigating and responding to allegations of retaliation by students who reported sexual harassment or assault; taking sufficient action to fully eliminate sex-based hostile environments; and adequately training individuals designated to coordinate its Title IX efforts. The Division will carefully monitor the College’s implementation of the agreement, which will remain in place for at least three school years.  For more information, please see this press release.

In this matter involving the Wicomico County Public School District in Maryland, the Section conducted an investigation into complaints that the District’s student discipline policies resulted in the discriminatory suspension of black and Latino students and students with disabilities, in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq., which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion in public schools and institutions of higher education, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, which prohibits discrimination based on disability in services, programs and activities provided by State and local government entities.

After the investigation, the United States and the District negotiated and entered a voluntary out-of-court settlement agreement on January 19, 2017. Under the settlement agreement, the district will take steps to create positive and inclusive learning environments in all Wicomico County schools, including by timely responding to requests for reasonable modifications to District disciplinary policies, practices and procedures; providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention and other emergency response measures are appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems.

On July 2, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Wichita Public Schools to address discrimination against 1) Black students in the district’s administration of school discipline and the referral of student conduct to law enforcement, and 2) students with disabilities in the district’s use of seclusion and restraint and operation of specialized schools.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.   Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students on the basis of race or disability. The district will, among other steps: eliminate the use of seclusion; restrict restraint of students to instances when their behavior poses an imminent danger of serious physical harm to the student or another person; provide appropriate interventions and supports to students with disabilities; develop a district-wide code of conduct, formalize and standardize  dress code policies, and create a behavior intervention protocol to ensure the nondiscriminatory administration of discipline and to prohibit unnecessary exclusion of students from the school environment; create a system of district-level monitoring of schools’ administration of student discipline to ensure nondiscrimination; prohibit school security and law enforcement from becoming involved in minor student misbehavior that does not pose a safety concern, thereby avoiding criminalizing routine school discipline matters; ensure that it employs professionals with the requisite expertise and training to run and staff specialized schools for students with disabilities; provide counseling and compensatory education to students who have been repeatedly secluded; and create an office to monitor the district’s seclusion and restraint practices to ensure compliance with the agreement and assist district staff in providing required interventions and supports.  For more information, please see this letter  (in Spanish ), press release  (in Spanish ) and summary of the agreement  (in Spanish ).

In this matter involving the Worcester, Massachusetts public school system, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA"). After determining that the school district was not complying with the requirements of the EEOA, the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the school district on January 26, 2009. Under this agreement, the school district agreed to take the following steps, among others, to: establish protocols for registration and identification; train faculty and intake staff concerning proper data entry for tracking; ensure timely, adequate and appropriate ELL services; provide translation services for parents and guardians, train ELL teachers, provide appropriate materials for ELL classes, ensure special education students are not denied appropriate ELL services, and monitor current and exited ELLs.

On July 10, 2012, the United States entered into a supplemental agreement with the school district that addressed, among other things, the school district's duty to: adequately test students for English language proficiency; properly train personnel involved in the identification and registration of ELLs; monitor and track the academic achievement of former ELLs; and ensure that classroom instruction provided to ELLs is delivered by teachers who are qualified to teach ELLs. After determining that the school district was still not in compliance with the 2008 and 2012 Agreements, the United States entered into a comprehensive second supplemental agreement with the district on July 11, 2016.  The 2016 agreement replaces the 2008 Settlement Agreement and 2012 Supplemental Agreement and aims to address, among other issues: inadequate ESL and sheltered content instruction for ELLs, the need for more qualified ESL and sheltered content teachers, services and procedures for ELLs with disabilities, and insufficient translations and qualified interpreters for LEP parents.

Please note that on our website we use cookies to enhance your experience, and for analytics purposes. To learn more about our cookies, please read our privacy policy. By clicking ‘Allow cookies’, you agree to our use of cookies. By clicking ‘Decline’, you don’t agree to our Privacy Policy.

Life at the Margins: The Challenges of Multiple Discrimination

The chapters

This Minority Story is a collection of short articles and case studies focusing on discrimination on different grounds.

by Nora Ellen Groce According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people with disabilities – that is, people with physical, sensory, intellectual or mental health disabilities – make up 15 per cent of the world’s population. Yet when…

Case study: Dalits with disabilities in India

Dalits, long victim to a caste-based system of social hierarchy that regards them as ‘untouchables’, comprise around 17 per cent of India’s total population. While caste-based discrimination was outlawed in 1955, the social phenomenon of…

Children and young people

by Jasmin Qureshi The rights of minority and indigenous children and young people are often not ensured or protected. They face barriers to education, for example, and lack basic health care in many parts of the world. Children are already…

Case study: Endorois youth in Kenya

by Rebecca Marlin Indigenous Endorois had inhabited Lake Bogoria for centuries when, in the 1970s, the Kenyan government forcibly removed them from their ancestral land. Their eviction brought to an end a unique way of life rich with culture…

by Jasmin Qureshi Across the globe, older people face discrimination in all areas of their lives. Whether they are accessing health care, seeking employment, or protecting their right to their land, older people are likely to experience…

Photo story: Minority and indigenous older people

Older people from minority and indigenous backgrounds are well respected leaders and often credited with improving the well-being of their families and communities. These photos tell some of their stories. Kee Or, 104-year-old spiritual leader…

overty and livelihoods

by Electra Babouri Socio-economic inequality is determined by a complex range of factors, manifested in many interconnected spheres, such as livelihoods, income, material assets, access to social goods, influence and participation. While state…

Indigenous livelihoods in the Philippines

by Hanna Hindstrom Four years ago, a typhoon struck the northern Filipino city of Baguio. The storm ruptured the walls of the city’s mounting garbage dump, sending hundreds of tonnes of urban waste cascading into the streets. The landslide…

by Farah Mihlar Minority and indigenous women face a unique set of challenges on account of their gender and community status, a form of intersectional discrimination that is often particularly difficult to address. As neither men within the…

Case Study: Indigenous women in Mexico

by Mariah Grant Ciudad Juárez is a striking example of both the good and the bad that the economic opportunities inherent to urbanization can bring. This city of nearly 1.5 million inhabitants is situated on the Mexico side of the border with…

Sexual orientation and gender identity

by Peter Grant Across the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people face discrimination, stigmatization and targeted violence as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the challenges faced by those…

Film: The Manu Project in New Zealand

The Manu Project, jointly conceived by London-based friends and collaborators Lyall Hakaraia and Emma Eastwood, was initiated as a way to encourage queer indigenous and migrant youth to share their views on gender, identity and culture. Through…

by Nora Ellen Groce

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people with disabilities – that is, people with physical, sensory, intellectual or mental health disabilities – make up 15 per cent of the world’s population. Yet when attention is focused on indigenous or minority issues, the situation of those living with disabilities within those communities is rarely considered. Too often, members of indigenous and minority populations who live with a disability, and their families, find themselves struggling to meet the competing needs and challenges of their identity within often marginalized communities and the demands of living with a disability. People with disabilities in indigenous and minority communities represent a group often overlooked, yet who have much to contribute to their communities and to the broader society.

In many ways, disability is a key cross-cutting issue that frequently is overlooked even by those who work on cross-cutting issues. Disability is considered – if it is considered at all – as a medical concern to be described and discussed within realms of clinical medical and public health. This ‘medical model’ has been replaced over the past 20 years, however, by an emerging ‘social model’ – the realization on the part of policy makers, organizations and advocates that the key barriers facing people with disabilities worldwide are not their health or rehabilitation needs, but poverty, social exclusion and injustice .

Indeed, the new UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , now signed by 160 countries, specially speaks to the broad nature of disability when it describes disability itself as ‘an evolving concept’ and states that ‘disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’.

Disability never constitutes anyone’s full identity however – all people who are born or who become disabled are also members of other cultural and socio-economic groups. The intersectionality between disability and other groups that face discrimination has come under increased attention in recent years, but we still know relatively little about many aspects of living with a disability within groups that face poverty, prejudice and social marginalization.

Certainly within indigenous and minority communities, the issues faced by children and adults with disabilities – and their families – is of particular concern. Many of these communities already face disproportionate levels of poverty and are less likely to receive equal access to resources or services such as education or health, that are available to non-indigenous populations in the same community or country.

Here there is a compounding set of issues that makes the lives of people with disabilities of particular concern, both within and beyond the community. Many of these issues are interlinked. For example, even in very poor communities, people with disabilities and their households are more likely to live in poverty than their non-disabled neighbours. This has more to do with lack of access to resources throughout the life cycle – people with disabilities are less likely to attend school, be able to get a job, and are less likely to be permitted to participate freely in the social, economic and political life of their communities. In those indigenous and minority communities where members live in hard-to-reach remote rural areas or in urban slum communities, access becomes harder still .

Compounding this, in many traditional communities, there are beliefs about how and why certain children or adults become disabled that promote social isolation, stigma and discrimination against the individual and their family. It is important to note that such belief systems will differ by indigenous or minority group and by type of disability – and some traditions have positive and supportive attitudes towards disability. For example, in some traditional communities, children and adults who have epileptic seizures may be perceived as being in closer touch with ancestors, gods or the afterlife.

Moreover, in many indigenous or minority communities where there is great need, people with disabilities are often encouraged or told to wait to ask for or demand access to resources by members of their own communities. ‘We will get help for our disabled children,’ an elder chief of one Native American community told this author, ‘once our other children are provided for.’ What this attitude overlooks is that disability rights are inseparable from other human rights, and all children’s lives – including the lives of children with disabilities – are of equal value. Asking children with disabilities and their families to wait until an undefined point in the future as a contribution to the broader needs of an indigenous or minority community means that progress is delayed for all.

Nor is poverty alone an issue. Due to poverty, less access to health care, poor working conditions and gender-based violence, women are at higher risk of becoming disabled than men, and may make up as many as three-quarters of all those with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. And as populations age, the number of people aged 60 and above living with disability grows. This growth is taking place in two distinct groups: people disabled at birth or in adulthood, familiar with disability, who, with improved medical care, are now surviving into older age; and people who become disabled as a result of illness or injury in old age. Members of indigenous and minority populations are at increased risk of becoming disabled as they age, due to poverty, lack of access to adequate medical care, housing or nutritious food, and violence in areas in which they live. For example, in the United States, African Americans are more likely to be disabled throughout the life cycle, with black/white differences peaking in midlife (50–69 years of age), and African Americans being between 1.5 to 2 times as likely to live with a disabilities as their white peers.

All these issues have specific implications when disability intersects with indigenous or minority community concerns. Lack of opportunity and destruction of traditional community beliefs and practices has led to high rates of alcohol abuse in a number of indigenous and minority communities, for instance, causing the routine birth of children with foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), which leads to non-reversible and often significant developmental delays. In the United States , while the prevalence of children born with FAS will vary from tribal group to tribal group and within many tribal communities, ‘the prevalence of FAS in Alaska is 5.6 per 1,000 live births for American Indians/Alaska Natives, compared to 1.5 per 1,000 in the state overall.’

And of course, many issues related to disability can be compounded not just in one but in several domains. For example, an impoverished older LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) woman from a rural indigenous or minority community who is disabled faces not one, but a series of challenges and barriers that have direct implications for her ability to live on a daily basis and plan for a future.

Into the future – key concerns and potential options

Rethinking disability – moving the issue from a medical concern to a human rights and international development issue – has been slow in coming. But within the past decade changes are beginning to occur rapidly for people with disabilities at both national and international levels. And these changes have direct implications for people with disabilities in indigenous and minority communities.

The Millennium Development Goals, written in 2000, unfortunately overlooked disability entirely – there was no mention of disability in any of the Goals, Targets or Indicators. Yet the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the first human rights treaty of the twenty-first century, which entered into force in 2008, has now established critical parameters for inclusion of persons with disabilities within all legislative and development efforts. The 160 countries which have currently signed or signed and ratified this Convention have recently or are now in the process of rewriting all their national laws and policies to comply with the Convention.

This new emphasis on ensuring rights for all people with disabilities is further reflected in the new Sustainable Development Goals , which implicitly, and in several Targets explicitly, includes people with disabilities throughout. This emphasis on ensuring inclusion for all is emphasized in the strapline for the Goals themselves: ‘Leave No One Behind’.

While all these efforts are admirable, there is concern that people with disabilities in indigenous and minority communities may benefit less, or not benefit at all. Poverty, marginalization and lack of information about disability rights within these communities, as well as competing priorities within indigenous and minority communities in combination with traditional beliefs and practices, may make accessing new rights and resources more difficult for disabled members of these populations.

Very significantly, a small but growing number of people with disabilities within indigenous and minority communities are now stepping forward themselves to have their concerns heard – both within and beyond their own communities. Indeed, national coalitions of indigenous and minority people with disabilities are increasing. For example, in Australia the First Peoples’ Disability Network , founded in 1999, is a national coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with disabilities who advocate about indigenous and disability issues. Balancing both the concerns of indigenous communities and people with disabilities, as well as issues specifically concerning indigenous people with disabilities, such organizations are a distinctive voice on behalf of both indigenous and minority groups, and the disability rights community.

In summary, a growing body of research and advocacy tells us that when people with disabilities are able to participate fully and freely in their communities – and are able to have equal access to the support, inclusion and resources available – all members of the community benefit. All groups and advocates working within or on behalf of indigenous and minority communities must not forget to include these millions of children and adults in all the policy, programmes and advocacy work they undertake.

Many of these groups are mobilizing around these intersecting identities to subvert stereotypes and highlight injustices.

Photo: African American young people reading using braille. Credit: NASA HQ.

Dalits, long victim to a caste-based system of social hierarchy that regards them as ‘untouchables’, comprise around 17 per cent of India’s total population. While caste-based discrimination was outlawed in 1955, the social phenomenon of caste persists and is imparted through birth. As a result, Dalits still face severe hardship and exclusion from mainstream society, with prejudicial attitudes and practices underlying much of Indian society today.

Acting simultaneously as a social and physical condition, disability – which varies in form and severity, and may be present from birth or developed during the course of a person’s lifetime – is considerably more prevalent among Dalits than upper castes: 2.4 per cent compared to 1.8 per cent, according to one report . Dalits are also more likely to have severe forms of disabilities generally, and more specifically, to acquire them at a young age. This is due in part to the influence of factors connected to poorer living conditions, such as anemia, pneumonia and low levels of nutrition.

The intersection of disability with caste can compound the myriad issues faced by Dalits. Disabilities reinforce disadvantage linked to Dalit identity and its consequent deprivation of rights, opportunities, and resources. Dalit children, who already struggle to attend school due to having to physical distance, segregation and discriminatory treatment, face even greater difficulties accessing education when they have disabilities.

In rural areas, where the situation is particularly bleak, lack of basic skills gained through education restricts opportunities for vocational and other training leading to employment. Yet access to employment also depends on social capital, and persons with disabilities – and to an even greater extent those who are Dalits – suffer from stigmatization and negative stereotypes that cast them as unproductive and dependent. The low educational and employment status of Dalits with disabilities in turn increases the likelihood that their households, whose limited resources are already stretched, will face poorer living conditions and greater poverty.

Even natural disasters can be discriminatory in their impacts, affecting Dalits, particularly those with disabilities, disproportionately due to their settlements being situated in vulnerable locations such as rubbish dumps, river banks and other high-risk areas. Furthermore, the response of authorities to assist victims can reinforce this disparity through discrimination. In November 2015, for instance, after devastating floods swept through Tamil Nadu, hundreds of Dalit families who lost their homes and livelihoods found themselves neglected by government relief efforts. Differing starkly from the treatment of upper-caste families, many Dalits were not provided with adequate food, drinking water or emergency health support services, nor even received visits from officials to assess their losses and needs.

Dalit women and girls with disabilities, situated at the bottom of India’s social hierarchy, are especially vulnerable. They in many cases perform the most dangerous and degrading work, placing their health at greater risk, and suffer a constant threat of sexual violence from members of their own community as well as upper castes. Those with disabilities are especially vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. While the majority of cases go undocumented, a number of recently reported incidents highlight the severity of their situation. In January 2016, for example, a deaf-mute Dalit woman was gang-raped and thrown from a train in Uttar Pradesh, and at the beginning of February 2016 when a man was arrested for raping a deaf-mute Dalit girl in Berhampur, Odisha.

The vulnerability and marginalization faced by Dalits with disabilities is in part a reflection of inadequate government policies and programmes to protect their human rights. While positive efforts have been made to improve the situation of Dalits – through Constitutional amendment, legislation and monitoring bodies, job quotas, affirmative action in the public sector and education – there remains insufficient political will to adequately acknowledge and address discrimination against Dalits in India and work to abolish caste itself. As for persons with disabilities, there have been some recent signs of progress, with the Minister for Justice and Social Empowerment announcing in early 2016 that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill had been drafted, which would help persons with disabilities derive greater benefits from welfare schemes.

But while a stronger rights framework for Dalits and persons with disabilities is urgently needed, this alone may not necessarily bring justice and equality for Dalits with disabilities, who may still find themselves marginalized. It is important therefore that the unique challenges of intersectionality for Dalits with disabilities are also recognized to ensure that they do not continue to be left behind.

Photo: Dalit mother and child in India. Credit: Thessaly La Force. 

by Jasmin Qureshi

The rights of minority and indigenous children and young people are often not ensured or protected. They face barriers to education, for example, and lack basic health care in many parts of the world. Children are already particularly vulnerable in situations of poverty, conflict and other humanitarian emergencies, and are doubly so if they come from a minority or indigenous background.

Poverty and barriers to education

Minorities and indigenous communities are often some of the poorest in their countries, leaving many children living in impoverished conditions. This in turn limits their access to education. For example, in New Zealand, over 40 per cent of Pacific children are living in poverty. Poverty often forces minority and indigenous families to send their children to work or take care of young siblings rather than attend school.

Minority and indigenous girls face particular barriers to education. In some contexts, girls may experience forced marriage, which prevents them from completing their education. For example, in Mexico indigenous girls tend to marry between the ages of 13 and 16 in arrangements that sometimes involve the exchange of cash. Also, from childhood indigenous girls are expected to help their mothers: their ‘normal’ workday can last as long as 18 hours, leaving little time for education, which in many cases is unaffordable. This has resulted in a gender disparity with regard to education: 50 per cent of indigenous women have not completed primary school, versus 42 per cent of indigenous men.

In Burundi, there is low enrolment and high drop-out rates among Batwa girls in primary and secondary education. An  MRG report  in 2010 found that Batwa boys and girls from other ethnic groups are twice as likely to go to school as Batwa girls. Drop-out rates for Batwa girls are double those for Batwa boys. Factors contributing to Batwa girls’ lack of access to education include poverty, the attitude of Batwa parents towards the education of girls and early marriage.

Roma and other minority children in Europe are also discriminated against when accessing education. One high-profile case occurred in Sofades, a town in Thessaly, central Greece, where Roma children used to be segregated into a separate primary school. In 2013, the European Court of Human Rights in the case of  Lavida and Others v. Greece  ruled that this segregation constituted discrimination and a breach of the right to education. However, this was by no means an isolated case – it was the third European Court ruling on discrimination against Roma pupils in Greece.

Language policies and barriers can impact on the education of minority children and young people. For example in Tajikistan, the use of anything besides the majority Tajik language is discouraged and university applicants must be fluent in Tajik. For minority Uzbek communities, this can pose a barrier to education. Although schoolchildren study the Tajik language for two hours a day, for many rural Uzbeks this is not enough to master reading and writing.

In Namibia, Himba and San children are not allowed to wear traditional clothes and are not taught in their mother tongue. As a result, San and Himba lag behind in educational attainment in comparison with other groups: only 7 per cent of San children are enrolled at the junior secondary level, and less than 1 per cent in senior secondary schools. The semi-nomadic lifestyle of Himba also means that children are unable to attend mainstream schools.

Minority and indigenous children can face discrimination at school from pupils or teachers, which leads to higher drop-out rates for minority and indigenous children. For example, in Afghanistan there have been reports that children from Hindu and Sikh communities were forced to drop out of school because of bullying. Minority and indigenous students may find themselves ostracized not only by their peers, but also by teachers responsible for their care.

Minority and indigenous youth

Lack of access to quality education for minority and indigenous children continues to have a negative impact later in their lives. This can lead to lower levels of employment for young people and other serious consequences.

In the United States, sub-standard education for poor students attending schools in less affluent neighbourhoods, as is the case for many African American children, has a long-term impact on their future economic well-being. Furthermore, limited educational opportunities for African American students have been associated with a phenomenon known as the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’. The increase of police officers inside schools has led to increased contact with the criminal justice system, and infractions which were previously dealt with by teachers and school administrators now lead to fines and even incarceration in juvenile facilities.

This experience has long-term ramifications, as children and adolescents sent to juvenile facilities are 37 times more likely to be arrested again as adults. Students with criminal records are further marginalized in some school districts through the use of alternative schools, which segregate them from the general student population. The discrimination faced by African Americans within the school system is therefore linked to and mirrored by their disproportionate incarceration rates in the country’s prisons, with African Americans accounting for 41 per cent of those imprisoned despite making up just 13 per cent of the national population.

Similarly, for Brazil’s Afro-descendant community there is massive inequality in young people’s access to education and other services. With little opportunity to improve their lives, young Afro-Brazilian men face a high risk of being drawn into drug gangs and violence.

Minority and indigenous children suffer higher levels of ill health and poorer quality of care across the globe. There are also insufficient numbers of health centres, including mother and child health services and tuberculosis clinics, in minority areas.

International studies show that indigenous children have worse health indicators than non-indigenous children in almost every context. They suffer malnutrition and childhood diseases at rates higher than non-indigenous children, as well as greater levels of infant mortality. In the Republic of Congo, mortality from measles has been estimated to be five times higher in Ba’Aka children than neighbouring Bantu communities. Similarly, in Yunnan Province, China, indigenous infant mortality rates have been estimated at almost 78 per 1,000 live births, compared to an average of just under 27 per 1,000 at a national level and under 54 per 1,000 for non-indigenous populations in Yunnan.

In part, these indicators reflect extreme levels of poverty, which are often especially acute among minority and indigenous populations. In India, for instance, Dalit girls are more likely to have stunted growth or be underweight, and child malnutrition is about 14–20 per cent higher for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and has been declining at a slower rate than for the rest of the population over the last 15 years .

However, health problems can also arise as a direct result of state policies and development programmes – even those supposedly bringing economic benefits to a country or region. In Sarawak, for example, in the Malaysian part of Borneo, logging operations and oil palm plantations have encroached on the indigenous Penan people’s land. As a result, the community has become more impoverished and are suffering from poor health, with Penan children increasingly afflicted by diarrhoea and influenza.

Mental health problems and suicide rates among indigenous young people can also be higher than those in the non-indigenous population. This is often linked to ‘acculturation’, particularly if the indigenous community has been forced into urban settings, where urban indigenous children and their families lose vital connections to their communities’ traditional lands and cultures, and often experience the worst situations of urban marginalization, discrimination and poverty.

Minority and indigenous girls

Minority and indigenous girls are discriminated against because of their sex and because they are members of a marginalized group. While the difficulties they experience in part reflect their community identity, these challenges are further reinforced by gender inequalities which further marginalize them. For example, girls from minority and indigenous communities often have less access to education and experience higher levels of marginalization at school than either males within their community or girls from majority populations.

They are particularly vulnerable to trafficking, rape, domestic violence and other forms of abuse. For example, in Australia, indigenous women and girls face the highest levels of violence of any ethnic group in the country. This violence, directly or indirectly, also limits their freedom of movement and access to benefits such as employment, education and health care, not to mention participation in political and civic life. While minority and indigenous girls frequently face violence from majority populations, abuse and inequalities are also experienced within their own communities. For example, harmful cultural and religious practices, such as female genital mutilation (FGM) in pastoralist communities in Africa, can have lasting impacts on their physical and mental well-being.

Minority and indigenous children and young people, particularly girls and young women, are often denied equal access to education and health care, as well as employment later on in life. Due to intersectional discrimination on account of their age and identity, they are frequently among the most vulnerable populations, and therefore any assistance targeting this group must be designed sensitively to reflect their unique situation. Any programmes and policies designed to protect children’s and young people’s rights must not only treat them as people with agency, but also ensure that the particular perspectives of members of minority or indigenous communities are taken into account.

Photo: Roma young women in Romania. Credit: World Bank Photo Collection.

by Rebecca Marlin

Indigenous Endorois had inhabited Lake Bogoria for centuries when, in the 1970s, the Kenyan government forcibly removed them from their ancestral land. Their eviction brought to an end a unique way of life rich with culture and tradition, and they have been advocating for the rightful return of their land ever since. Despite a 2010 ruling by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in their favour, secured with MRG’s support, the government has yet to comply.

In October 2014, MRG spent three weeks visiting the areas near Lake Bogoria where the community is now based, and interviewed nearly 500 Endorois about their lives. Many Endorois described how, while living at Lake Bogoria, they engaged in a variety of cultural and religious activities, such as worshipping at the graves of their ancestors, collecting herbs for medicinal purposes and practising initiation ceremonies. As pastoralists, they followed the natural grazing patterns of their livestock, and maintained beehives to collect honey.

In the 40 years since their displacement, however, the Endorois have been struggling to maintain their traditions, while living in marginal areas with extremely limited access to health care, basic infrastructure and education. As a result, younger generations have made efforts to better their lives by heading to cities such as Eldoret, Nakuru and Nairobi. Their reasons for moving are varied: some are in search of higher education, others are looking for employment, while many are also seeking to escape frequent outbreaks of violence as a result of cattle-rustling carried out by neighbouring communities.

Some Endorois youth, frustrated by their marginalized status, also leave in the hope of securing greater recognition within Kenyan society. One Endorois attending law school in Nairobi discussed the numerous challenges facing young Endorois, such as ongoing government repression, exclusion from local job recruitment, leadership problems and their continued stigmatization. He explained that these factors ‘have caused the youth to move away from Endorois land in order to disassociate from the community and be given greater consideration by Kenyan leaders’.

Migration to urban areas has produced benefits and challenges for Endorois families. On the positive side, it has given young Endorois access to higher education and frequently the skills they gain may be used to improve the lives of their community as well. Endorois who find employment in cities are also able to send some of their wages home to their families, where they are desperately needed.

At the same time, Endorois who move to larger cities report that they face discrimination based on their minority status and often are only able to find employment in non-permanent or contract-based jobs, usually in private security or domestic work. Endorois employed in this way are rarely given time off by their employers to visit their families, who often can only be reached after a long journey through remote and potentially dangerous areas. The result is that many young Endorois end up not returning home for extended periods, and find themselves increasingly out of touch with day-to-day life within the Endorois community.

Endorois tradition is passed down from elders to youth, with frequent interaction between the two groups. With more and more from the younger generation leaving their rural communities, however, this chain has been broken. Almost all Endorois surveyed, both elders and youth, reported that they felt the younger generation were losing their culture. One Endorois woman remarked that it was sad to see so many Endorois leaving at a young age for cities, because ‘this is the time when the younger generation is expected to learn how ceremonies are conducted. Generations to come will lose the unique Endorois culture and livelihood as they are continuously exposed to urban culture.’ Endorois also find that it is frequently those who might become Endorois leaders who are most likely to leave. ‘The community is affected when the youth move out, leaving them without energetic and visionary people,’ said one Endorois man. ‘Those with ideas do not share them with the community and the community is left behind.’

Endorois are therefore struggling to develop a way to maintain their traditions in the face of the strong draw of the cities, but many feel defeated. A majority of those surveyed believed that the only way to ensure Endorois youth remained in the community was to regain access to their territory at Lake Bogoria, where they could fully reinstate their traditions and offer a more attractive future to the next generation. Despite the government’s obligation to restore their land, return remains a distant reality for Kenya’s Endorois, who must now struggle with the loss not only of their culture, livelihoods and traditions, but their youth as well.

This case study was originally published in MRG’s  State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2015 .

Photo: Lake Bogoria, Kenya. Credit: MRG.

Across the globe, older people face discrimination in all areas of their lives. Whether they are accessing health care, seeking employment, or protecting their right to their land, older people are likely to experience discrimination because of their age.

‘Sometimes age discrimination is subtle: lack of transportation may prevent older people from taking part in social activities, which is a right everyone shares. At the other end of the scale, there are appalling cases of neglect and violence against older people.’ (HelpAge International)

If an older person is also a member of a minority or indigenous community then they are particularly marginalized and vulnerable. They are likely to experience intersectional discrimination on the basis of their age as well as their ethnic, linguistic or religious background, or indigenous status.

Minority older people are often among the poorest members of their countries. In the US, for example, poverty rates vary significantly by ethnicity among older people (aged 65 and above): 17.1 per cent of older black people and 18.7 per cent of older Hispanic people are living in poverty, compared with 6.8 per cent of older white people. This is compounded by the fact older people face discrimination at work or when seeking employment, even in countries where laws are in place to prevent this.

Older people from minority or indigenous communities are also particularly vulnerable during conflict or post-conflict situations, or when natural disasters strike. For example, after the  ethnic conflict in Osh, Kyrgyzstan , in June 2010, many older people were left in financial hardship: HelpAge International research conducted in the wake of the violence found that 37 per cent of older people surveyed reported having no money. However, when disaggregated by ethnicity the findings suggested an even more acute situation among the Uzbek minority, with 55 per cent of older people from their community reporting a lack of money, compared to 20 per cent of majority older Kyrgyz people. A high percentage of older Uzbek people also said they were unable to procure essential medical supplies in the aftermath of the conflict.

At the same time, older people are a key economic resource often overlooked by governments and make substantial contributions to the well-being of their families and communities. Older people in minority and indigenous communities play an important role as respected leaders and human rights activists. They help bring communities together and provide support to younger members, who may need extra support when dealing with the sense of marginalization that can come with being part of a minority or indigenous people.

Discrimination in health care

The world’s population is ageing as people are living longer. This means access to appropriate health and social care is essential to ensure that older people can enjoy healthy, active lives.

Yet older members of minority and indigenous communities experience barriers to accessing the health care they need and are entitled to. Language barriers are one of the main issues when trying to obtain health care for minority groups. Research by the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union on inequalities in access to health care found that language is a key barrier, particularly for minority older persons and women, who interact less with mainstream society.

Lack of consideration among health professionals of diverse cultural practices also prevents some groups from accessing health services. Muslim women living in Europe, for example, can feel uncomfortable with male medical staff or interpreters. In Thailand, Malay Muslims encounter problems in accessing health care. These include communication problems for elderly Muslims in public hospitals and the failure of some health care centres to accommodate Muslim customs.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has outlined minimum standards for delivering on the right to health. These stipulate that health services must be provided in a manner that is compatible with cultural and linguistic rights, for example, by providing services in local languages and sensitive to different cultural practices. Charities working on older peoples’ rights have also called for culturally responsive care for older people from ethnic minority backgrounds – such as providing interpreters or providing appropriate food according to the person’s religious background.

Some minority groups are particularly prone to depression in older age. This could be due to feelings of isolation and loneliness, because of their status as a minority as well as their age. HelpAge International has reported on the devastating effects of what it terms ‘cumulative age discrimination’ – the cumulative impact of a lifetime of discrimination for older people. Minority people may have experienced discrimination all their lives, which has serious consequences in old age.

Again, older people belonging to minority and indigenous communities are likely to face barriers to gaining help for mental health issues, for example due to stigma surrounding mental health illnesses such as dementia and depression, or because of language barriers and not knowing where to go for help.

On a more positive note, older people play an important role in traditional health and the collective well-being of indigenous communities. For example, in many indigenous cultures in Latin America, an elderly indigenous woman in the community is chosen each year to become the Pachamama (or Earth Mother), advising the whole community and guiding them towards a caring relationship with the environment. In the US, it has been noted that elders play a key role in preventing health problems and improving well-being among indigenous communities. There are high suicide rates among Native American communities, particularly of young people, driven by socio-economic factors such as high unemployment rates, land dispossession, marginalization, language loss, cultural disintegration and exclusion. However, family and clan relationships, reverence for elders and a deeply held spiritual life are among the key protective factors for young people’s well-being.

Land rights and housing

The land rights of older people from minorities and indigenous communities can be particularly insecure, especially in situations of conflict or land-grabbing. For many older people from minority and indigenous communities, losing their land also means the loss of their main source of income as many are occupied in work such as agriculture that is tied to their land.

For example, in Kenya, the government evictions of indigenous Ogiek from their ancestral land in the Mau Forest and around Mount Elgon has left entire communities homeless or without proper housing. This particularly affects older people, who are forced to sleep on the bare ground and are unable to access health care . Similarly, in Europe, forced evictions of Roma communities have left older people particularly vulnerable.

Being separated from traditional lands comes with many negative impacts and complications for older minority and indigenous people. During the long conflict in northern Uganda, many Acholi people lived in IDP (internally displaced persons) camps for as long as 20 years. During this time, people were separated from their land for protracted periods. When the camps were disbanded and people began to return to their land, customary rules for land tenure meant there was confusion over who owned different areas of land. In such a context, the land rights of those with the least power – widows, the disabled, the elderly – were very insecure .

Being separated from traditional lands also affects older people’s role in passing on traditional knowledge and customs to younger generations. In addition, the process of urbanization in many parts of the world has resulted in assimilation and loss of cultural knowledge systems. In Tanzania, for example, Maasai women who practise traditional medicine have found it difficult to continue upon relocation to cities, where medical boards and city authorities demand a licence and a permanent location for their work, amounting to largely unaffordable expenses .

Older people from minority or indigenous communities are likely to face intersectional discrimination with regard to health, work, land and other human rights issues in many parts of the world. Some non-governmental organizations are calling for an international convention to protect older people’s rights as well as the collection of disaggregated data with regard to age. Any such actions must also take into account the situation of older people belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples, while their0 many positive contributions must not be forgotten.

Older people in minority and indigenous communities play an important role as respected leaders and human rights activists.

Photo: Pastoralist elders in Cameroon. Credit: Emma Eastwood/MRG.

Older people from minority and indigenous backgrounds are well respected leaders and often credited with improving the well-being of their families and communities. These photos tell some of their stories.

by Electra Babouri

Socio-economic inequality is determined by a complex range of factors, manifested in many interconnected spheres, such as livelihoods, income, material assets, access to social goods, influence and participation. While state policies have often focused heavily on national averages and broadly defined groups, to address the specific disparities experienced by those most marginalized – including many minority and indigenous communities – it is necessary to look at how identities, social norms and structural factors intersect to create distinct patterns of experience. For many minority and indigenous communities, this interconnectedness forms the basis of their well-being: if disadvantage is experienced in one sphere, other areas are also likely to be affected.

Livelihoods

Access to decent employment, as well as traditional non-market and subsistence-based economies, are essential for minorities and indigenous peoples to achieve socioeconomic equality. Without this, human agency and social connections are weakened, leading to many social problems. Yet these sources of livelihood are often vulnerable to environmental change and other pressures, including those caused by development initiatives by governments or corporations.

For example, there are approximately 200 million pastoralists worldwide, including minority and indigenous communities such as Tuareg in the Sahara and Maasai in Eastern Africa. Their livelihoods are often restricted or halted due to a range of factors, including climate change, sedentarization, appropriation of land and insensitively designed conservation projects (United Nations, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, New York, UN, 2009). Representatives of pastoralist communities have highlighted how this impacts them in multiple ways, undermining their culture, dignity and spirituality, as well as their subsistence base and access to markets .

Livelihoods can themselves be a source of discrimination and stigma. For example, in Thailand’s upland forests Akha, Hmong, Lahu and Lisu communities engage in swidden agriculture – a practice frequently seen by outsiders as ‘uncivilized’ compared to the settled wet rice cultivation of the lowlands (Kabeer, N., ‘The challenges of intersecting inequality’, Maitreyee, 24, July 2014). Disregard for traditional livelihoods and appropriation of land for large-scale development or extraction schemes has forced hundreds of thousands of persons belonging to minority and indigenous communities to migrate or resettle elsewhere, in many cases pushed by resource depletion, enforced state policies and targeted violence. For example, in Laos and Vietnam large-scale dam projects have led to the relocation of entire communities en masse , often leading to their disintegration due to a lack of economic opportunities and friction with other residents over limited resources such as land.

Minorities and indigenous peoples frequently experience low income levels due to discrimination and lack of skills deemed commercially useful, such as those used by women to make traditional arts and crafts that have been replaced by market goods. For example, in Bolivia, 67 per cent of the unskilled workers are reportedly indigenous, while only 4 per cent of indigenous occupy high-level positions, leading to pronounced income disparities between indigenous and  mestizo workers.

For minority women, opportunities to carry out chosen livelihoods and decent work are frequently constrained. For example, of the approximately 100 million Dalit women in India, the majority have restricted access to basic services, resources and public places, with many forced into unsafe and poorly paid work, such as manual scavenging, to survive. In addition, at a national level, a disproportionate percentage of ‘single’ women – meaning widowed, separated, divorced or unmarried – are Dalit: when they separate most get dispossessed, and when widowed their inheritance is typically handed to their sons or male relatives on whom they then have to depend.

Unfortunately, existing socio-economic policies fail to address the complex nature of the disadvantage created by the convergence of caste, gender and marital status. For instance, Dalit women often struggle to access available support in accessing work opportunities: as women and members of a minority, they are frequently sidelined by both majority women and members of their own community. For instance, when they apply for the scheduled caste quota they may find themselves directed to apply instead for the women’s quota, and vice versa.

Access to services

As with livelihoods, accessing services – including education, health care, water supply and sanitation – can promote greater equality and better life opportunities. However, minorities and indigenous peoples commonly inhabit locations that are underserved by basic services. In Latin America, for example, it is estimated that around 50 per cent of indigenous peoples reside in isolated rural regions with limited access to basic services or infrastructure. In addition, other barriers to accessing these services occur due to discrimination as a result of cultural norms, stereotypes, language and related factors.

Health care, which can help prevent high absenteeism and low productivity at school and work, is one area where lack of access can undermine development and well-being. An example of this is the ‘San of southern Africa [who] face severe discriminatory attitudes from health workers in ways that impede on both access and quality to health services’. Discrimination can be experienced within communities, too: for instance, in the Great Lakes region of Africa, Batwa men decide if their daughters are sent to school.

Socio-economic inequality can be driven by a vicious cycle across generations. For example, while education can help improve life outcomes, if it cannot be accessed or the experience itself is alienating, then children are likely to find themselves in a similar position to their parents, with limited prospects. This is highlighted by how access to better education is often determined by where one lives, which in turn is linked to a family’s socio-economic background. For example, 27 per cent of African American youth grow up in severely disadvantaged neighbourhoods, compared to around 1 per cent of non-Hispanic White youth, exposing them to ‘a worse education both in terms of fewer years of schooling and poorer quality of schooling’ and, in the long term, leading to ‘fewer opportunities for employment and income’.

Moreover, children from poor families are often sent to work, thus missing out on school. In Guatemala, it is estimated that 65 per cent of domestic workers are indigenous girls and adolescents from ‘impoverished families who often send their young female members to towns and cities, where they work an average of 14 hours per day and are often at the risk of physical and psychological abuse’.

Migration, participation and citizenship

Migration too can often be a by-product of socio-economic inequality, highlighting how intersectional inequality is not always static. Millions of people migrate each year, both within and beyond borders, predominantly so they can survive and improve their lives. Often the mere process of migration creates new minorities and disadvantages: migrants typically face barriers in accessing services, are frequently able to find work only in the informal sector and face restrictive immigration policies which further entrench divisions in terms of ethnicity, nationality and gender. For example , while ‘20 per cent of European Union natives are at risk of poverty or exclusion, the proportion is 35 per cent among those born outside the European Union’ – a situation that can be further exacerbated by gender discrimination.

Socio-economic inequality is further experienced by minorities and indigenous peoples due to lack of voice and under-representation in the public sphere, with the result that their perspectives, priorities and needs often remain invisible. This, in turn, further hampers their access to resources and opportunities to meet their full potential. For example, in Thailand an estimated 600,000 people belonging to indigenous and minority communities are currently deemed to be stateless, leaving them without the necessary documentation such as birth certificates to access services, exercise their basic civic rights or access credit.

In conclusion, the inequalities experienced by minority and indigenous communities are not only informed by a general lack of resources or local deprivation, but also distinct patterns of discrimination. As a result, conventional poverty reduction measures alone may not be sufficient to address these issues without a more comprehensive programme of policy and social reform that includes, among other areas, recognition of land rights, respect for traditional culture and targeted investments in basic services such as health and education for minority and indigenous communities.

Photo: Indigenous people in Bolivia. Credit: Szymon Kochański.

by Hanna Hindstrom

Four years ago, a typhoon struck the northern Filipino city of Baguio. The storm ruptured the walls of the city’s mounting garbage dump, sending hundreds of tonnes of urban waste cascading into the streets. The landslide flattened several houses and killed two young children. The tragedy was a wake-up call for Geraldine Cacho, an Igorot woman and rural farmer who first migrated to Baguio to pursue university studies. ‘Why would garbage become a killer? Why would it become an issue?’ she asked herself at the time.

Many Igorot migrants are accustomed to the practice of  ayyew  – known as  sayang  in Filipino – an indigenous concept of recycling and reusing all forms of waste. For example, biodegradable waste would be transformed into fertilizers using vermiculture, while plastic bottles and old clothes may be recycled into household containers or rugs.

As residents dump some 300 tonnes of garbage every day, recycling not only offers a source of livelihood to Baguio’s indigenous population but also provides the city with an effective form of waste management. ‘Using ayyew as a culture of managing waste would lessen garbage and help solve the city’s huge garbage problem,’ she says. ‘As an activist organizer, I knew there has to be a way. A mass movement is needed to help solve the problem, if not eliminate it.’

After attending a training programme organized by the NGO Tebtebba, Cacho set up a vermibed in her kitchen. At first she faced resistance from her landlady, who described the compost worms as ‘unsanitary’. She confiscated Cacho’s worms and discarded them in a smelly open-pit garbage dump in her backyard. ‘It was however a blessing because after some weeks, we noticed that the open pit was not smelly anymore, and the neighbours stopped complaining of its stench,’ she says. She then explained to the landlady how vermiculture works and helped her plant onions, eggplants and cabbage in her back garden using compost.

Cacho is now working with the Cordillera Women’s Education and Research Centre (CWEARC) to promote vermiculture practices in Baguio. CWEARC is supporting over 100 indigenous women to establish urban vegetable gardens with the help of recycled waste. The idea is to simultaneously boost the socio-economic status of indigenous women while combatting Baguio’s burgeoning waste problem. The women are all migrants from rural areas who often struggle to earn their living as street vendors or backyard hog raisers. By working as a collective, the women harness another indigenous concept, known as ubbo or mutually beneficial labour.

According to the UN, indigenous migrants make up 60 per cent of the city’s population and more than half of them live in poverty. Indigenous women are particularly marginalized and are usually excluded from discussions about urban planning in Baguio. But now they have a stronger voice in the community. ‘The project increased the capacity of indigenous women on project management, leadership, economic empowerment, and strengthened their organization,’ says Lucille Lumas-i from CWEARC.

Even the government has responded positively to the project. ‘In communities where practitioners were located, there is a decrease in the volume of waste being hauled by the city government,’ added Lumas-i. ‘At the community level, Barangay [ward] officials are very supportive of the project and some have adopted the concept in their community waste management programme.’ Cacho now has a blooming urban garden, studded with ginger, corn, squash and sweet potatoes. It reminds her of her family’s farm in the countryside. ‘The growth was very visible,’ she says, ‘like magic.’

Photo: Igorot father and child in The Philippines. Credit: Woody Wood.

by Farah Mihlar

Minority and indigenous women face a unique set of challenges on account of their gender and community status, a form of intersectional discrimination that is often particularly difficult to address. As neither men within the same identity group or women from the majority community are likely to experience the same barriers, the situation of minority and indigenous women can be especially isolating and difficult to respond to, pushing them further into disadvantage and deprivation.

Access to employment

This discrimination takes many forms and occurs at different levels – within the community, among wider society and at the level of official policy. For instance, it may be institutional: an employer may stipulate certain requirements that favour men and prevent women, particularly those from minorities, from applying for a job. The imposition of a dress code, for example, could specifically prevent women from certain identity groups from applying, such as a Muslim woman who wears a  hijab  or headscarf. It can also be structural, where state policies, systems and rules work to sideline minority women. Immigration laws in some states can discriminate against particular groups of people, and in many cases they are likely to specifically disadvantage the women in those groups.

Female migrant workers in the Middle East and East Asia face specific forms of gender violence and have no protection in their host countries. Additionally, they are discriminated against based on their national identity and their gender, and are likely to receive lower salaries, trapping them further in cycles of poverty. In Malaysia, while female migrant workers generally are at considerable risk of exploitation, some ethnicities are particularly marginalized. Indonesian maids, for example, are likely to be paid half of what their Filipino counterparts earn due to popular racist stereotypes about them.

Similarly, discriminatory health policies which deny access to services to minority and indigenous communities can affect women in distinct ways. As the Israeli government refuses to recognize a number of Arab Bedouin villages in the Negev, there are virtually no health facilities available to people who live in them. However, in some instances discrimination is not only created by neglect and exclusion but can also be the direct result of state policies specifically targeting women from minority or indigenous communities. In the Czech Republic, the practice of sterilization of Roma women was embedded in communist ideology that sought to target the fertility of women deemed ‘undesirables’ by the state . Though the practice has been declared illegal and is no longer carried out, the fight for compensation for victims has been protracted.

Beyond government policy, intersectional discrimination can also extend to the justice system, preventing minority and indigenous women from seeking redress for human rights violations. While in many countries women face stark inequalities and obstructions when dealing with police or the judiciary, the situation is even more challenging when exacerbated by hierarchies such as caste. In India, for instance, a 2006 survey of 500 Dalit women who had experienced violence found that 40.2 per cent did not attempt to seek any type of legal redress out of fear or communal pressure, another 26.5 per cent were blocked in their attempt to seek redress and a further 17.4 per cent were obstructed from obtaining justice by police. As a result, less than 1 per cent of cases led to the perpetrators being convicted in court.

Sexual violence

Intersectional discrimination can also be targeted towards women from certain identity groups. In situations of conflict minority women can be targeted for rape and other forms of sexual violence. Cases of women being targeted for sexual attacks during conflict have been reported from a number of different countries, including Bosnia, Columbia, East Timor, Rwanda, Kosovo and Sri Lanka. Rape and other forms of violence are now internationally recognized as forms of genocide. Prior to attacks, sexualized propaganda can be used, as it was in Rwanda, to incite attacks on minority women. In highly militarized and post-conflict situations, such as Sri Lanka in the immediate aftermath of the armed conflict, minority women continue to be vulnerable to sexual assault and may find themselves forced to engage in sex work to access resources.

A central part of the problem is that, while one aspect of discrimination may be recognized and steps taken to alleviate its effects, the other dimension may be overlooked – meaning that the complex issues facing minority women specifically may not be addressed by general gender or community-based interventions. Violence against women, for instance, is generally recognized as a form of gender-based discrimination, but the manner in which minority women may be especially vulnerable is not often noted. In Uganda’s Batwa community, women are targeted for rape and sexual violence because of a popular belief that having sex with a Batwa women can cure particular types of illness. This particular case of gender-based violence is specific to the identity of the woman.

Trafficking in women, while generally studied and dealt with through the lens of gender discrimination, is also often closely tied to minority or indigenous status. Victims from these communities typically face higher levels of poverty and are more likely to be affected by conflict, making them easy targets for traffickers. Similarly, while immigration laws and national security legislation are frequently discussed in terms of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, the gender dimensions of these policies can also be very significant. While stop and search operations can be seen as discriminatory towards certain identity groups, women who wear a headscarf or other visible signs of their identity can be more readily targeted and subjected to other forms of abuse, such as sexual assault, while these are carried out.

The failure to understand this form of intersectionality is a major barrier to the development of effective solutions for minority and indigenous women. Part of the challenge in dealing with this issue at the state and international levels is that there is a dearth of information on the extent of the problem, with little in the way of disaggregated data. Furthermore, stigmatization of minority women also works to obscure, and even reinforce, discrimination. In the British media, for instance, Muslim women are frequently portrayed as being oppressed and ‘helpless’ victims of patriarchal repression. Yet the fallout from this simplistic representation is often increased hostility towards the Muslim community, with women bearing the brunt of these attacks.

Changes to laws and policy, and the strict implementation of existing anti-discrimination legislation is essential to combat intersectional discrimination. This requires political will, social awareness and education, among other factors. To address these issues properly, however, there must also be a much better understanding of the many ways that different aspects of intersectionality affect the everyday lives of minority women. The effects of intersectional discrimination can be complex and long-standing, and addressing these issues often requires a holistic, far-reaching response.

For example, though retention in education from primary to secondary level is generally low among pastoralist communities in East Africa, girls within this group are even less likely to stay in school. While pastoralist boys may have to leave education for various reasons, girls in the community face added challenges that further narrow their chances of a full education. Besides early marriage, girls may also be taken out of school because the distance to travel is too far and it is dangerous for them, or because their education may be seen as less important.

In summary, then, to achieve better outcomes for girls in minority and indigenous communities, a whole range of social and cultural issues need to be addressed. Legislation against intersectional discrimination alone is not always sufficient, and a much more comprehensive framework is needed to respond to the multiple ways in which minority and minority women can be affected by intersectional discrimination. An essential first step to achieve this is a greater understanding of these challenges, and a recognition that conventional anti-discrimination measures may not reach those groups who, like minority and indigenous women, face intersectional forms of discrimination.

Photo: Bedouin woman in Israel. Credit: Farah Mihlar

by Mariah Grant

Ciudad Juárez is a striking example of both the good and the bad that the economic opportunities inherent to urbanization can bring. This city of nearly 1.5 million inhabitants is situated on the Mexico side of the border with the United States, directly opposite its sister-city, El Paso, Texas. Only the parched Rio Grande, contained by concrete channels, divides these two urban centres. It is this strategic location, nestled within a valley surrounded by harsh desert and mountainous terrain, which has allowed Ciudad Juárez to develop rapidly as an epicentre of commerce through the installation of a booming manufacturing industry, known locally as ‘ maquiladoras ’.

Since its foundation, originally under the name of Paso del Norte, by the Spanish Fray Garcia de San Francisco in 1659, the city’s population has been largely made up of Spanish-speaking ethnic  mestizos  who predominantly practise Roman Catholicism. Today, the majority language, ethnic and religious make-up of the city’s residents remains the same. However, the growth of the  maquiladoras  over the past three decades, as well as displacement from the land and a decrease in livelihood opportunities in rural areas, has helped drive migration among indigenous communities to the city. This has driven rapid urban growth and led to a diversity of minority groups, with different ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious backgrounds, living and accessing the formal and informal labour markets that have emerged in Ciudad Juárez.

Yet, as noted, the economic advances that took off in the 1990s in Ciudad Juárez did not lead to improvements only. As the city grew, so too did a large number of slums and along with them higher rates of poverty as well as crime. Additionally, the strategic position of Ciudad Juárez not only attracted manufacturing enterprises but also drug cartels and organized crime syndicates. The explosion of the drug trade within the city and across the border, fostered by widespread police and political corruption, meant that by 2009 Ciudad Juárez had become the ‘murder capital of the world’. In that year, the homicide rate reached 130 for every 100,000 inhabitants and in 2010 the city reached a disturbing record with the highest number of murders – 3,622 – in its history. As a result, the more socially and economically mobile residents left, many seeking refuge across the border in El Paso. The city’s indigenous population, however, was largely left behind. Additionally, during this period of unprecedented violence, women were targeted specifically based on their gender, which became widely identified as femicide.

But while the official homicide rate has since declined dramatically, various human rights and women’s rights groups have argued that official statistics fail to capture the true number of women still murdered and disappeared in Ciudad Juárez. Police investigations into such cases remain inadequate, resulting in impunity for the perpetrators and an unrealistic understanding of the scope of the issue. Furthermore, while the violence that enveloped Ciudad Juárez in the past resulted in higher murder rates among men, these groups state that, despite lower overall homicide levels, women continue to endure high levels of violence, including disappearances, rapes, kidnappings, torture and murder. This particular kind of violence against women, coupled with alleged police indifference and impunity for perpetrators, further substantiates claims of femicide.

For women in general, but also indigenous women in particular who moved to the city in search of economic advancement, it is the job opportunities provided in Ciudad Juárez that are one source of danger. Women and girls make up more than half of  maquiladora  workers and their commutes to work, often on foot and by public transport, have become infamous sites of brutal violence. According to human rights activists, young indigenous women from different communities throughout Mexico are largely represented but under-reported among those who have been murdered or disappeared en route to work in the  maquiladoras  since the early 1990s.

Yet not all indigenous peoples nor indigenous women have experienced violence in Ciudad Juárez to the same degree. For the Raramuri people, originally from the Sierra Tarahumara Mountains in Chihuahua, the same state as Ciudad Juárez, the incidence of murders and disappearances, particularly as a result of the drug trade, has been much smaller. The number living within the city has increased steadily since the 1990s and spiked between 2010 and early 2015 with officials estimating a 30 per cent increase in the population, driven in part by poverty and environmental disasters. In 2014 and into the beginning of 2015, for example, an influx of Raramuris into Ciudad Juárez was seen due to the ongoing drought and an exceptionally cold winter.

Activists living and working among the Raramuri community in the city further substantiate that, even during the years of exceptionally high rates of violent crime, Raramuri were not significantly involved either as perpetrators or victims – though the ongoing violence was undoubtedly a constant source of fear. One reason for this was the close-knit nature of the community and its emphasis on good social control mechanisms. For Raramuri women, working predominantly outside the  maquiladoras  was another factor in the reduced rates of violence perpetrated against them. Overwhelmingly, they work making and selling handicrafts in the streets or at local markets, or begging for ‘ korima ’, or alms, in the city centre. While they face instances of discrimination and influences that disrupt their way of life, they have also found means by which to preserve their linguistic and cultural traditions. Overall, the Raramuri people have proven to be extremely adept at navigating life in a major urban centre with a recent and ongoing violent history.

Nevertheless, challenges remain. According to Rosalinda Guadalajara Reyes, governor of the Tarahumara community, educational attainment continues to be a major hurdle which impedes Raramuri employment opportunities later in life. Finally, the experiences of the Raramuris are seemingly the exception and much more is required to address and stop the violence perpetrated against women, including indigenous women. This means: action by police and state officials to bring perpetrators to justice; ending complicity by management at  maquiladoras  who do not report cases of missing employees; and ensuring that local rights groups have the safe space to influence behaviour and work towards changing attitudes among men, and society more broadly, so that this violence is not tolerated.

Photo: Raramuri woman and children in Mexico. Credit: Manuel Chávez R.

by Peter Grant

Across the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people face discrimination, stigmatization and targeted violence as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the challenges faced by those who belong to both a sexual minority and a marginalized ethnic, religious, linguistic or indigenous community are even more complex. These people frequently are confronted not only by a range of prejudices and human rights violations from society at large, but can face ostracization or exclusion from their own communities too.

These unique difficulties, sustained by homophobia, racism and religious hatred, have persisted even in countries where campaigns for LGBT, minority and indigenous peoples’ rights have been waged with some success. And though members of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples may share common histories of oppression, their aims and values have not always been inclusive of those who may be considered ‘the other’ in their midst. Indeed, they may often be in sharp contradiction – a situation that can lead not only to heightened societal discrimination but also exert a deep and lasting psychological toll.

Societal discrimination

The poverty, invisibility, segregation and violence that characterize the lives of many minorities and indigenous peoples are typically magnified for LGBT people within them. The difficulties of ‘double discrimination’ mean that, even if sections of society have developed more inclusive attitudes to sexual orientation, religious belief or ethnicity, their stance may not be uniformly progressive. Hence the recent example, widely reported in Indian media, of a mother in Mumbai who placed an advert in a local newspaper to identify a potential groom for her gay son. While the advert was celebrated as a milestone for LGBT recognition in India, it was also criticized for stating – despite stipulating that caste was no bar – a preference for a man from the Brahmanic Iyer community. This incident will come as little surprise to many LGBT people belonging to minority or indigenous communities who have found that relatively progressive views on ethnic discrimination, for example, may not necessarily translate to a similar stance on LGBT rights.

The pressures experienced by minority and indigenous LGBT people are not only created by dominant norms and power structures, but are also imposed from within their own communities. In South Africa, for example, the black population – historically the country’s most marginalized population, who still struggle with the legacy of the apartheid era today – is still largely concentrated in unsafe, poorly serviced settlements with high levels of crime and insecurity, especially for women. However, in this context the country’s black lesbian population are particularly vulnerable due to the prevalence of ‘corrective rape’ – a practice commonly inflicted on girls and women suspected to be lesbian. This is despite South Africa having one of the most progressive frameworks for LGBT groups in Africa.

Sexual violence is often used as a way for more powerful members of society to control those they perceive to be beneath them – a situation that places minority and indigenous women at risk of sexual assault or harassment not only from majority men, but also male members of their own community. A similar dynamic can drive sexual abuse against minority or indigenous LGBT people who, already marginalized on account of their ethnicity or religion, have limited access to formal justice or other forms of protection. As one gay Dalit explained to MRG , ‘If somebody is below them they feel happy. Maybe they consider it an honour, that “I have fucked him, now he will be subservient to me all his life, he will not lift his eyes in front of me”… They think, “He is a soft target, he will not tell anyone.”’

Conflicting identities

Despite the many challenges they experience, minority and indigenous communities have often been able to draw considerable strength from a shared sense of identity. The same is true of LGBT activists who, through effective mobilization and awareness raising, have managed to promote a powerful collective consciousness. Yet for those belonging to both groups, these identities can come into conflict, at times meaning they struggle to be fully accepted by either community. Many are also confronted by the painful decision to ‘choose’ one or the other, with lasting consequences. In the words of one Orthodox American Jew, describing his expulsion following his outing as a homosexual, ‘My community was gone, and my community was my world. It was what had sustained me for years.’

In Europe, while in many countries the long established repression of sexuality has in recent years given way to a more liberal environment for LGBT groups, sections of the Muslim community still view homosexuality as taboo. Nevertheless, some Muslim commentators have also argued that Islam itself is not inherently homophobic, but only certain interpretations of its beliefs. In fact, most religions include interpretations that are hostile to homosexuality, as well as positive examples of tolerance and inclusion, but it is sometimes the case that minority communities adhere to more restrictive applications of their faith due in part to their particular customs or because of pressures arising out of circumstances such as poverty, migration or displacement. Indeed, maintaining these beliefs may be seen by some as a means of protecting their cultural identity from assimilation.

In the US, similar issues are faced by Orthodox American Jews. Gay community members are reportedly excluded on a regular basis due to their sexual orientation, forcing some to even sign up to so-called ‘curing ceremonies’. Among the country’s African American population, too, Christian beliefs within the community are at times contributing to the stigmatization of its LGBT members – despite the historic role of local churches in bolstering the civil rights movement. ‘I have learned that whom we shout out and pray to on Sunday as an oppressed people does not have any relation to whom we damn, discard, and demonize,’ Irene Monroe, an African American activist, has written . ‘The black church is an unabashed and unapologetic oppressor of its LGBT… community.’

In turn, LGBT communities are not themselves immune towards discrimination against certain ethnic or religious communities. For example, African Americans in Chicago have still reported being refused entry to gay night clubs – a commonly reported form of racial discrimination in the US. More generally, LGBT communities may bring together sexual minorities but still fail to include those from religious or ethnic minorities. As one gay African American put it , ‘”gay” meant “white”, and everybody else was kind of visiting.’

Activism and political representation

Though in many countries progressive measures have been taken to encourage greater minority or indigenous representation through the use of quotas, as well as commit more generally to expanding LGBT representation in the public sphere, there has generally been very little representation by those belonging to both groups. Notwithstanding some inspiring exceptions – such as the groundbreaking election in January 2015 of Madhu Bai Kinnar, a transgender woman and Dalit, as mayor of Raigarh in India – for the most part minority and indigenous LGBT people have been largely sidelined from decision-making. In India, LGBT and Dalit rights groups have tended to operate independently, leaving little opportunity for collaboration or consideration of multiple discrimination . Despite the shared struggle of lower castes and LGBT groups against deep-seated hierarchies, there has been very little in the way of shared mobilization. According to one Dalit lesbian activist , living at the intersection of caste, gender and sexual identity, ‘gay politics in India has not even begun to grapple with caste; Dalit politics remains as homophobic as any other politics; feminism in India is lesbophobic and homophobic and implicitly upper caste.’

These problems are further exacerbated by the added difficulty of having to engage multiple communities, creating considerable difficulties for organizations seeking to navigate a range of beliefs. Groups such as Imaan, a UK-based group that aims to engage LGBT Muslims and their families to explore issues around sexual orientation within Islam, seeks to challenge homophobic attitudes among British Muslims without alienating significant sections of the community, nor inadvertently reinforcing popular stereotypes about Islam among non-Muslims. Nevertheless, LGBT Muslim groups have been able to successfully persuade other community members to reconsider their views on issues such as homosexuality. Recently, for instance, activists launched a public campaign in Whitechapel, an area of London with a large Muslim population, to help promote greater tolerance within the community and persuade mosques to welcome gay Muslim worshippers.

Minority and indigenous LGBT people face a unique struggle that frequently positions them in opposition not only to the prejudices of wider society but also those of their own community. Even among activists, there has often been far too little in the way of engagement between minority or indigenous communities and LGBT groups. Nevertheless, as these barriers begin to lower with a recognition of their shared challenges, LGBT people belonging to minority and indigenous communities may finally begin to receive greater recognition within their own communities and from society at large.

There have also been many inspiring examples of LGBT minority and indigenous activists drawing on their own traditions to combat homophobic and transphobic attitudes, such as the public art created by the  Manu Project in New Zealand  by indigenous and migrant LGBT youth. And minority and indigenous identity can also provide a powerful platform to mobilize LGBT groups in different areas. The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA), for example, has been able to mobilize LGBT people from a diverse range of communities across the US to encourage greater solidarity and collaboration. The NQAPIA’s 2013 National Summit, hosted in Hawai’i, explored indigenous responses to LGBT issues and the impacts of colonialism on the situation today. Indeed, many minority and indigenous communities, recognizing the disastrous legacy that colonialism has had on attitudes towards LGBT people, have been able to find positive models and messages of inclusion from their pre-colonial history.

Photo: LGBT Muslim placards at London Pride 2010. Credit: R/DV/RS.

The Manu Project, jointly conceived by London-based friends and collaborators Lyall Hakaraia and Emma Eastwood, was initiated as a way to encourage queer indigenous and migrant youth to share their views on gender, identity and culture. Through a participatory workshop, in partnership with local partners in New Zealand, the Mika Haka Foundation and Rainbow Youth, the project provided a space for participants to explore and express their own identity through the design of a contemporary bird totem to lead the Auckland Pride Parade in February 2015. The resulting artwork, created through an empowering process of creative collaboration, was a compelling celebration of queer indigenous identity.

The Manu Project encourages queer indigenous and migrant youth in New Zealand to share their views on gender, identity and culture.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Supreme Court Hands Federal Worker Major Win In Age Discrimination Case

Nina Totenberg

The Supreme Court ruled in cases involving age discrimination and traffic stops. Mark Sherman/AP hide caption

The Supreme Court ruled in cases involving age discrimination and traffic stops.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with older federal workers on Monday, making it easier for those over 40 to sue for age discrimination.

The 8-to-1 ruling rejected a Trump administration position that sought to dramatically limit the legal recourse available to federal workers.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority , noted that federal law "demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age." So if age were a factor here as alleged, the process was not free from discrimination. But, he said, the relief available to individuals who have been discriminated against may be different, depending on the circumstances. If age discrimination was one of the factors during the process, but not the only factor, then employees may not be entitled to damages and back pay, but they are entitled to prospective relief, like eligibility for a promotional exam, or for a job promotion.

Chief Justice Roberts: Is 'OK, Boomer' Evidence Of Age Discrimination?

The case was brought by Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist who worked for the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Bay Pines, Fla., for 16 years. In that time, she qualified to practice disease management, saw patients and prescribed medication without consulting a physician. And she had received consistently high marks for performance, according to her lawyers.

Yet Babb says that beginning about 10 years ago, when she was in her late 40s, she and other women older than 45 found they were not getting newly classified advanced positions that paid more money. Instead, the women said, those jobs went to people in their 30s, most of them men.

Several of the women filed their own complaints against the VA, which Babb supported. As a result, she alleges in her own suit, the VA retaliated against her, and subjected her to systematic discrimination by denying her eligibility for promotions, and training opportunities, all in an atmosphere where supervisors made a range of age-related comments.

A federal district court judge initially threw out Babb's suit, declaring that she had failed to prove that her age was only reason for these personnel actions. The Trump Administration supported that ruling, and in doing so clashed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

But on Monday the court sided with Babb and the EEOC, not the Trump administration. The justices said federal law clearly gives federal workers protection from any discrimination based on age. The court said Congress had deliberately given federal workers more protection than workers in the private sector or workers in state and local governments.

"That Congress wanted to hold the Federal Government to a high standard than state and private employers is not unusual," wrote Justice Alito. The federal government has long adhered to expansive anti-discrimination policies, he observed, adding, that "it is the policy of the Government of the United States ... to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through an affirmative program."

The "key takeaway in the case" is that if the federal government discriminates based on age, "it has violated the law," said Roman Martinez, who argued Babb's case in the Supreme Court last January.

At that argument, he took quite a verbal beating from Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked what would be the limits if, for instance, a hiring official, made remarks like "OK, boomer" when assessing who would get a promotion.

But Roberts signed on to the Alito opinion, as did every other justice except Clarence Thomas. He dissented, contending that the statute only allows suits by those who can prove discrimination is the sole reason they lost out on a job, a promotion, or other benefit.

Warrantless traffic stop case

In a separate opinion, the court, by an 8-to-1 vote, upheld a warrantless traffic stop by a sheriff's deputy in Kansas who based the stop on the assumption that the driver, defendant Charlie Glover, owned the car; Glover's license had been revoked.

Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas wrote, "We hold that when the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is the driver of the vehicle, the stop is reasonable."

The Kansas Supreme Court had previously ruled that when a driver has committed no infractions, police need something more than an assumption in order to have a reasonable suspicion that the driver is the owner and is driving without a license. But Thomas wrote that these traffic stops are a matter of "common sense."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that in "upholding routine stops of vehicles whose owners have revoked licenses, the Court ignores key foundations of our reasonable-suspicion jurisprudence and impermissably and unnecessarily reduces the State's burden of proof."

Religious advertising in on public buses and trains

Finally, the court refused to hear an appeal from the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.; the District bars issue advertising on its buses and trains, including religious advertising.

The Archdiocese wanted to place an ad at Christmastime showing the silhouettes of three shepherds looking at a star, along with the words "Find the Perfect Gift." A web address also on the ad led to information about Roman Catholic beliefs.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority, operated by D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, rejected the ad, citing its policy that bars ads involving political and religious advocacy. The lower courts upheld the policy, but the Archdiocese appealed, contending that the policy amounted to unconstitutional discrimination against religious speech.

Two justices dissented from the court's refusal to hear the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, called the transit ad policy "viewpoint discrimination by a government entity and a violation of the First Amendment."

"The Constitution requires the government to respect religious speech, not to maximize revenue," they wrote. So if the transit authority "finds messages like the one here intolerable, it may close its buses to all advertisements." Or it could try to restrict ads to subjects "where religious advertisements are less likely to arise without running afoul of our free speech precedents. "

As Gorsuch observed, the court may well take on a similar case in the future, as the conservative majority has aggressively disfavored such restrictions. The problem with this case is that it came from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh sat on when the case was decided. So only eight justices would have heard the case, and they could have deadlocked.

Exploring the cause and effects of subtle discrimination

A Rice University psychology lab is studying the more elusive forms of discrimination and ways to protect stigmatized groups

Vol. 51, No. 7 Print version: page 74

• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Racism, Bias, and Discrimination
• Race and Ethnicity

Although laws protect stigmatized groups from overt forms of discrimination, there are no laws to protect against more subtle forms of bias—from the ways customers may negatively perceive companies that publicly advocate for Black Lives Matter to the rudeness an LGBTQ+ customer might experience in a store.

“If we just look at overt discrimination, we are missing a lot of negativity that the targets of discrimination experience,” says Michelle “Mikki” Hebl, PhD, a professor of psychology and management at Rice University. In fact, Hebl argues that in some cases subtle, or interpersonal, discrimination can be more damaging than more overt forms because the recipient may have to exert a great deal of cognitive resources questioning whether they are just imagining it or to whom to attribute it.

In her lab at Rice, Hebl and her colleagues study the causes and consequences of this type of discrimination and develop interventions to help organizations and individuals combat it.

“In the absence of laws, organizations and organizational leaders can adopt policies that prevent both [overt and subtle] discrimination,” Hebl says.

Stigma at work

Hebl credits her undergraduate education at Smith College, a women’s institution, for opening her eyes to inequality. She spent her days there thinking about the battles that women have fought and continue to fight for equal rights. She went on to earn her PhD at Dartmouth College, where she studied discrimination against people who are obese or have a physical disability, and she arrived at Rice University 22 years ago, committed to better understanding different forms of discrimination and how to remediate them.

Much of Hebl’s research focuses on how disadvantaged groups are treated in the workplace and in hiring situations. In one study, she asked people to wear hats with either the phrase “Gay and Proud” or “Texan and Proud” and apply for jobs in Houston, which had a city ordinance prohibiting employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation ( Barron, L.G., et al., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013 ). Participants did not know which hat they were wearing. Although the two groups reported no differences in overt forms of discrimination, such as being allowed to complete an application, the participants who donned the “Gay and Proud” hats perceived less positivity, had shorter interactions and experienced more rudeness. Their instincts were confirmed by independent coders who listened to audiotapes of the interviews and rated higher levels of subtle discrimination against people wearing the “Gay and Proud” versus the “Texan and Proud” hat.

While this study shows that subtle discrimination persists, other research by Hebl suggests that laws preventing overt discrimination can tamp down subtle discrimination as well. In a related study, individuals wore these same hats in workplaces in Dallas suburbs, where the presence of LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws varies. She found that participants experienced less overt and subtle discrimination in jurisdictions with protective laws compared with those that did not. To get at whether antidiscrimination laws caused this decrease, the researchers conducted a follow-up lab study with Houston-area participants trained to conduct job interviews and who were told either that sexual orientation discrimination was legal or illegal. Then they carried out mock interviews of people who had a visible “Gay and Proud” pin on their backpacks and listed involvement in a gay and lesbian organization on their résumés. Interviewers who believed discrimination was illegal spent more time talking with the applicant and showed lesser degrees of interpersonal discrimination compared with interviewers who thought it was legal.

Gender disparities

Hebl has also explored how discrimination affects women in academia. In a series of studies, she and her colleagues at Rice and other U.S. universities explored 624 letters of recommendation that had been submitted on behalf of 174 applicants for assistant professor positions in a psychology department ( Madera, J.M., et al., Journal of Business and Psychology , Vol. 34, No. 3, 2019 ). A team of trained research coders identified so-called doubt raisers in the letters, which could take the form of a negative statement (the applicant does not have much teaching experience), faint praise (the applicant has adequate experience), hedging (the applicant may not be the most outstanding) and irrelevant statements (the applicant is an avid runner).

The letters for female applicants had significantly more doubt raisers than those for male applicants, regardless of whether they had been written by a woman or a man. Among women’s applications, 54% had at least one doubt raiser and 13% had more than one, compared with 51% and 7% for men’s applications. Such bias may not be intentional, Hebl explains, but it is strong and has measurable harmful implications for women.

In a follow-up study, Hebl and her colleagues asked about 300 professors across the United States to look at whether sample recommendation letters with doubt raisers soured their impression of the candidate. The team found that letters with a negative or hedging doubt raiser hurt the evaluation of the applicant, whether they were female or male.

In another study, Hebl and two of her PhD students, Christine Nittrouer and Rachel Trump-Steele, studied gender disparities among psychology, sociology, biology, bioengineering, history and political science faculty invited to give colloquium talks at the top 50 U.S. universities—talks that can be an important career boon by increasing visibility and leading to collaborations and job opportunities. The study found that male faculty overall were more than twice as likely as female faculty to give talks. In a more positive finding, colloquium organizing committees chaired by women resulted in more female speakers than those led by men ( PNAS , Vol. 115, No. 1, 2018 ).

Overweight job seekers

Similar to her studies looking at the effects of wearing “Gay and Proud” hats, Hebl’s lab documented the experiences of people applying for jobs while wearing a full-body obesity prosthetic. In these types of studies, the role of the stigmatized individual is often played by graduate students and undergraduate research assistants in Hebl’s lab, of which there are usually 10 to 40 each semester. It’s an “all hands on deck” time, says Abby Corrington, PhD, who earned her PhD while working in the lab and is now an assistant professor of management at Providence College.

For this study, Hebl and her colleagues focused on overweight men because ample research had already documented discrimination against overweight women ( Ruggs, E.N., et al., Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 100, No. 5, 2015). Hebl and her team found that the seemingly overweight men in their study were not overtly discriminated against when inquiring about job positions in retail stores—they were told that jobs were available and given an application to complete at similar rates as men not wearing prosthetics. However, they experienced more rudeness and other interpersonal forms of discrimination.

Hebl’s research also sheds light on what happens to members of disadvantaged groups once they get a job. In a study of large companies, Hebl and her collaborators at other universities and in industry found that overweight employees were more likely to be reviewed poorly by their supervisors and peers compared with employees who were not overweight ( King, E.B., et al., Human Resource Management , Vol. 55, No. 2, 2016 ). To the researchers’ surprise, this relationship held whether the employees were in the company’s top leadership or more middle level, suggesting that power does not protect individuals from weight-based stigma.

Hebl has also been curious about how companies are perceived by consumers when they publicly advocate for Black Lives Matter (BLM). Recently, Hebl, Corrington and colleagues conducted an online survey asking participants to read communications from a large food company voicing their support for BLM and then indicate their approval of the company and desire to work for them (unpublished data).

Effective interventions

In one study, Hebl found that graduate students who wore an obesity prosthetic were less successful at recruiting people on campus for a short survey and were treated more rudely than when they were not wearing the prosthetic ( Randall, J.G., et al., European Review of Applied Psychology , Vol. 67, No. 3, 2017 ). The heavy recruiters had more luck, however, when they were also wearing a T-shirt from a recent running event and holding a water bottle, compared with when they had a high-calorie dessert in their hand, suggesting that cues that run counter to overweight stereotypes can reduce discrimination.

Likewise, people with visible disabilities were found to face less discrimination when they claimed their disability or acknowledged it in a positive way ( Lyons, B.J., et al., Journal of Management , Vol. 44, No. 5, 2016 ). Hebl and her colleagues conducted an online survey in which the participants were asked to respond to various scenarios involving a co-worker in a wheelchair; participants rated the co-worker as more competent when they claimed their disabilities as opposed to downplaying or ignoring them.

However, Hebl emphasizes that the burden of reducing discrimination should not fall on stigmatized individuals, but on society. “If we only focus on the individual, we won’t get there,” she says.

To that end, she has also spent the last decade looking at ways that legislation, organizations, leaders and allies can stem discrimination. In one study, she found that transgender people who worked at companies that had policies prohibiting anti-transgender discrimination, and had supportive nontransgender co-workers with whom they socialized, were less likely to report feeling discriminated against ( Ruggs, E.N., et al., Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity , Vol. 2, No. 4, 2015 ).

In another study of the role of co-workers, Hebl and colleagues asked participants to watch a video in which one employee said it was not appropriate for a gay person to work there and another employee responded by mildly disagreeing, confronting the perpetrator of the homophobic comment in a calm manner or confronting them in a hostile manner ( Martinez, L.R., et al., Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 103, Part A, 2017 ). Then they asked the participants to complete an online survey evaluating the two employees. Participants were more likely to give the perpetrator negative ratings if the other employee confronted them. They were also more likely to report that they would confront such a perpetrator if they viewed a calm confrontation. The authors suggested that confrontation could help create “an informal coalition of employees that could in turn shape the organizational climate.”

Hebl hopes that her research will pave the way for legislation against overt discrimination as well as interpersonal discrimination. Although she admits that the idea of prohibiting hostile behavior may seem difficult to imagine, many people used to think that it would not be possible to pass laws against sexual harassment. Yet individuals who feel they are experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace—for example, through unwelcome comments or inappropriate glances—can now file complaints with their employer and take legal action. The same should be true for all types of subtle discrimination in the workplace, Hebl says.

Corrington hopes that the lab’s work to make people aware of their social expectations and reactions can help reduce discrimination. “None of us are immune to biases,” she says, “and having bias doesn’t make you a bad person; it makes you human. But we should be questioning ourselves and questioning our reactions.” 

Further reading

The Face of STEM: Racial Phenotypic Stereotypicality Predicts STEM Persistence by—and Ability Attributions About—Students of Color Williams, M.J., et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2019

When Do Women Respond Against Discrimination? Exploring Factors of Subtlety, Form, and Focus Lindsey, A., et al., Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015

Systematic Subjectivity: How Subtle Biases Infect the Scholarship Review Process King, E.B., et al., Journal of Management , 2018

The Efficacy of Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Legislation Hebl, M., et al., Equality, Diversity and Inclusion , 2016

“Lab Work” illuminates the work of psychologists in research labs.

Recommended Reading

Research foci

Hebl’s lab is studying:

• The role of antidiscrimination laws in reducing discrimination of stigmatized groups at work
• How gender disparities impact women in academia
• Actions to stem discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees
• Whether Black and white individuals differ in their attitudes toward companies that support the Black Lives Matter movement

Contact APA

You may also like.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Workplace discrimination

• Business and society
• Diversity and inclusion
• Age and generational issues
• Disabilities

Coming Out at Work: Our Favorite Reads

• Paige Cohen
• June 20, 2022

Life's Work: Desmond Tutu

• Desmond Tutu
• Daniel McGinn
• From the July–August 2011 Issue

Do Your DE&I Efforts Consider Age, Class, and Lived Experience?

• July 01, 2021

Older Women Are Being Forced Out of the Workforce

• Lauren Stiller Rikleen
• March 10, 2016

How Colorism Affects Women at Work

• Ruchika T. Malhotra
• April 07, 2023

What SCOTUS’s Affirmative Action Decision Means for Corporate DEI

• Kenji Yoshino
• David Glasgow
• July 12, 2023

What is DEI Doing for the Formerly Incarcerated?

• LeRon L. Barton
• September 06, 2021

Managing #MeToo

• Joan C. Williams
• Suzanne Lebsock
• February 09, 2018

Becoming a Better Ally: Our Favorite Reads

• Nicole D Smith
• February 23, 2022

We Need to Retire the Term "Microaggressions"

• March 08, 2022

Ask an Expert: How Do I Deal With Microaggressions at Work?

• March 11, 2024

Why Family and Domestic Violence Is a Workplace Issue

• Jamie Phillips
• Rakshitha Arni Ravishankar
• January 18, 2023

What We Can Learn About the Economics of Discrimination from a Chilling Study of 1930s Germany

• Kilian Huber
• Volker Lindenthal
• Fabian Waldinger
• November 07, 2018

Jim Fielding, Ex-Head of Disney Stores, on the Struggles of Making It as a Queer Executive

• August 18, 2023

The "Angry Black Woman" Stereotype at Work

• Daphna Motro
• Jonathan B Evans
• Aleksander P J Ellis
• Lehman Benson III
• January 31, 2022

It Wasn't About Race. Or Was It? (Commentary for HBR Case Study)

• Jeffrey C. Connor
• Verna Myers
• John Borgia
• Jeanette Millard
• Robin J. Ely
• September 01, 2000

Research: How Bias Against Women Persists in Female-Dominated Workplaces

• Amber L Stephenson
• Leanne M Dzubinski
• March 02, 2022

Why We Should Stop Saying “Underrepresented”

• N. Chloé Nwangwu
• April 24, 2023

How to Support Your Jewish Colleagues Right Now

• Mita Mallick
• December 15, 2022

Why His Merit Raise Is Bigger Than Hers

• Stephen Benard
• From the April 2012 Issue

The Latest Research: Women and Gender

• Harvard Business Review
• January 18, 2019

White Working Class, With a New Foreword by Mark Cuban and a New Preface by the Author: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America

• November 05, 2019

Differences at Work: Ben (C)

• Sandra J. Sucher
• Rachel Gordon
• November 26, 2007

Differences at Work: Emily (C)

• November 27, 2007

Bias Interrupted: Creating Inclusion for Real and for Good

• November 16, 2021

Race, Work, and Leadership: New Perspectives on the Black Experience

• Laura Morgan Roberts
• Anthony J. Mayo
• David A. Thomas
• September 03, 2019

Star Distributors, Inc. (A)

• Deborah J. Evans
• August 31, 1992

Driving Change at Appliances International, India (A)

• Sheetal Mittal
• July 31, 2018

Differences at Work: Erica (B)

Shared Sisterhood: How to Take Collective Action for Racial and Gender Equity at Work

• Tina R Opie
• Beth A Livingston
• October 11, 2022

Alice's Maternity Leave: Beneficial Leave or Left Behind?

• John D. Varlaro
• Nicole M. Amos
• May 19, 2022

Augusta National Golf Club Controversy (B)

• Herman B. Leonard
• Marc J. Epstein
• Melissa Tritter
• October 05, 2005

British Broadcasting Corporation: Under Fire for Gender Pay Inequality

• Nidhi S. Bisht
• August 24, 2020

Visualfy: Improving the Quality of Life of an Invisible Community

• Inigo Gallo Martinez
• Jose A. Segarra
• April 13, 2018

Overcoming Ageism (HBR Women at Work Series)

• Dorie Clark
• Heidi K. Gardner
• Lynda Gratton
• February 27, 2024

Racial Discrimination on Airbnb (A)

• Michael Luca
• Scott Stern
• Hyunjin Kim
• March 05, 2020

The Necessary Journey: Making Real Progress on Equity and Inclusion

• Ella F Washington
• November 08, 2022

Differences at Work: Allie (A)

Our Separate Ways, With a New Preface and Epilogue: Black and White Women and the Struggle for Professional Identity

• Ella Bell Smith
• Stella M. Nkomo
• August 10, 2021

Differences at Work: Sameer (B)

• November 05, 2008

Popular Topics

Partner center.

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Language selector, ohrc social links.

Main Navigation

• The Ontario Human Rights Code
• The Human Rights System
• The Ontario Human Rights Commission
• The Human Rights Legal Support Centre
• The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
• Frequently asked questions
• Family and marital status
• Gender identity and gender expression
• Race and related grounds
• Receipt of public assistance
• Record of offences
• Sexual orientation
• Goods, services and facilities
• Membership in vocational associations and trade unions
• Teaching human rights in Ontario
• Public education requests
• The OHRC at 60
• Backgrounders and research
• Brochures, fact sheets and guides
• Papers and reports
• Policies and guidelines
• Submissions

You are here

Case study 1: darlene, page controls, page content.

As part of a government program, Darlene, a grade 12 graduate, got a job with a local garden nursery. She was to help Mr. M., the owner, tend plants and shrubs, place orders and serve customers.

Mr. M's first review of Darlene's work showed that she was performing all her job duties exceedingly well. It was obvious that Darlene liked the work.

Over the next three months, Mr. M's behaviour toward Darlene began to change. As they worked, he would often put his hands on her shoulders and hips or lean over closer to her. At these times, she would quickly draw away from him. He then began to make offhand remarks about how he was sick of his wife and that he needed “satisfaction” from another woman.

Darlene did not encourage the comments or actions, nor did she say anything against them. However, she was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the situation and tried to avoid the owner as much as possible. One day, Mr. M. asked her for a kiss. When she refused, he said “I know what's wrong with you. You're scared you're going to like it.”  A few days later, Mr. M. suggested that she come to his apartment to have sex with him. Darlene firmly refused, saying that she was seriously involved with her boyfriend. On several other occasions, the owner tried to get Darlene to come to his apartment.

In June, Mr. M. terminated Darlene's employment, saying he had no work for her, even though June is the busiest month of the year for the nursery.

Group discussion questions

• Did the nursery owner violate the  Human Rights Code ? If so, how?
• When Darlene first became uncomfortable with the nursery owner's  behaviour, why wouldn't she have said something?
• In this situation, would Darlene have had to say anything to the nursery  owner for him to know that he might be violating the  Code ?
• Is Darlene's termination a factor when assessing if her rights were violated?

Case study 2: Paramvir

In response to increased violence in its schools, a local school board adopted a policy prohibiting carrying weapons on school grounds. The following spring, the school administration learned that Paramvir, a Khalsa Sikh, was wearing a kirpan in school. The school wanted to implement its “no weapons” policy.

Of the estimated 250,000 Sikhs living in Canada at the time, more than 10% are Khalsa Sikhs—they have gone through the Amrit ceremony, symbolizing spiritual commitment. One of the duties of the Khalsa Sikh is to carry, at all times on his or her person, a kirpan, an article of faith symbolizing a spiritual commitment to law and morality, justice and order. A kirpan is a steel knife, encased and secured in a sheath, and generally worn out of sight under normal clothing.

After prolonged discussions with Paramvir's family and Sikh organizations, the school board amended its weapons policy to include kirpans. It forbade Sikh students to wear the kirpan to school—they could only wear a symbolic representation of the kirpan, provided it did not involve a metal blade that could be used as a weapon.

A Sikh teacher took the case to the Tribunal. At the hearing, it was argued that Sikh religious practices dictate that the kirpan must be made of iron or steel and worn at all times, otherwise the Khalsa would break their holy vows. It was shown that, while the kirpan has the appearance of a weapon, it has never been used in Canada as a weapon. Furthermore, it was argued that other school boards did not have a policy restricting kirpans. 

The school board argued that:

• Education was not a service covered by the Ontario  Human Rights Code  but was instead under the jurisdiction of the  Education Act
• The kirpan posed a risk as it looked like, and could be used as, a weapon
• Others could perceive the kirpan as an invitation to violence.
• Does the  Code  prevail, or have “primacy,” over the  Education Act ?
• Did the weapons policy discriminate against Khalsa Sikhs? How?
• Was the policy reasonable? Suggest some ways the school board  could accommodate Khalsa Sikhs without undue hardship – for example,  posing a safety risk?

Case study 3: Danté

After months of searching for a weekend job, Danté, who is Black, finally got an interview with the owner of a busy car wash and gas station. The owner seemed reluctant to hire him, but Danté managed to win him over. The owner gave him the job, saying that he would be working on a weekend shift with seven other young men, all students from the local area. The shift manager would train him on the car wash equipment.

On Danté's first day, the shift manager gave him only a few minutes of instruction on the equipment. Danté watched what the other men were doing, but when he asked questions, they were not very helpful.

Over the next few weekends, Danté concentrated on his work but because of certain events, he increasingly began to stay by himself. A few co-workers invited him to join their little group for lunch or breaks, but others consistently cracked ethnic and racial jokes, often within hearing of the shift manager. One day Danté overheard the manager say that Black people were responsible for increased violence in the community. This statement encouraged some co-workers, who had previously eaten lunch with Danté, to tell a couple of jokes about Black people. When they glanced at him as they told their jokes, he got up and walked away.

One busy Saturday afternoon, a whole section of the car wash equipment broke down because someone had allowed the system to become overheated. Danté had worked on that section until his break, when a co-worker took over. The system had broken down at some point after that.

The shift manager was furious and accused Danté of negligence. Danté replied that he believed the system was fine when he left for his break. Although Danté insisted that the equipment failure was not his fault, the shift manager fired him. Dante believed he was discriminated against because he is Black, while his co-workers and managers are White.

• Did the shift manager have good reason for firing Danté? Why?
• What factors would a human rights tribunal take into consideration?

Case study 4: Tammy

By age 11, Tammy had bowled for five years in the local recreation league. She and several others qualified to enter a province-wide competition sponsored by the Youth Bowling Council.

Tammy has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, but she has some movement and coordination. So she could bowl, her father built a wooden ramp, the top of which rests in Tammy's lap. She lines up the ramp towards the bowling pins and lets the ball roll down the ramp.

Just before the competition, the Council ruled that Tammy was ineligible to take part. While the Council's rules allowed persons with disabilities to use special equipment to assist them in recreational bowling (provided the equipment did not add force or speed to the ball), they prohibited the use of such equipment in competitions.

The Tribunal and later the Supreme Court of Ontario heard Tammy’s application. The Youth Bowling Council argued that it had not violated her rights under the  Code , because Tammy wasn’t capable of the essential requirement of bowling—manually releasing the ball. The Council also contended that the use of special devices would make competition between the bowlers unfair, because the skills assessed would not be common to all competitors.

Tammy's lawyers argued that Tammy was bowling—she was using the ball to knock down pins. Also, the Youth Bowling Council had a duty to accommodate her under the  Code  by allowing her to use the ramp. Speed and accuracy tests showed that Tammy did not gain any advantage over other bowlers. Her ball speed was too low for maximum results and her accuracy no better than average.

• Could Tammy perform the essential requirement of bowling? Should this  argument have been a factor in determining whether a violation occurred?
• Should the Council have to accommodate Tammy (for example, should they  allow her to bowl in competitions with the ramp)?
• Would the Council experience undue hardship if it accommodated her in competitions? Would it change the sport too much? Give your reasons.

Case study 5: Kyle

Kyle is a young man who went to The Barking Frog, a bar in London, Ontario. He went on a “Ladies” Night,” when women are charged a lower cover charge than men. Bars across Ontario (and indeed across Canada and parts of the United States) routinely hold what are commonly called ladies’ nights, where women are charged a lower cover charge or no cover charge to enter the bar or are given discounts on their drinks. This practice has been common in Ontario and elsewhere for decades.

Kyle went to The Barking Frog, where the doorman told him the cover charge was $20 for the men but only $10 for the women in the group. Kyle was upset and was unwilling to pay the $20, so he did not enter the bar.

Kyle launched a human rights complaint claiming the different cover charges amounted to discrimination based on the ground of sex.

• Did Kyle face discrimination? If so, what type?
• What factors would be taken into account to determine if this differential  treatment violated the  Code ?
• How is substantive equality different from formal equality?

Case study 6: Rita

Rita and her family moved to the city from a remote community in the middle of the school year. Within a week, Rita was registered at the local high school and began attending classes. She travelled to and from school by school bus.

After two weeks at the new school, Rita was just beginning to settle into her classes. However, she was somewhat nervous about her history course. After her first class, the teacher made it clear that Rita had a lot of “catching up” to do, if she were to pass the course.

The following week, some students gave a presentation on Columbus' voyage in 1492 to the “New World.” There was lively discussion, and readings and prints were circulated depicting Columbus' arrival in various territories. There were several references made to “Indians and savages” that the colonists “had to defeat” to settle the New World.

As a member of the Cree Band, Rita was dismayed by the way the teacher portrayed Aboriginal persons in the presentation. She approached her teacher before class the next day to discuss the issue. As the class began, the teacher announced that Rita had concerns with the Columbus presentation. She then turned to Rita and asked her to give her version of the “Columbus discovery” from an Aboriginal point of view.

Caught off guard, Rita haltingly made several points, and then sat down quickly when several of the students began to snicker. Later that day on the bus ride home, some of the other students jeered at her, saying if she didn't like history the way it was taught, then she should drop out. She turned away and ignored them. The next day, the jeering continued in the hallway. When she went to her locker at lunch, someone had scrawled the words “gone hunting” on her locker door. Again, she ignored the curious students around her.

Rita told her parents about the incidents. They called the principal, who said she would give “hell” to the offenders. She also suggested that Rita should make more of an effort to fit in and get along with others.

• How should the teacher have handled Rita's concern over the  Columbus presentation?
• Should the principal deal with the situation in a different way?

Case study 7: Cindy

Cindy, 19, applied for a job at a nursing home as a nursing aide. She had previously worked part-time as a kindergarten teacher's aide and had also cared for children with mental and physical disabilities during her high school years. In her initial interview, the assistant administrator told Cindy she was an ideal candidate and that she probably would be hired.

She was given a pre-employment medical examination for her family doctor to complete. He confirmed that she could meet the requirement of being able to lift patients.

At a second meeting, the interviewer reviewed the completed medical form and noticed Cindy's hand. During the initial interview, the assistant administrator had not observed her left hand, on which the index, middle and ring fingers were much shorter than those on most hands. Following this, the interviewer and another nursing director spent much time discussing Cindy's disability and the job requirements. Even though they both really wanted to hire Cindy, they didn’t think she would be able to cope with the gripping or clasping that is needed to lift patients.

Although Cindy said she could perform the duties and had done similar tasks in her previous job with children with disabilities, she was not hired.

• Did the interviewer have reasonable grounds to believe that Cindy  could not do the job?
• On what basis did the interviewers assess that Cindy could not meet  a  bona fide  job requirement?
• What do you think the interviewer and the nursing director should have  decided? What are your reasons?

Case study 8: Maria

When Maria began working for the packaging company in 2003, her first name was Tony. She was hired as a general labourer on August 24, 2003. In 2008, she was accepted in the gender identity clinic and began transition from living as a man to living as a woman. She started the process of sex reassignment and developed female breasts as a result of hormone treatments. Maria says that she was harassed, subjected to a poisoned work environment and dismissed – all violations of the  Human Rights Code .

Maria said that Gerry, a lead hand and machine operator, played a central role in the harassment and the incident that led to her dismissal. The packing company said the allegations never happened. The company argued that it treated the applicant appropriately, considering her a man and treating her like other men until it received medical or legal documentation that she was a woman. They say they fired her because of her attitude and being involved in workplace conflicts that were her fault, as well as insubordination.

• In what ways do you think Maria might have experienced discrimination  in her employment?
• What reasons do you think Maria's supervisor would give for firing her?  What do you think of these reasons?
• What remedy do you think Maria should receive because she was  discriminated against?

Case study 9: Tawney

Tawney worked as a forest firefighter for the Province of British Columbia and was a member of the Initial Attack Forest Firefighting crew for a small area in the forests of BC. The crew’s job was to attack and suppress forest fires while they were small and could be easily contained. Her supervisors found her work satisfactory and had no reason to question her continuing ability to do the work safely and effectively.

After she had been successfully doing this job for three years, the government adopted a new series of fitness tests for forest firefighters. The tests were developed in response to a Coroner’s Inquest Report that recommended that only physically fit employees be assigned as front-line forest firefighters for safety reasons. The tests required that forest firefighters weigh less than 200 lbs. (with their equipment) and complete a run, an upright rowing exercise, and a pump carrying/hose dragging exercise within stipulated times.

The running test was designed to test the forest firefighters’ aerobic fitness. Subjects were required to run 2.5 kilometres in 11 minutes. After four attempts, Tawney failed to meet the aerobic standard, running the distance in 11 minutes and 49.4 seconds instead of the required 11 minutes. As a result, she was laid off.

Stating that the test unfairly discriminated against women, Tawney’s union brought a grievance on her behalf.

• ​ What do you think about having different standards for men and women?
• Do you think the test was a fair way of measuring a firefighter’s ability  to do the job?
• If Tawney was passed, even though her running time was below what  was required, is she being given preferential treatment over men?

Case study 10: Réjeanne

Based on  Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montreal (City); Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City) , [1999] 1 SCR 381 — 1999-02-24 Supreme Court of Canada — Canada (Federal)  http://canlii.ca/t/1fqmp

Réjeanne lived in Montreal. Her career goal was to become a horticulturalist. She had successfully passed a college course and completed an apprenticeship as a gardener with the city’s Botanical Gardens. When a suitable opening came up to work as a horticulturalist with the city, she immediately sent in her application.

Réjeanne was fully qualified for the position and was invited for an interview. She successfully passed the interview. However, she also had to undergo a physical check-up to confirm her suitability for the job. This check-up indicated she had a slight curvature of the spine called  scoliosis . Réjeanne was surprised to learn this, as she had never experienced any symptoms from this relatively common condition. In fact, she had never experienced any pain, nor had she suffered any limitation on her because of her condition. A later evaluation showed that Réjeanne was able to perform all the duties of a gardener-horticulturalist in complete safety to herself and others, and that there was no need to limit her duties.

When it became aware of Réjeanne’s condition, the city decided to hire another candidate who it thought would be less of a risk for back problems and therefore unlikely to incur increased health care costs later on. The city rationalized its decision saying that it had the right and even the responsibility to employ individuals who would pose the least potential cost to taxpayers.

Believing the city had rejected her application because of a handicap, Réjeanne made a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal. Réjeanne alleged that the city acted in a discriminatory way that deprived her of unemployment insurance benefits, caused her a high level of stress and deeply humiliated her. The city responded that because Réjeanne had no functional limitations, it could not be said that she had a disability under Quebec’s  Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms .

• Why do you think that the city should or should not have hired Réjeanne?
• If it is possible that Réjeanne will develop back problems, do you think that  the city did the right thing by not hiring her?
• Do you think society’s view towards persons with disabilities has a positive  or negative impact on the barriers they face?

Case study 11: Alia and Ahmed

There are many people in Ontario who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. Some people may use sign language as their first language or preferred means of communication, and their inability in English will seriously impede their ability to communicate unless aided by interpretation. For these Ontarians, effective communication and getting fair access to services and employment is very hard.

Alia and Ahmed are parents who were both born deaf. They were expecting twins and would usually provide their own sign language interpreters for their medical visits. Unless an interpreter was present, communicating information was often frustrating for them. At the same time, any miscommunication about medical information could be dangerous.

Alia went into labour eight months into her pregnancy. She and her husband found themselves at the hospital without the aid of an interpreter. Neither the attending doctor nor the nurses could effectively communicate with the parents, who found this isolation difficult and frightening. After the babies were born, they were immediately taken away from the delivery room and put under observation in another area of the hospital. One nurse wrote on a piece of paper that the children were “fine.” Otherwise, no one gave any details about the twins’ condition to either Alia or Ahmed.

In their human rights complaint, Alia and Ahmed alleged that the hospital was providing unequal services because it did not accommodate their needs as deaf persons. The hospital replied that it was too hard to bring in interpreters on such short notice, and that it was too expensive to keep interpreters on call 24 hours a day.

• How would you feel if you were in the same situation as Alia or Ahmed?
• Whose responsibility is it to provide sign language interpreters in public  service sectors?
• How would this claim be covered under the  Code ?
• Do you think it’s unreasonable for deaf people to expect interpreters  to be available in emergency situations? What about in other non- emergency situations?

Case study 12: Marc

Marc is a gay 17-year-old student attending a publicly-funded Catholic high school. He wishes to go to the prom with a same-sex date. The prom is being held at a rental hall off school property.

The school principal and the Catholic School Board have said no on the grounds that this would be endorsing conduct contrary to the church’s teachings. Marc believes that this is a violation of his human rights. He is considering seeking a court injunction because the prom is only weeks away.

• What ground and social area does Marc’s application fall under?
• What competing rights are involved here? 

Book Prev / Next Navigation

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Who Discriminates in Hiring? A New Study Can Tell.

Applications seemingly from Black candidates got fewer replies than those evidently from white candidates. The method could point to specific companies.

By Eduardo Porter

Twenty years ago, Kalisha White performed an experiment. A Marquette University graduate who is Black, she suspected that her application for a job as executive team leader at a Target in Wisconsin was being ignored because of her race. So she sent in another one, with a name (Sarah Brucker) more likely to make the candidate appear white.

Though the fake résumé was not quite as accomplished as Ms. White’s, the alter ego scored an interview. Target ultimately paid over half a million dollars to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Ms. White and a handful of other Black job applicants.

Now a variation on her strategy could help expose racial discrimination in employment across the corporate landscape.

Economists at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago this week unveiled a vast discrimination audit of some of the largest U.S. companies. Starting in late 2019, they sent 83,000 fake job applications for entry-level positions at 108 companies — most of them in the top 100 of the Fortune 500 list, and some of their subsidiaries.

Their insights can provide valuable evidence about violations of Black workers’ civil rights.

The researchers — Patrick Kline and Christopher Walters of Berkeley and Evan K. Rose of Chicago — are not ready to reveal the names of companies on their list. But they plan to, once they expose the data to more statistical tests. Labor lawyers, the E.E.O.C. and maybe the companies themselves could do a lot with this information. (Dr. Kline said they had briefed the U.S. Labor Department on the general findings.)

In the study, applicants’ characteristics — like age, sexual orientation, or work and school experience — varied at random. Names, however, were chosen purposefully to ensure applications came in pairs: one with a more distinctive white name — Jake or Molly, say — and the other with a similar background but a more distinctive Black name, like DeShawn or Imani.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Educ Health Promot

Justice and unintentional discrimination in health care: A qualitative content analysis

Mohammadjavad hosseinabadi-farahani.

1 Department of Nursing, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Masoud Fallahi-Khoshknab

Narges arsalani, mohammadali hosseini, eesa mohammadi.

2 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran

BACKGROUND:

Discrimination in health care is a common phenomenon whose complete understanding has always been a major concern of health-care systems to control and reduce it. This study aimed to explore the experiences of unintentional discrimination and related factors in health-care providers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This qualitative study was conducted with a content analysis approach in 2019. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 13 health-care providers including two physicians, three nursing supervisors, two head nurses, four staff nurses, and two nurse aides in two general hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Participants were selected through purposeful sampling. The obtained data were analyzed by Graneheim and Lundman method.

Three main categories and eight subcategories were obtained from the data analysis: (1) forced discrimination (superiors' pressures and executive orders, occupational concerns, and fear of the superiors); (2) guided discrimination (professional challenges, managers' policymaking, and lack of medical ethics knowledge); and (3) lack of resources (workforce shortage and lack of medical equipment).

CONCLUSION:

The results of this study suggest that health-care providers such as doctors and nurses are unintentionally forced to provide discriminatory care on some occasions. Knowing and managing these unwanted factors can partly counteract unintentional discrimination. Thus, preventing the factors that lead to superiors' pressures and occupational forces and improving the medical ethics knowledge should be considered by health-care managers.

Introduction

The ethical principle of justice concerns closely intertwined concepts such as “justice in health,” “discrimination,” and “equity.” The European Institute of Bioethics defines the concepts of justice and equity in health as follows: “justice in health means the lack of systematic and potentially resolvable differences in one or more aspects of health in a population and economic, social and geographical subgroup.” Accordingly, discrimination is the opposite of justice in health-care provision.[ 1 ] Discrimination in health care means a lack of provision, incomplete provision, or different provision of health care to an individual or group of individuals because of their individual and social characteristics.[ 2 , 3 ] Discrimination in health care is experienced by many in the community, but reported only by some,[ 2 ] most of whom are minorities in terms of race, ethnicity, or certain diseases or conditions, such as physical and mental disability.[ 4 ] Discrimination in health care manifests itself in various forms such as discrimination based on sex,[ 5 ] race,[ 6 ] age,[ 7 ] type of illness, religion,[ 8 ] language,[ 9 ] economic status, and social status,[ 10 ] in all of which individual's access to health services is reduced or is of poor quality.

Piette et al . explained the situation in their study as one-third of adults in the US experience discrimination in health care in their daily lives, and that 7% of them experience it several times.[ 11 ] In a study titled “Experienced discrimination amongst European old citizens,” van den Heuvel states that on an average 26% of respondents aged 62 years sometimes and 11% of them always experience age discrimination.[ 12 ] In a study titled “Discrimination Experience and Health Status in Spanish Immigrants,” Rodríguez-Álvarez (2017) reports that at least one per ten immigrants experienced discrimination in receiving health care. They also stated that these discriminations were not due to the age, sex, and educational level of the immigrants, but merely due to their being an immigrant and ethnic differences.[ 13 ] In another study in the UK in 2010, 1301 people over the age of 50 were surveyed, of whom 23% reported that they had experienced age discrimination in the past year.[ 14 ] In addition, studies conducted in 28 European countries have introduced age as the most significant reason for discrimination so that one-fourth of older adults (aged over 62) have sometimes or often experienced age discrimination.[ 15 ]

Discrimination in health-care provision has significant consequences. In several studies, Wheeler (2014), Rodríguez-Álvarez, and Wofford (2019) examined negative consequences and effects of health-care discrimination in its various forms. In a study titled “”The vicarious effects of discrimination: How partner experiences of discrimination affect individual health “ Wofford (2019) states that the experience of discrimination in care leads to a decrease in the confidence of patients and clients, as well as complications such as being exposed to and experiencing multiple stressors and its specific effects, anxiety, depression, hypertension, and even developing specific health problems and risk factors such as obesity, breast cancer, and substance abuse.[ 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]

Various organizations, particularly the WHO, have designed and implemented various strategies to combat discrimination in health care such as continuous education of ethical principles for health-care providers, continuous review of health-care policies, supporting community members, and emphasizing their reporting in case of experiencing discrimination in clinical settings,[ 9 , 17 ] but discrimination continues to occur in health-care provision.[ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ] Perhaps, low effectiveness of these policies and strategies can express the fact that they were not based on the full recognition of discrimination dimensions in health care. It is noteworthy that most studies on discrimination are quantitative research on the extent of occurrence and negative consequences, while few have addressed reasons for the emergence and subjective aspect of discriminative behaviors in health-care providers' on the other hand, perceived discrimination is influenced by culture and social factors and is perceived differently by individuals in various societies.[ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]

Hence, a complete understanding of discrimination in providing health care and related factors is essential to adopt effective strategies for controlling and eliminating discrimination in health care. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the process of unintentional discrimination in health-care provision in Iran.

Materials and Methods

This qualitative study aimed to explore the unintentional discrimination process among health-care providers from June to December 2019. Conventional content analysis approach was used according to the objective of this study. This approach is useful for evaluating the perceived experiences of people about a routine phenomenon.[ 26 ]

The research setting consisted of two hospitals in Tehran, Iran, one of which was a public teaching hospital and the other was a private nonacademic one. Both hospitals provide specialty and subspecialty medical services.

Participants

Up-to-date saturation participants were 13 health-care providers who were employed in two general hospitals in Tehran, selected using purposive sampling with the highest diversity in terms of demographic characteristics (age, sex, work experience, etc.). Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants.

The demographic characteristics of the participants

ICU=Intensive care unit

Data collection

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. First, interviews started with general questions such as “Have you ever discriminated patients during health-care providing? Please explain your experience” followed by subsequent questions based on the interviewee's answers. The time and place of interviews were planned in coordination with the participants at the hospital private room. The interviews took 20–41 min based on the conditions and willingness of the participants.

Data analysis

All interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed, reviewed, coded, and immediately analyzed by the researcher. The Graneheim and Lundman's[ 27 ] conventional content analysis approach was used for analysis. Based on the content analysis process, initially, each interview was carefully read several times to gain a basic understanding and then important statements were highlighted (to determine the initial codes or semantic units contained in the transcripts of the interview about participants' experience of unintentional discrimination). In the next step, similar semantic units were extracted for semantic clarity and labeled as categories and subcategories. In fact, data were analyzed consistently and concurrently with data collection. The data were added throughout the data collection process until data saturation.

The Strauss and Corbin's (2015) method was used to validate the data, which combines the criteria presented by different researchers. Accordingly, the researcher tried to gain their trust and understand their experiences with long-term engagement, contact, and communication with the participants. Data validation methods were used to eliminate any ambiguity in coding through reviewing transcripts by the participants (member check). To this end, the researcher provided parts of the interviews and codes to the participants to reach the same understanding as the participants. Confirm ability was also checked to confirm the systematic and unbiased collection of data; members' agreement on interviews, codes, and classification of similar codes; and categories and comparison of what the researcher understood and what the participants meant. Data reliability was exercised with immediate transcription, peer check, and review of the whole data.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Tehran University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences (Ethics code: IR. USWR. REC.1398.023). In addition, the participants studied and signed the informed consent form for participating in this study. They were assured of the confidentiality of the information, and that the participants could withdraw from the study anytime.

Participants were 13 health-care providers including two physicians, three supervisors, two head nurses, four nurses, and two nurse aids. The age of the participants ranged from 32 to 53 years. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the participants. The findings of this study helped the researcher identify the following three main categories: (1) forced discrimination, (2) guided discrimination, and (3) discrimination related to lack of resources [ Table 2 ].

“Unintentional discrimination” with subcategories and open codes

Category 1 Forced discrimination

Forced discrimination category indicates that health-care providers are forced to discriminate in health-care provision to maintain their jobs or to comply with orders. This category was formed based on the subcategories of (1) superiors' pressures and executive orders, (2) occupational concerns, and (3) fear of the superiors, based on the analysis of initial codes.

Superiors' pressures and executive orders

In the subcategory of superiors' pressures and executive orders, the participants expressed that sometimes they had to discriminate in health-care provision to patients due to the pressure that higher authorities such as the president, manager, or nursing office applied on them. For example, participant = P (12) said:

“It's an order, or the patient is a relative of a colleague and I'm asked to keep the bed beside them vacant, but I'm not doing this for other people. However, these are orders and I have to follow them” (head nurse of the internal surgery ward, 48 years old, 25 years of experience).

P (9) also said: “When the nursing office calls me and recommends a patient and says that I, as the head nurse, should watch over them, what else can I say? I say OK” (head nurse of the surgery ward, 38 years old, 15 years of experience).

P (10) also said:

“Because of frequent calls made by the president for a number of patients admitted to the ICU, I act differently, I spend more time and precision on the patient” (anesthesiologist, 48 years old, 22 years of experience).

Occupational concerns

Another initial subcategory was occupational concerns where participants expressed the reason for discrimination in health-care provision as occupational concerns, such as fear of losing their job and their current position. For example, P (2) said:

“I and the rest of the nurses pay more respect to special and recommended patients; this is ordered by the organization to maintain our job and position. We do this as we have no other choice since it might be hard to find a job somewhere else” (nurse of the gynecology ward, 33 years old, 8 years of experience).

Fear of the superiors

Fear of the superiors was another initial subcategory emerging from the code analysis. The participants noted that sometimes the only reason for which they must provide different care or other forms of communication with the patient is a fear of superiors such as a supervisor or a head nurse. For example, P (8) said:

“I sometimes pay more attention to some patients, I don't know why it is so, it has always been like that, and head nurses always say this to me and other nurse aids. It has been due to our fear of the head nurse or even behavior of some physicians” (nurse aid, 35 years old, 12 years of experience).

Category 2 Guided discrimination

This category refers to the fact that lack of professionalism in medical science majors in Iran, which can be attributed to failure to explain ethical codes as well as the lack of knowledge and training on the principles of medical ethics for physicians, nurses, and other health-care providers, which made health-care providers to have discriminatory behaviors. This category has three subcategories of professional challenges, managers' policymaking, and lack of medical ethics knowledge.

Professional challenges

This subcategory refers to the occupational nature of health-care professions and being involved in their problems. For instance, high workload and fatigue are factors that make service providers exhibit discriminatory behaviors unintentionally as P (11) said:

“If I'm very tired or working at night shifts for several days, I actually do not care much for the patient and neglect many things, or if I'm to do something, I'll do it for some special patients that I have to” (nurse aid, 36 years old, 10 years of experience).

P (7) also said:

“I've seen that doctors or nurses generally attend to patients less at nights and they somewhat discriminate among patients. They don't check the operation site, or they do less suctioning; generally medical and nursing care reduces and maybe it is due to personnel fatigue” (ICU nurse, 33 years old, 10 years of experience).

Managers' policymaking

This subcategory refers to some of the internal policies of health managers that may cause unintentional discrimination among staff by setting certain policies or less supervision. The participants also pointed out that one of the main causes of fighting discrimination is the very managers' will. For example, P (12) said:

“The one at the top of this system must want it to happen; a simple example is visiting patients; some of my colleagues here work in another hospital, too. I went to visit a patient, but they didn't allow me, even though they knew me, they didn't let me visit outside the specified time. The two hospitals are located next to each other and both affiliated to one university, but there is so much difference. It all goes back to the top of the pyramid and management. How much the manager wants to fix the system matters?” (head nurse of the internal surgery ward, 48 years old, 25 years of experience).

Lack of medical ethics knowledge

Lack of knowledge of ethics codes, lack of medical ethics knowledge, and lack of understanding of these principles at university make health-care providers pay less attention to these principles and unintentionally discriminate in the provision of health care. For example, P (3) said:

“Training on ethics was absolutely insufficient. There must be training during medical and nursing courses, but unfortunately it is not so; not even in medical ethics courses, such a problem has become so common among us and all have accepted it. So first and foremost is the teaching and learning of ethical principles at university” (emergency physician, 40 years old, 16 years of experience).

Category 3 Lack of resources

This category refers to the resources needed to provide health services, but when these resources are defective or scarce, the health-care provider is unintentionally forced to discriminate. Two subcategories of discrimination due to workforce shortage and lack of medical equipment emerged from the data analysis.

Workforce shortage

The shortage of physicians, nurses, and other health-care providers unintentionally forces health-care providers to discriminate as it leads to failure in providing the necessary care and even reducing the quality of services. P (9) said:

“As a head nurse, manpower is very important to me; when manpower is low, the quality of work reduces and now if we have some special and recommended patients in the ward, a significant portion of the manpower is dedicated to them and the quality work for other patients decreases and other patients get less attention because we are not enough” (head nurse of the surgery ward, 38 years old, 15 years of experience).

P (6) also said:

“How can I, as a nurse of the internal ward with 10 patients and one of them intubated, handle them all, I have to discriminate, and those who have better conditions will receive more care; I have no choice; we are not enough” (ICU nurse, 33 years old, 8 years of experience).

Lack of medical equipment

Lack of medical equipment also makes physicians and nurses unintentionally discriminate between patients due to access restrictions. For example, P (6) said:

“Healthcare provision is better in ICUs, but lower and poorer in regular wards because a nurse like me has 8–10 patients there and one is intubated, and I don't have time or even monitors to permanently check on them. There, I have to differentiate among patients, and care for a patient only for 2 h in a whole 12-h shift because I don't have the time or the equipment to do it” (ICU nurse, 33 years old, 8 years of experience).

All participants expressed that they had to discriminate in health-care provision in different circumstances. In fact, the participants stated that they are forced to make ethically incorrect decisions and disobey ethical principles unintentionally when providing health care due to reasons such as fear of superiors. In this regard, Kligyte et al . pointed out that fear, worry, and anger can inhibit ethical decision-making. Health-care providers cannot consider justice in their nursing and care plane; finally, patients experience different types of discrimination in health care. In fact, they have no choice and they had to have discriminatory behaviors with patients.[ 28 ]

Furthermore, our findings showed that forced discrimination affects the working environment of physicians, nurses, and other health-care providers, which creates conditions in which they cannot observe the four principles of bioethics, the principle of justice. The participants stated that they discriminate in the provision of health care to patients due to pressure from managers and officials. In fact, it can be argued that the environment in which health-care providers perform their duties can have a positive or negative approach and result in implementing the principles of bioethics. Professional ethics refers to the use of logical and consistent communication, knowledge, clinical skills, emotions, and values in practice. In this regard, Dehghani et al . point out that factors influencing compliance to professional ethics are divided into the following three dimensions: (1) individual dimension (personal characteristics, religious values, and family conditions); (2) organizational dimension (leadership, management, communication with colleagues, rewards and punishment system, organizational culture, etc.); and (3) environmental dimension (economic, social, and cultural). The organizational dimension is more important because it can control and make more changes. Personal ethical decision-making is related to organizational ethical atmosphere, so the viewpoint of manager in health care can change the ethical behaviors of health-care providers.[ 29 ]

Managers' pressure on medical personnel to do things that contradict medical and nursing ethics reflects the ethics that govern an organization such as a hospital. In fact, the ethical behavior of managers in the health-care system is a predictor of observing professional ethics. Kaabomeir et al . quote Douglas emphasizing that if managers and senior executives apply ethics in the workplace, an ethical climate dominates the organization, which can influence other people. According to a survey by the Institute of Business Ethics, managers' adherence to ethics can reduce employees' unethical behavior by up to 50%. Furthermore, ethical decision-making by medical personnel is affected by factors such as fear and anger.[ 30 ]

In addition, our findings showed that some factors such as lack of medical ethics knowledge and lack of professionalism lead health-care providers to discrimination. In fact, these factors occur in the context of medical and nursing care, which reduces the focus on the structure needed to implement ethics. As mentioned in the results, the participants stated that lack of professionalism makes them pay less attention to observing the principle of justice in health-care provision. It is important that professionalism requires the development of and compliance with codes of ethics, as it can be seen in developing countries such as Iran, where medical professions are not completely professionalized, which eventually manifests itself in the form of noncompliance with the principles of medical ethics.[ 31 ] In this regard, Mahajan et al . point out that ethics is an integral part of becoming a medical professional. Furthermore, they emphasized that if the professionalism process is not accomplished properly, graduates would not understand ethical principles and cannot comply with ethical principles such as justice in health care.[ 32 ]

Lack of knowledge about the principles of medical ethics was also mentioned by the participants. In fact, health-care providers such as physicians and nurses that have the highest levels of communication with the patient and need to consider health-care ethics, ultimately provide health-care services that are practically not ethical because they lack the required knowledge. In fact, the lack of training on the principles of bioethics, health justice, leads health-care providers to discriminate in health care. Accordingly, Imran et al . suggest that medical students at general and specialty levels that have not received education on these principles are not capable of making necessary decisions and observing ethical principles such as independence and justice, which affects their professional qualifications, too.[ 33 ] Dehghani et al . pointed out that teaching and learning professional ethics principles at university are among important and effective factors in the formation of nurses' ethical behaviors.[ 29 ]

The importance of learning the principles of bioethics while studying medical sciences and its incorporation is another aspect of this process. As shown by the results, the participants mentioned a lack of education and learning of bioethics principles in universities as a cause of discrimination in providing health care. In this regard, Bostani pointed out that systematic incorporation of bioethics principles in nursing education programs, while familiarizing them with ethical principles, will improve the quality of nursing care, ethical decision-making, and compliance with these principles to provide health care to patients.[ 34 ] Acharya and Shakya (2016 also emphasized that the four principles of bioethics should be emphasized in medical students' curricula in order to respect and maintain patient autonomy, promote justice, and avoid discriminatory behaviors in health.[ 35 ]

Lack of resources, including workforce and medical equipment, was another aspect of unintentional discrimination in health care. As shown by the results, the participants stated that they are forced to unintentionally differentiate between patients and have discriminatory behaviors in health-care delivery when they face challenges such as shortage of doctors and nurses at work.[ 36 , 37 , 38 ] The global challenge of shortage of nurses in recent decades is a major concern for health-care organizations, which leads to physical and psychological harm, job dissatisfaction, burnout, and so forth. What is noticeable here is the effect of lack of resources on bioethical principles governing health-care provision such that this challenge has led to a phenomenon known as moral distress among nurses, which in turn has extensive negative consequences and causes a vicious cycle.[ 39 ] In fact, health-care providers tend to adhere to the ethics of health care based on their professional duty, but the question is how can they provide quality care based on ethics when professionals such as physicians and nurses are not sufficient? In fact, they have no choice but to abandon some of these ethical principles when providing health care because under the present conditions, physical care is prioritized and ethical principles such as justice in care are less attended to.

Different articles have been conducted on health-care discrimination, but they are quantitative, and we cannot survey the main problems about discrimination in health care. This study was a qualitative article, so we could detect the main category of unintentional discrimination in health care. According to these findings, we can design an effective model for controlling discrimination in health care.

Every article has some limitations, so the authors reiterate that this study was based on Iranian culture and health-care system, so the results cannot be generalized to other countries, and it is recommended that similar studies be conducted in other countries.

The findings of this study showed three categories of unintentional discrimination including forced discrimination, guided discrimination, and lack of resources. In this study, the participants emphasized that they unintentionally discriminate health-care provision to patients due to various factors, including managers' pressure and lack of resources, as well as professional challenges such as lack of medical ethics knowledge. This study could clarify the concept of discrimination in health care, and it is recommended that health-care managers use the results of this study to plan and implement measures to control and reduce discrimination in health care.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study was extracted from a Ph.D. thesis in nursing approved on May 29, 2019, in Tehran University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences. The researchers would like to sincerely thank all participants in this study including physicians, nurses, and nurse aids.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About European Sociological Review
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, selection of countries, a harmonized cross-national field experiment, summary and conclusion, supplementary data, acknowledgements, gender discrimination in hiring: evidence from a cross-national harmonized field experiment.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables

Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund, Bram Lancee, Edvard Nergård Larsen, Javier G Polavieja, Jonas Radl, Ruta Yemane, Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment, European Sociological Review , Volume 38, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 337–354, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab043

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus , while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.

Women have traditionally been disadvantaged in the labour market, and much scholarship has documented patterns of and trends in gender inequalities (e.g. Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer, 2005 ; Carlsson, 2011 ). However, women’s and men’s working lives have changed considerably since the mid-20th century ( Goldin, 2014 ). In nearly all OECD countries, women now have higher educational attainment than men ( OECD, 2015 ). In many countries, women comprise more than 40 per cent of the labour force ( Pew Research Center, 2017 ), and, although the process is slow, there is some evidence that the gender gap in earnings is converging ( Jacobsen, Khamis and Yuksel, 2015 ; Blau and Kahn, 2017 ; Neumark, 2018 ). People’s attitudes have also changed; in particular, we have seen decreasing support for traditional gender norms and increasing support for women’s employment ( Fernández, 2013 ).

All trends towards equalization notwithstanding, gender inequalities in the labour market still exist. Broadly construed, there are two explanations for why this is the case. First, women are treated differently from men within the same jobs, and second, women and men are sorted into different jobs, with lower earnings and fewer promotion prospects in typically female-dominated jobs. Studies have, however, shown that when men and women work in the same jobs in the same firms, gender differences in earnings are significantly diminished or even eradicated (e.g. Petersen and Morgan, 1995 ). This gives more credibility to the sorting explanation. Indeed, we know that occupational sex segregation is widespread ( Chang, 2004 ), and that men and women work in jobs with unequal compensation ( Levanon and Grusky, 2016 ). Scholars have therefore argued for the exigency to better understand the sorting process of men and women into different jobs ( Petersen and Saporta, 2004 ). We can think of two competing explanations. First, the supply side argument addresses educational and occupational choices: men and women choose different occupations and therefore apply for different jobs. Alternatively, men and women apply for the same jobs, but women are discriminated against when they apply for jobs with higher earnings, more responsibilities, etc. This demand side argument is related to employers’ hiring decisions, and this study aims to make a contribution to the literature by testing the discrimination explanation.

Hiring processes are contingent on employers’ decision-making, and crucial elements of their decisions usually remain opaque to researchers. Thus, measuring discrimination is difficult. Supply-side data can reveal gender gaps in labour market outcomes, but we can never rule out the possibility that observed gender gaps are driven by unobserved factors pertaining to the supply side rather than by employers’ discriminatory practices on the demand side. Therefore, experimental designs are more suitable for detecting discrimination ( Azmat and Petrongolo, 2014 ; Gaddis, 2018 ). While a weakness of laboratory experiments is external validity, field experiments can, through manipulation of one (or more) treatment variable(s), e.g. the applicant’s gender, provide real-world causal estimates of treatment effects on employers’ hiring decisions.

Previous Research

Social scientists have conducted randomized field experiments to detect hiring discrimination since the 1970s ( Riach and Rich, 2002 ). Perhaps surprisingly, previous studies on hiring discrimination of male and female job applications show very mixed findings. Table 1 gives an overview of the most relevant field experiments on gender discrimination in hiring, and we comment on the most important findings below.

Previous field experiments on gender discrimination in hiring

Note: B = blue collar; W = white collar.

Source : own elaboration.

Some experiments found advantages for men over women ( Neumark, Bank and Van Nort, 1996 ; Petit, 2007 ; Zhou, Zhang and Song, 2013 ; Duguet, Loïc and Petit, 2017 ; González, Cortina and Rodríguez, 2019 ), whereas other experiments found advantages for women over men ( Jackson, 2009 ; Carlsson, 2011 ; Carlsson and Eriksson, 2017 ). Some studies found hiring discrimination against both men and women, depending on parental status ( Correll, Benard and Paik, 2007 ) or gender composition and type of job ( Weichselbaumer, 2004 ; Yavorsky, 2019 ), while other studies found no gender discrimination at all ( Albert, Escot and Fernández-Cornejo, 2011 ; Capéan et al. , 2012; Carlsson et al. , 2014 ; Carlsson and Erikson, 2017; Bygren, Erlandsson and Gähler, 2017 ). Some studies found evidence of hiring discrimination against women in high-level jobs ( Riach and Rich, 2002 ; Baert, De Pauw and Deschacht, 2016 ), while others did not ( Williams and Ceci, 2015 ). These inconsistencies in findings might reflect true cross-national differences in gender discrimination. If institutional contexts, such as labour market policies, affect employers’ hiring decisions, they might, all else equal, behave differently in different national contexts ( Gangl and Ziefle, 2009 ). However, as these experiments are adapted to national contexts, and the included occupations vary considerably, inconsistencies in findings might also be an artefact of heterogeneity of research designs.

More consistently across contexts, field experiments on gender discrimination show that men are discriminated when they apply for female occupations, and women when they apply for male occupations ( Riach and Rich, 2002 , 2006 ; Booth and Leigh, 2010 ; Carlsson, 2011 ; Rich, 2014 ). ‘However, discrimination against men in “female” occupations was always much higher than that against women in “male” occupations’ ( Riach and Rich, 2002 : pp. F504–505). One study also found discrimination of men in female-dominated occupations, and no gender differences in hiring in mixed or male-dominated occupations ( Ahmed, Granberg and Khanna, 2021 ). Thus, despite the obvious temptation, we cannot directly compare field-experimental evidence on gender discrimination across countries, due to heterogeneity in research designs across countries and time-periods.

To address this limitation, we make use of a harmonized cross-national field experiment in six countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States [The Growth, Equal Opportunities, Migration and Markets (GEMM) study, conducted by Lancee et al. , 2019b ]. 1 To our knowledge, the GEMM study is the first randomized field experiment with a deliberate cross-national comparative design ( Di Stasio and Lancee, 2019 ). These data allow us to provide new and rigorous evidence on gender discrimination in the first phase of the hiring process in six occupations in six countries. We contribute to the literature by analysing hiring discrimination within and across countries with different institutional characteristics.

Gender Discrimination: Theoretical Considerations

Hiring new employees always involves an element of risk-taking, as employers cannot know beforehand how an individual will perform. Employers rely on the information available in the cover letter and CV but may still be uncertain about the applicants’ skills. If employers believe members of a particular group are more productive than others, they might regard group membership as an informative cue. Obviously, employers’ expectations might be wrong, as they may rely on unfounded stereotypes about certain groups. In addition, even if employers’ beliefs are correct in terms of average group-level characteristics, individual job applicants may deviate substantially from a given group characteristic. 2

Discrimination against Women

Several perspectives explain why employers discriminate against women. We have grouped the relevant theoretical approaches into two broader categories: (i) cultural perspectives focusing on social norms and gender stereotypes, and (ii) the economic-rational perspective addressing statistical discrimination.

According to cultural perspectives, employers rely on gender stereotypes and gender-differentiated work expectations. In Joan Acker’s seminal work on gendered organizations, gender inequality is an inbuilt characteristic of work organizations ( Acker, 1990 ; Rudman and Phelan, 2008 ; Williams, Muller and Kilanski, 2012 ). Of particular importance is the norm of the ‘ideal worker’, working full-time without family obligations. As women’s work traditionally has been confined to the domestic sphere, this norm would disadvantage women in hiring situations ( Acker, 1990 ). Even in large, modern organizations, there is evidence that women are held to other standards than men, which might explain the persistence of the glass ceiling in career promotion. The so-called ‘paradox of meritocracy’ ( Castilla and Benard, 2010 ) implies that top-down directives oriented towards fairness and efficiency seem incapable of neutralizing discriminatory gender attitudes and may even reinforce the adverse effects of unconscious bias. Thus, despite societal trends towards gender convergence, theories about gendered organizations lead us to expect that men have an advantage over women in virtually all hiring processes.

The theory of statistical discrimination builds on the assumption that employers engage in cost-benefit calculations ( Arrow, 1972 ; Phelps, 1972 ). This economic-rational perspective leads us to expect that employers assess the potential productivity of job applicants by their observable characteristics, such as human capital, and attribute average group characteristics to them to assess their unobservable characteristics ( Fang and Moro, 2011 ). Due to productivity gains and because hiring in itself is costly, employers can be expected to be looking for stable workers. Given that women are more likely to be absent due to family responsibilities, employers would assess men’s productivity higher and discriminate against women, all else equal.

To summarize, both cultural and economic-rational perspectives lead us to expect discrimination of female applicants, primarily due to employers’ beliefs about women’s higher level of absence associated with childcare.

Discrimination against Men and Women

As noted above, previous experiments show differential gender discrimination across male- and female-dominated occupations. The cultural perspectives might explain why. Psychologists have developed the stereotype content model, which proposes that people tend to perceive men as competent but not warm, and women as warm but not competent ( Glick and Fiske, 1996 ). People also perceive male-dominated jobs as requiring more competence and female-dominated jobs as requiring more warmth ( Cuddy, Fiske and Glick, 2008 ). As these stereotypes are associated both with individuals and jobs, it is highly plausible that employers discriminate applicants with the ‘wrong’ gender ( Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011 ). Thus, ‘if a caregiving job is thought to require warmth and men are thought to not possess much warmth, individuals may expect that a man will not be successful at a caregiving job’ ( Halper, Cowgill and Rios, 2019 : p. 2). By the same logic, employers would form negative performance expectations of women in—for instance—technical jobs. Thus, employers’ gender stereotypes might steer the process of matching jobs and job applicants. Theoretically, this argument is captured by the concept of sex typing of jobs ( Bielby and Baron, 1986 ; Glick, Zion and Nelson, 1988 ; Reskin and Roos, 1990 ), the role congruency model ( Cejka and Eagly, 1999 ), and the theory of gender categorization within work organizations ( Ridgeway, 1997 ).

The theory on statistical discrimination can also explain differential gender discrimination across male- and female-dominated occupations. As noted, most employers are looking for stable employees, and studies have documented that workers’ employment duration is sensitive to the sex typing of the job, so that women who enter a male-dominated occupation and men who enter a female-dominated occupation have disproportionately higher exit risks ( Torre, 2014 , 2018 ). Employers might be aware of this association and act accordingly. On closer inspection therefore, the differences between the cultural and the economic-rational perspectives are rather subtle, as both perspectives are compatible with the assumption that gender stereotypes are exogenously given and that employers are looking for the best match between an applicant and a job. 3 Both perspectives, therefore, lead us to expect discrimination against the minority sex in sex-typed jobs and to expect to find no prevalence of discrimination in gender-balanced jobs, ceteris paribus . The norm of the ‘ideal worker’, however, leads us to the generic expectation that women are discriminated against, independently of the sex typing of the job.

Theories on discrimination are primarily concerned with individual-level explanations, largely ignoring the role of country-level institutional contexts ( Reskin, 2000 ). However, the ‘opportunity structure for discrimination’ ( Petersen and Saporta, 2004 ) is likely to differ by macro-level factors, which we explain below.

The GEMM study is a fully harmonized field experiment on job hiring across six advanced economies that differ in a number of relevant macro-level characteristics. Because the number of policy and institutional characteristics varying across these countries is larger than the number of countries analysed and because these characteristics are highly endogenous, it is not possible to identify the effect of a single policy or institutional dimension. Our goal is therefore more modest: we want to test whether estimates of hiring discrimination of male and female applicants are robust across different policy and institutional contexts. If they are, we conclude that, despite their institutional differences, there is a common trend across these societies. If they are not, we interpret cross-national variation by considering country-specific characteristics that may affect employers’ propensity to discriminate. We consider three macro dimensions: (i) general labour market regulations and conditions, (ii) family policies, and (iii) cultural norms.

First, labour market regulations can influence employers’ hiring decisions by affecting the costs of job mismatch. When these costs are high, employers are likely to be more risk averse and to draw on statistical discrimination to reduce contractual hazards. If employment contracts with low termination costs are available to employers and if such contracts can be used for long time-periods, the match-or-miss pressure for employers will wane, thus reducing the impact of risk aversion on hiring decisions. The included countries differ markedly in the extent of labour market regulation (see Table 2 ); and we expect more gender discrimination related to the sex typing of jobs in countries with higher dismissal costs, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Another potential factor affecting the costs of discriminating is labour market tightness. If employers have a large pool of potential candidates, they are more prone to discriminate, even if only as a heuristic strategy to simplify the screening procedure ( Birkelund, 2016 ), than when they have a restricted supply of workers ( Baert, De Pauw and Deschacht, 2016 ). Spain is an outlier, with a high unemployment rate, which could fuel hiring discrimination.

Societal factors potentially associated with gender discrimination propensities

OECD Index of regulation on individual dismissal of workers with regular contracts. 0 = very loose, 5 = very strict. The index refers to the year 2013 ( OECD, 2020a) .

  Data from the OECD for 2013. Total duration for which mothers can be on paid leave (OECD, 2020 b ).

Includes public spending on early childhood education and care, OECD Family Database for 2015 or latest available year ( OECD, 2020c) .

Data from OECD for 2019 ( OECD, 2019 ).

OECD Short-Term Labor Market Statistics 2017 ( OECD, 2017 ).

Data from the OECD, referring to 2018 ( OECD, 2020d) .

Data from OECD Family Data Base for 2015 or latest available year ( OECD, 2020c) .

h Source : Own calculations. ‘When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women’, per cent (strongly) disagree minus per cent (strongly) agree. Averages based on available data, European Values Survey 2008, 2017, as well as World Value Survey Waves 5 (2005–2009) and 6 (2011–2015).

Numbers provided by Hofstede Insights, comparing countries’ scores on the Masculinity Index (see Hofstede Insights, 2020 ).

The World Economic Forum: The Global Gender Gap Report 2017. Global Gender Gap Index ( The World Economic Forum, 2017 ).

Family policies can potentially influence employers’ hiring decisions by affecting the costs associated with childbirth. Although often considered mutually complementary interventions, public support for childcare (through direct provision or subsidies) and parental leave policies actually have very different implications. Childcare support policies likely reduce the duration of post-birth work interruptions, and, because they are funded through general taxes, their costs are not borne by employers in particular. In contrast, generous maternity leave policies that establish mandatory job retention over a specified period around childbirth impose significant nonwage costs to employers, which will be greater for tasks where interruptions provoke severe human capital depreciation ( Stier, Lewin-Epstein and Braun, 2001 ; Mandel and Semyonov, 2006 ; Gangl and Ziefle, 2009 ). The probability that employers discriminate against women should thus be greater in contexts where maternity leave arrangements are generous, such as Norway, and in contexts with less public provision of childcare, such as the United States (see Table 2 ).

Our countries of study also differ with respect to gender norms, which are associated with labour market and family policies (see Table 2 ). There is a close association between female employment rates and support for gender stereotypes ( Fortin, 2005 ; Polavieja, 2015 ) and we expect more hiring discrimination of women in countries with higher support for traditional gender attitudes, such as Germany. Notably, such norms go beyond mere attitudinal indicators and include sex-typical behaviours that can shape expectations ( Polavieja, 2012 ). Relevant behaviours with a normative dimension include fertility behaviour (e.g. average age at first birth) and gender differences in employment rates and working hours that can ‘inform’ employers about the ‘risks’ of employing women ( Bygren, Erlandsson and Gähler, 2017 ; Becker, Fernandes and Weichselbaumer, 2019 ). The selected countries differ in both gender attitudes and behaviours potentially affecting employers’ hiring decisions.

Table 2 summarizes the indicators that characterize the countries included in the study. The list of indicators is not exhaustive, but the table illustrates the degree of variation across these countries. In accordance with the above theories, we expect the probability of observing gender discrimination in hiring to be higher in macro-level contexts where the costs of job mismatch are high due to labour-market regulation or—conditions and where traditional gender norms prevail, as expressed through attitudes and values or through gendered behaviours. These arguments, based on a small selection of the contextual measures that could have been included, are tentative. Moreover, contextual factors are only relevant if employers know about them or act upon related beliefs. Both assumptions are disputable ( Birkelund et al. , 2019 ). Hence, our aim is not to identify the effect of any single dimension, which would be impossible given the small sample of countries, but to determine if our findings hold across different country contexts, and, in the event they do not, whether we can meaningfully interpret national variation by accounting for these institutional, cultural, and economic dimensions.

From 2016 to 2018, we sent fictitious cover letters and CVs sent to 21,318 vacant jobs advertized on national online platforms, and gathered and coded all responses from the employers (for an overview of the data, see Lancee et al. , 2019a ,b). The experiment was primarily designed to measure hiring discrimination against immigrants and their descendants. 4 To compare their callbacks with those received by the majority population, 25 per cent of the applications in each country included a majority identity, 4,279 in total, which are the data that are used here. The fictitious job applicants, hereafter applicants, were given education levels that matched the (average) job requirements, which varied between a high school diploma to a bachelor’s degree. All applicants had CVs with four years occupation-specific work experience at two different employers, 5 and we varied their age between 22 and 26 years. 6 The design is unmatched, which means that one application was sent to each vacancy. Some field experiments send two—or more—applications per vacancy, allowing the researchers to measure individual employer behaviour in addition to average employer behaviour within occupations and countries, which we measure here. Although both matched and unmatched designs have distinct advantages, the strength of the unmatched design is that one can easily implement multiple treatments. Furthermore, the risk of detection is minimal. There is also evidence that unmatched designs provide the most comparable and externally valid estimates of hiring discrimination, by avoiding potential issues of induced competition (see Vuolo, Uggen and Lageson, 2018 ; Lancee, 2019 ; Larsen, 2020 for discussions) and they minimize harm to employers by reducing their time spent in reading fictitious applications. Applications were sent to nationally advertized job vacancies within each country, which means that, although limited by occupational constraints (six occupations), the study covers national labour markets.

Occupations

The occupations included are as comparable across the six countries as possible. The selected occupations have different levels of customer contact and different educational requirements. We were looking for occupations that were available on job search platforms within each country, and for which there were sufficient numbers of vacant jobs within a time limit of maximum 2 years. To decide which occupations we should chose, we discussed a range of occupational covariates that one might not need to worry about in national studies, but which could be highly relevant in a cross-national design. We decided to exclude jobs in the public sector, which often have their own recruitment organizations. This implies that many female dominated occupations, such as nurses and teachers, are not included in our data, since they are mostly found in the public sector. We also decided to avoid occupations that often rely on informal recruitment of workers. This implies that many male-dominated occupations, such as mechanics or plumbers, are not included in our data, since they seem to rely on informal networks when they recruit new workers. Since we need the same occupations across all countries, we only need one country in which some of these considerations matter, to influence the data collection.

After these market discussions, we carefully considered the comparability of job tasks and content, and we decided to include four occupations with low or middle qualifications (cook, receptionist, store assistant, and payroll clerk), and two occupations which require education up to a bachelor’s degree (software developer and sales representative). Three of these occupations have relatively little customer contact (software developer, payroll clerk, and cook), whereas the other three imply higher customer contact (sales representative, receptionist, and store assistant). The following occupations are included (ISCO codes in parentheses): Cook (512), payroll clerk (2411, 3313, 411, 412), receptionist (422), sales representative (3322), software developer (252), and store assistant (522). These occupations cover approximately 15–20 per cent of the work force within each country.

Many occupations are likely to comprise different sex-typed jobs, and the occupations included here vary in their gender profiles. 7   Supplementary Table S1 provides an overview of the gender distribution in each country within each occupational category based on national statistics the year before the field experiment took place ( Lancee et al. , 2019b ). We note that receptionists and payroll clerks are female dominated, in particular in Netherlands, Norway, and the United States, whereas software developers are clearly male dominated in all countries.

The size of the labour market differs across these countries, and as the data collection took place within a limited time, the availability of job vacancies varied. This implies that in the data, for some countries, some occupations are under-represented. For instance, Norway has a low share of receptionists (4 per cent), whereas Spain has a low share of software developers (6 per cent) and sales representatives (7 per cent). We therefore add occupational controls in all our analyses.

Treatment Variable

Gender, our main treatment variable, randomly assigned the job applications, is coded ‘1’ for females and ‘0’ for males. 8 The experiment also included other treatments (see Lancee et al. , 2019a ). As these treatments are orthogonal to gender, there is no need to control for them.

Dependent Variable: Employer Response

Our main dependent variable is employer callback, which includes an invitation to an interview, an invitation to a pre-interview, and/or a request for more information. In Supplementary Information , we include analyses using only ‘invitation to an interview’, a stricter measurement of callback. As there are cross-national differences in the likelihood that employers ask job applicants for an interview (see Lancee et al. , 2019a ), we prefer the broader definition of callbacks that includes an invitation for a pre-interview and/or a request for more information. A callback rate of 0.49 means that 49 per cent of the applicants received a callback. We also calculate gender ratios, dividing female by male callback rates. A gender ratio above 1 means that male applicants are discriminated, whereas a gender ratio below 1 means that female applicants are discriminated.

Estimation Strategy

To examine cross-country variation in hiring discrimination, we start by documenting callback ratios for each occupation in each country; see Table 3 . We then estimate country-specific linear probability regression models; regressing callbacks on gender (see Supplementary Table S2 and Figure 1 ). 9 The gender coefficient provides an estimate of gender discrimination in hiring within each country, with associated standard error.

Effect of gender on callback probability. Note: Coefficients with 95 per cent confidence intervals from linear probability models estimated for each country, including occupation controls ( Supplementary Table S2 , models 1–6)

Callback ratios by country, occupation, and gender

Table 3 shows the callback rates and related gender ratios by country and occupation. We first note that out of 36 possible outcomes, 23 favour females , as indicated by callback gender ratios > 1. This is interesting, but due to the small sample for each occupation within each country, most of these outcomes are not significant by conventional standards (see right-hand column). In Germany, we find statistically significant hiring discrimination against male applicants for receptionist and store assistant jobs, with callback ratios of 1.4 and 1.9, respectively. In the Netherlands, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants for store assistant jobs, with a callback ratio of 2.2. In Spain, we find clear evidence of hiring discrimination of males in two occupations, with callback ratios of 1.9 (payroll clerk) and 4.5 (receptionist). In the United Kingdom, we find strong evidence of hiring discrimination against males in payroll clerk jobs (callback ratio of 4.8, the highest of all). Interestingly, in the data, we find no evidence of gender discrimination in hiring in Norway or the United States. Thus, the evidence shows hiring discrimination against male, not female, job applicants in 1–3 occupations within four of the six countries.

Based on country-specific regression models, Figure 1 (and Supplementary Table S2 ) shows the probability of receiving a callback separately for each country. According to these estimates, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants in United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. The gender differences range from 0 per cent in the US to 9 percentage points in Germany. Thus, we observe gender discrimination in hiring against men in four out of six countries. 10

As shown in Supplementary Table S3 , only one of the contrasts is significant, namely, that between the United States and Germany, the countries with the lowest and highest gender coefficients, respectively. However, given that there are 30 contrasts in this equation, we would expect to observe 1–2 significant outcomes (5 per cent) by chance.

Thus far, the field experiment has revealed that employers discriminate against male but not female applicants. Second, although the gender coefficients are statistically significant in four out of six countries (United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain), we find no convincing evidence of cross-national differences in gender discrimination. 11 Given the widespread evidence of female labour market disadvantage and the large cross-national variation in structural, institutional, and cultural dimensions documented in Table 2 , our finding of no cross-national differences in hiring discrimination is surprising. However, no previous study has examined this topic in a rigorous comparative way.

When using invitation for an interview, a stricter definition of callbacks, as the dependent variable, we find smaller country differences in gender discrimination in hiring (compare Figure 1 with Supplementary Figure S1 ). As the stricter version of callback (invitation for an interview) are less frequent than the wider version, the standard errors for these estimates are slightly larger, which can be seen by comparing Figure 1 with Supplementary Figure S1 . This means that for the interview variable, the 95 per cent confidence intervals are slightly wider, and that it is only for Spain where the estimate is statistically significant.

Despite recent changes, on average, women still have lower earnings and worse career prospects. These well-known facts are true according to reliable and national representative data, such as labour force surveys and register data. The key question is why. Broadly speaking, two explanations have been provided. First, women and men might sort into different jobs because of their different educational and occupational choices, and their different work–life balance preferences and constraints, all of which accumulate to different employment trajectories and outcomes. This is the supply-side story. Second, men and women might sort into different jobs because employers discriminate women, particularly in the best-paid jobs. According to this demand-side explanation, hiring discrimination against women would be an important explanation for women’s labour-market disadvantage. Because studies based on observational data cannot empirically adjudicate between supply and demand side explanations, there is a need for field experiments to provide reliable and valid estimates of employers’ hiring discrimination.

Interestingly, the story jointly told by previous field experiments clashes with the conventional account of female disadvantage. It is often the fictitious male applicants, not the females, who are discriminated in hiring processes. In particular, there is evidence that women are favoured in female-dominated occupations. However, the heterogeneity of previous studies, in terms of occupations included, timing of the studies, and at what geographical level (local or national) they took place, makes comparisons difficult. Against this background, we made use of a harmonized field experiment in six countries to provide comparable, reliable, and balanced cross-national documentation of hiring discrimination against men and women.

The field experimental data show no evidence of hiring discrimination against women in any of the occupations in any of the countries included. The countries vary in a number of institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions potentially affecting employers’ likelihood of discriminating against women. We also included occupations varying in skill requirements and customer contact. And, as documented in footnote 7, the manual job content of our occupations vary from high (cooks) to low (payroll clerks). The findings reported in this study therefore constitute an important and robust piece of evidence that young women are not discriminated in the first phase of the hiring process in any of the occupations studied in any of the countries studied.

Second, we found hiring discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom, where male applicants were less likely to receive a callback when they applied for jobs as store assistants (Germany and the Netherlands), receptionists (Spain and Germany), and payroll clerks (Spain and the United Kingdom). We found no hiring discrimination against men in Norway and in the United States. However, when pooling the data, we found no statistically significant differences across countries, perhaps with the exception of the contrast between Germany and the United States.

Understanding Gender Discrimination

With these findings in mind, how can we better understand gender discrimination in hiring? We did not find any support for the generic belief that women are disadvantaged in hiring processes, as implied both in models of cultural stereotypes and statistical discrimination, where employers are assumed to believe that women are potentially unstable workers, more likely to quit their jobs to attend their families and/or generally less committed to their firms. Gender stereotypes where women are seen as mothers and housewives seem less important in hiring processes today than in the past. According to our findings, these stereotypes seem not to operate at all. We suggest a few tentative interpretations of why this is the case. First, most women today are not primarily homemakers. Second, females are more likely to be hiring agents, in particular in female-dominated occupations, and we cannot rule out the possibility of in-group (same gender) favouritism benefiting female candidates. Third, in female occupations, hiring agents might find women more stable employees than men, who might be more likely to pursue a career, thereby leaving the job they were hired for. We should also remember that the job candidates we constructed are young workers with only 4 years of working experience. This means the presented evidence does not preclude the possibility of discrimination against women in hiring, earnings, or promotion opportunities later in the career.

Interestingly, the evidence on hiring discrimination against men would seem compatible with existing theories about gender stereotypes that were formulated to account for women’s disadvantage. Perspectives emphasizing the sex typing of jobs, gender categorization within work organizations, role congruency, and stereotype contents, all seem relevant for explaining discrimination against men in the matching process. Theoretically, these cultural perspectives are also compatible with the economic model of employers as (limited) rational actors who try to find the best match between job tasks and job applicants. If employers perceive certain jobs as more appropriate for women, male applicants, even if formally qualified, may be devaluated because employers believe that they are poor matches for the sex-typed job tasks. For jobs that are not sex-typed, gender stereotypes do not seem to matter in the matching process.

The above-mentioned theories should lead to symmetrical expectations of hiring discrimination against applicants with the ‘wrong sex’ in sex-typed jobs. Thus, they cannot help us understand why women were not discriminated in the male-dominated occupation we included: software developers, an occupation which requires continuous training and where job disruptions are particularly hazardous for employers. To understand this, we can only speculate. It could be that the IT sector is more tolerant, pioneering a new work–life gender-egalitarian culture ( Faulkner, 2009 , but see Bertogg et al. , 2020 ). Alternatively, given the low proportion of women who enter STEM fields, IT employers might believe female applicants are positively selected in unobserved characteristics. Another possibility is that employers might be nervous that they have implicit or hidden bias against women. As a result, they may overreact and give women advantages in hiring. Whatever the reason is, finding no hiring discrimination against women in IT jobs constitutes an important challenge to both cultural and economic theories of ‘gender’ discrimination.

However surprising, the presented evidence is not at odds with previous research on hiring discrimination. The key to explaining divergent results likely lies in the occupations studied. For balanced studies, including both female- and male-dominated occupations, and gender-neutral occupations, the aggregate outcome would be close to zero gender discrimination in hiring. For more unbalanced studies, like the GEMM study, which includes two clearly female-typed occupations, and only one strongly male-dominated occupation, we might expect an aggregated pattern showing hiring discrimination against men. In principle, the same logic should apply for unbalanced studies including a higher proportion of male dominated occupations, but then we would expect an aggregated pattern of hiring discrimination of females. Yet the findings regarding the male-dominated occupation we included cast doubts on the symmetrical nature of hiring discrimination by gender. Interestingly, when scholars plan to study gender differences in hiring discrimination, we tend to think about discrimination of women, not men, yet previous experiments seem to include more female- than male-dominated occupations. More research including more occupations is needed.

Lack of Cross-National Variation

Despite differences in labour market conditions, family policies, and cultural norms, we found no clear evidence of cross-national variation in hiring discrimination. An explanation might be that the associations of gender stereotypes and jobs, while culturally embedded, are fairly universal across advanced Western economies (but see Supplementary Table S1 for national variations in occupational gender distributions), and hiring agents across these societies are similarly influenced by these views. Given the embeddedness of job-specific gender stereotypes, one might be pessimistic with regard to the possibilities of policy reforms to encourage gender balance. In addition, the implications of our study appear even more serious given that male-dominated occupations related to the industrial society are gradually vanishing. On the other hand, if gender-neutral occupations are growing in size, gender stereotypes will become less important over time. Thus, we have a cultural and a structural argument, and future research would benefit from addressing both arguments.

Naturally, this study has limitations. Field experiments investigate discrimination in the initial stages of the hiring process and do not give information about who gets the jobs, at what wages, and with what career opportunities. Second, the field experiment provides information about the outcomes of job applications for young applicants 22–26 years of age, and we cannot know what the situation would have looked like if we had included older fictitious applicants. Similarly, we have not tested employers’ reactions to applicants with family obligations. It should be noted though, that a Swedish study including older applicants, found no difference in employers’ reactions to mothers and fathers ( Bygren, Erlandsson and Gähler, 2017 ).

Field experiments cannot cover the whole labour market, and the outcomes of these experiments are only representative for the included occupations. The GEMM study includes six occupations, requiring an educational level varying from a high school diploma to a bachelor’s degree. With a limited number of male and female applications within each occupation, we are abstained from analysing in more detail the variation in types of jobs within occupations (e.g. managerial jobs).

We believe that the implications of our findings are important. In particular, we need to update our knowledge of gender discrimination and the belief that women are always the disadvantaged group. This belief might have been correct earlier, but today, at least for the occupations we examined, we found no evidence of hiring discrimination against female job applicants in any of the six countries included. Rather, we observed hiring discrimination against males in female-dominated jobs, whereas female applicants were favoured in female-dominated occupations and not discriminated in the other occupations we included. Future research should explore more in-depth the mechanisms associated with this (reversed) gender gap in hiring discrimination and delineate its boundary conditions.

For information on ‘Growth, Equal Opportunities, Migration and Markets’ (GEMM) project, financed by Horizon2020, see http://gemm2020.eu/ .

If employers act upon a perceived group difference in the variance of unobserved expected productivity, field experimental evidence of discrimination may not be very informative ( Heckman and Siegelman, 1993 ). Using the method proposed by Neumark (2012) , Baert (2015) found no evidence of this bias related to gender heterogeneity.

Several concepts have been introduced to differentiate so-called error discrimination ( England, 1994 ) and stereotype-based discrimination ( Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011 ) from the economic-rational model, but the theory of statistical discrimination (albeit with bounded rationality) can easily accommodate the notion of stereotypes affecting employers’ hiring decisions.

See Di Stasio and Larsen (2020) for a study of the combined effects of ethnicity and gender on employers callbacks, based on the GEMM occupations.

To find suitable names for the applicants, an online name search was conducted on the websites of national name registers and the most frequent names in the applicants’ birth year were listed. Names were then carefully chosen to avoid connotations to religion or class. Finally, we used official register data to identify the most common surnames in each country. For the United States, we used census data ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 ) to ensure that employers would identify the names as typical white names.

The age used for fictitious job applicants in field experiments of gender discrimination in hiring varies. See Table 1 .

The O*NET dataset (previously called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles) provides very detailed information of the task-content of occupations in the United States. It covers 449 detailed occupations and provides 277 descriptors for each occupation. Using these data, we performed a factor analysis to measure the manual skill content of the jobs. We converted 2,000 US Census occupations into their ISCO-88 four-digit equivalents by means of a crosswalk provided by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. We found that the GEMM occupations vary between having a manual job content score of 0.76 (cooks) to 0.23 (payroll clerks). See also Ortega and Polavieja (2012) .

We would have needed a much larger sample if we were to include more than a binary gender variable.

Due to the well-known problems with logistic regression ( Mood, 2010 ), especially concerning comparisons across samples and interaction effects, we do not present logit models here. The results are generally similar and are available upon request.

Using a narrower definition of callbacks, see Supplementary Information , we find significantly higher callbacks to women (0.07 and 0.06) in Spain and the Netherlands, whereas the gender coefficient, albeit positive in favour of females, is not significant in the other countries.

The constant terms in Supplementary Table S2 indicate the probability of receiving a callback for male applicants. They vary from low (Spain: 0.19) via moderately low in the United Kingdom, Norway, and the United States (with intervals between 0.32 and 0.50), to high in Germany and the Netherlands (0.70–0.74). These cross-national differences in baseline callbacks reflect country-level differences in demand for labour and/or a better fit of the applications.

Supplementary data are available at ESR online.

This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 649255; the Research Council of Norway, grant number 287016; The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), (016.Vidi.185.041). We thank Laura García Llamas and Louis Klobes for valuable research assistance.

Conflict of interest

We are aware of no potential conflict of interest that might raise questions of bias in our work.

Acker J. ( 1990 ). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations . Gender & Society , 4 , 139 – 158 .

Google Scholar

Ahmed A. , Granberg M. , Khanna S. ( 2021 ). Gender discrimination in hiring: an experimental reexamination of the Swedish case . Plos One , 16 , 0245513 .

Albert R. , Escot L. , Fernández-Cornejo J. A. ( 2011 ). A field experiment to study sex and age discrimination in the Madrid labour market . International Journal of Human Resource Management , 22 , 351 – 375 .

Arrow K. J.   1972 . Models of job discrimination. In Pascal A. H. (Eds.), Racial Discrimination in Economic Life . New York : Lexington Books , pp. 83 – 102 .

Google Preview

Azmat G. , Petrongolo B. ( 2014 ). Gender and the labor market: what have we learned from field and lab experiments?   Labour Economics , 30 , 32 – 40 .

Baert S. ( 2015 ). Field experimental evidence on gender discrimination in hiring: biased as Heckman and Siegelman predicted? . Economics , 9 , 1 – 11 .

Baert S. , Pauw A.-S. D. , Deschacht N. ( 2016 ). Do employer preferences contribute to sticky floors?   Industrial and Labor Relations Review , 63 , 714 – 736 .

Becker S. O. , Fernandes A. , Weichselbaumer D. ( 2019 ). Discrimination in hiring based on potential and realized fertility: evidence from a large-scale field experiment . Labour Economics , 59 , 139 – 152 .

Berson C.   2012 . Does Competition Induce Hiring Equity? , available from: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00718627/document [accessed 24 September 2021] .

Bertogg A.  et al.  ( 2020 ). Gender discrimination in the hiring of skilled professionals in two male-dominated occupational fields: a factorial survey experiment with real-world vacancies and recruiters in four European countries . Köln Z Soziol   (Suppl 1) 72 , 261 – 289 .

Bielby W. T. , Baron J. N. ( 1986 ). Men and women at work: sex segregation and statistical discrimination . American Journal of Sociology , 91 , 759 – 799 .

Birkelund G. E. ( 2016 ). Rational laziness – when time is limited, supply abundant, and decisions have to be made . Analyse & Kritik. Zeitschrift Für Sozialtheorie , 38 , 203 – 226 .

Birkelund G. E.  et al.  ( 2019 ). Do terrorist attacks affect ethnic discrimination in the labour market? Evidence from two randomized field experiments . British Journal of Sociology , 70 , 241 – 260 .

Blau F. D. , Kahn L. M. ( 2017 ). The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations . Journal of Economic Literature , 55 , 789 – 865 .

Bobbitt-Zeher D. ( 2011 ). Gender discrimination at work: connecting gender stereotypes, institutional policies, and gender composition of workplace . Gender & Society , 25 , 764 – 786 .

Booth A. , Leigh A. ( 2010 ). Do employers discriminate by gender? A field experiment in female-dominated occupations . Economics Letters , 107 , 236 – 238 .

Brandén M. , Bygren M. , Gähler M. ( 2018 ). Can the trailing spouse phenomenon be explained by employer recruitment choices?   Population, Space and Place , 24 , e2141.

Bygren M. , Erlandsson A. , Gähler M. ( 2017 ). Do employers prefer fathers? Evidence from a field experiment testing the gender by parenthood interaction effect on callbacks to job applications . European Sociological Review , 33 , 337 – 348 .

Capéau B.  et al.  ( 2012 ). Two Concepts of Discriminaiton: Inequality of Opportunity versus Unequal Treatment of Equals. ECARES Working Paper No. 2012/58.

Carlsson M. ( 2011 ). Does hiring discrimination cause gender segregation in the Swedish labor market?   Feminist Economics , 17 , 71 – 102 .

Carlsson M. , Eriksson S. ( 2017 ). The Effect of Age and Gender on Labor Demand Evidence from a Field Experiment . Working Paper No. 2017:4. Sweden: Linnaeus University.

Carlsson R.  et al.  ( 2014 ). Testing for Backlash in Hiring: A Field Experiment on Agency, Communion, and Gender . Working paper. Sweden: Linnaeus University.

Castilla E. J. , Benard S. ( 2010 ). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations . Administrative Science Quarterly , 55 , 543 – 676 .

Cejka M. A. , Eagly A. H. ( 1999 ). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25 , 413 – 423 .

Chang M. L. ( 2004 ). Growing pains: cross-national variation in sex segregation in sixteen developing countries . American Sociological Review , 69 , 114 – 137 .

Charles M. ( 2011 ). A world of difference: international trends in women’s economic status . Annual Review of Sociology , 37 , 355 – 371 .

Correll S. J. , Benard S. , Paik I. ( 2007 ). Getting a job: is there a motherhood penalty?   American Journal of Sociology , 112 , 1297 – 1338 .

Cuddy A. J. C. , Fiske S. T. , Glick P. ( 2008 ). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 40 , 61 – 149 .

Di Stasio V. , Lancee B. ( 2019 ). Understanding why employers discriminate, where and against whom: the potential of cross-national, factorial and multi-group field experiments. Research in Stratification and Mobility , available from: 10.1016/j.rssm.2019.100463

Di Stasio V. , Larsen E. N. ( 2020 ). The racialized and gendered workplace: applying an intersectional lens to a field experiment on hiring discrimination in five European labor markets . Social Psychology Quarterly , 83 , 229 – 250 .

Duguet E.  et al.  ( 2012 ). First order stochastic dominance and the measurement of hiring discriminaiton: a ranking extension of correspondence testing with an application to gender and origin, available from: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00731005/

Duguet E. , Loïc D. and , Petit P. ( 2017 ). Hiring discrimination against women: distinguishing taste based discrimination from statistical discrimination . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3083957 or 10.2139/ssrn.3083957 .

England P. ( 1994 ). Neoclassical economists’ theories of discrimination. In Burstein P. (Ed.) , Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy . New York : Aldine De Gruyter , pp. 59 – 70 .

Fang H. , Moro A. ( 2011 ). Theories of statistical discrimination and affirmative action: a survey. In Benhabib J. , Bisin A. , Jackson M. O. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Economics . San Diego : Elsevier , Chapter 5, pp. 133 – 200 .

Faulkner W. ( 2009 ). Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. I. Observations from the Field . Engineering Studies , 1 , 3 – 18 .

Fernández R. ( 2013 ). Cultural change as learning: the evolution of female labor force participation over a century . American Economic Review , 103 , 472 – 500 .

Fortin N. M. ( 2005 ). Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across OECD countries . Oxford Review of Economic Policy , 21 , 416 – 438 .

Gaddis S. M. (Ed.). ( 2018 ). An introduction to audit studies in the social sciences. In Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance . Cham : Springer , pp. 3 – 44 .

Gangl M. , Ziefle A. ( 2009 ). Motherhood, labor force behavior and women’s careers: an empirical assessment of the wage penalty for motherhood in Britain, Germany and the United States . Demography , 46 , 341 – 369 .

Glick P. , Fiske S. T. ( 1996 ). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile from benevolent sexism . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , 491 – 512 .

Glick P. , Zion C. , Nelson C. ( 1988 ). What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions? . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55 , 178 .

Goldin C. ( 2014 ). A grand gender convergence: its last chapter . American Economic Review , 104 , 1091 – 1119 .

González M. J. , Cortina C. , Rodríguez J. ( 2019 ). The role of gender stereotypes in hiring: a field experiment . European Sociological Review , 35 , 187 – 204 .

Halper L. R. , Cowgill C. M. , Rios K. ( 2019 ). Gender bias in caregiving professions: the role of perceived warmth . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 49 , 1 – 14 .

Heckman J. J. , Siegelman P. ( 1993 ). The urban institute audit studies: their methods and findings. In Fix M. , Struyk R. (Eds.), Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America . Washington, DC : Urban Institute Press .

Hofstede Insights ( 2020 ). Compare Countries , available from: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/ [accessed 25 June 2020].

Jackson M. ( 2009 ). Disadvantaged through discrimination? The role of employers in social stratification . The British Journal of Sociology , 60 , 669 – 692 .

Jacobsen J. , Khamis M. , Yuksel M. ( 2015 ). Convergence in men’s and women’s life patterns: lifetime work, lifetime earnings, and human capital investment . Research in Labor Economics , 41 , 1 – 33 .

Lancee B. ( 2019 ). Ethnic discrimination in hiring: comparing groups across contexts. Results from a cross-national field experiment . Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 47 , 1181 – 1200 .

Lancee B.  et al.  ( 2019a ). The GEMM Study: A Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment on Labour Market Discrimination: Codebook .http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3398273

Lancee B.  et al.  ( 2019b ). The GEMM Study: A Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment on Labour Market Discrimination: Technical Report . 10.2139/ssrn.3398191

Larsen E. N. ( 2020 ). Induced competition in matched correspondence tests: conceptual and methodological considerations . Research in Social Stratification and Mobility , 65 , 100475 .

Levanon A. , Grusky D. B. ( 2016 ). The persistence of extreme gender segregation in the twenty-first century . American Journal of Sociology , 22 , 573 – 619 .

Mandel H. , Semyonov M. ( 2006 ). A welfare state paradox: state interventions and women’s employment opportunities in 22 countries . American Journal of Sociology , 111 , 1910 – 1949 .

Mood C. ( 2010 ). Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it . European Sociological Review , 26 , 67 – 82 .

Neumark D. ( 2012 ). Detecting discrimination in audit and correspondence studies . Journal of Human Resources , 47 , 1128 – 1157 .

Neumark D. ( 2018 ). Experimental research on labor market discrimination . Journal of Economic Literature , 56 , 799 – 866 .

Neumark D. , Bank R. J. , Van Nort K. D. ( 1996 ). Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: an audit study . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 111 , 915 – 941 .

OECD. ( 2015 ). Education at a Glance 2015 , available from: https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/gender-gap-in-education.htm [accessed 5 January 2020].

OECD. ( 2017 ). Short-Term Labour Market Statistics , available from: https://stats.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=STLABOUR&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en ) [accessed 24 June 2020].

OECD. ( 2019 ). “Unemployment rate”. OECD Employment Outlook , available from: https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm

OECD. ( 2020a ). Index of Regulation on Individual Dismissal of Workers with Regular Contracts , available from: https://www1.compareyourcountry.org/employment-protection-legislation/en/0/178/ranking/ [accessed 23 June 2020].

OECD. ( 2020b ). Length of Maternity Leave, Parental Leave and Paid Father-Specific Leave , available from: https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/length-of-maternity-leave-parental-leave-and-paid-father-specific-leave.htm [accessed 25 June 2020].

OECD. ( 2020c ). OECD Family Database , available from: http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm [accessed 25 June 2020].

OECD. ( 2020d ). Exployment: Share of Employed In Part-Time Employment, by Sex and Age Group , available from: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54746 [accessed 25 June 2020].

Petersen T. , Morgan L. A. ( 1995 ). Separate and unequal: occupation establishment sex-segregation and the gender wage-gap . American Journal of Sociology , 101 , 329 – 365 .

Petersen T. , Saporta I. ( 2004 ). The opportunity structure for discrimination . American Journal of Sociology , 109 , 852 – 901 .

Petit P. ( 2007 ). The effects of age and family constraints on gender hiring discrimination: a field experiment in the French financial sector . Labour Econ , 14 , 371 – 391 .

Pew Research Center. ( 2017 ). In Many Countries at Least Four-in-Ten in the Labor Force are Women , available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/07/in-many-countries-at-least-four-in-ten-in-the-labor-force-are-women/ [accessed 25 June 2020].

Phelps E. S. ( 1972 ). The statistical theory of racism and sexism . American Economic Review , 62 , 659 – 661 .

Polavieja J. G. ( 2012 ). Socially embedded investments: explaining gender differences in job-specific skills . American Journal of Sociology , 118 , 592 – 634 .

Polavieja J. G. ( 2015 ). Capturing culture: a new method to estimate exogenous cultural effects using migrant populations . American Sociological Review , 80 , 166 – 191 .

Reskin: Plenum B. F. ( 2000 ). Employment discrimination and its remedies. In Berg I. and Kalleberg A. (Eds.), Handbook on Labor Market Research . New York .

Reskin B. F. , Roos P. A. ( 1990 ). Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Riach P. A. , Rich J. ( 1987 ). Testing for Sexual Discrimination in the Labour Market . Australian Economic Papers , 26 , 165 – 178 .

Riach P. A. , Rich J. ( 2002 ). Field experiments of discrimination in the market place . The Economic Journal , 112 , F480 – F518 .

Riach P. A. , Rich J. ( 2006 ). An experimental investigation of sexual discrimination in hiring in the English labor market . The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy , 6 , available from: http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/advances/vol6/iss2/art1

Rich J. ( 2014 ). What Do Field Experiments of Discrimination in Markets Tell Us? A Meta Analysis of Studies Conducted since 2000 . IZA Discussion Paper No. 8584. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2517887 .

Ridgeway C. L. ( 1997 ). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: considering employment . American Sociological Review , 62 , 218 – 235 .

Rivera L. A. , Tilcsik A. ( 2016 ). Class advantage, commitment penalty: the gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labor market . American Sociological Review , 81 , 1097 – 1131 .

Rudman L. , Phelan J. E. ( 2008 ). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations . Research in Organizational Behavior , 28 , 61 – 79 .

Stier H. , Lewin-Epstein N. , Braun M. ( 2001 ). Welfare regimes, family-supportive policies, and women’s employment along the life-course . American Journal of Sociology , 106 , 1731 – 1760 .

The World Economic Forum. ( 2017 ). The Global Gender Gap Report 2017 , available from: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2017

Torre M. ( 2014 ). The scarring effect of “women’s work”: the determinants of women’s attrition from male-dominated occupations . Social Forces , 93 , 1 – 29 .

Torre M. ( 2018 ). Stopgappers? The occupational trajectories of men in female-dominated occupations . Work and Occupations , 45 , 283 – 312 .

U.S. Census Bureau. ( 2010 ). Frequently Occurring Surnames from the 2010 Census , available from: https://www.census.gov/topics/population/genealogy/data/2010_surnames.html [accessed 18 January 2019].

Vuolo M. , Uggen C. , Lageson S. ( 2018 ). To match or not to match? Statistical and substantive considerations in audit design and analysis. In Gaddis S. M. (Ed.), Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance . Cham : Springer , pp. 119 – 140 .

Weichselbaumer D. ( 2004 ). Is it sex or personality? The impact of sex stereotypes on discrimination in applicant selection . Eastern Economic Journal , 30 , 159 – 186 .

Weichselbaumer D. , Winter-Ebmer R. ( 2005 ). A meta-analysis of the international gender wage gap . Journal of Economic Surveys , 19 , 479 – 511 .

Williams C. L. , Muller C. , Kilanski K. ( 2012 ). Gendered organizations in the new economy . Gender & Society , 26 , 549 – 573 .

Williams W. M. , Ceci S. J. ( 2015 ). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track . PNAS , 112 , 5360 – 5365 .

Yavorsky J. E. ( 2019 ). Uneven patterns of inequality: an audit analysis of hiring-related practicies by gendered and classed contexts . Social Forces , 98 , 461 – 492 .

Zhou X. , Zhang J. , Song X. ( 2013 ). Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from 19,130 Resumes in China . MPRA paper No. 43543. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2195840 or 10.2139/ssrn.2195840 .

Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund is a Professor of Sociology at University of Oslo. Her main research interests include analytical sociology, labor market studies, social inequalities, and population dynamics. She is a Fellow at The European Academy of Sociology, and Secretary General at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Her articles have appeared in European Sociological Review, Social Forces, International Migration Review, European Societies, and, earlier, in American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review .

Bram Lancee is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. Current research interests include social capital, ethnic minorities and the labour market, inequality, attitudes towards immigration, and ethnic discrimination. His work has been published in journals, such as Social Forces, European Sociological Review, International Migration Review, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, and Social Science Research.

Edvard N. Larsen is a postdoctoral researcher in Sociology at the University of Oslo, and Researcher II at the KIFO Institute of Church, Religion, and Worldview research. His main research interests are social inequality, migration, labor market discrimination, and religion. His work has been published in the journals Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , Social Psychology Quarterly , and Research on Social Stratification and Mobility .

Javier Polavieja (Oxford University PhD in Sociology, 2001) is Banco Santander Professor of Sociology and Director of the D-Lab at the Department of Social Sciences, University Carlos III of Madrid, as well as Research Fellow at the Institute of Economics and the Carlos III-Juan March Institute. His main fields of research are social stratification, political sociology, and migration research. His work has been published in American Journal of Sociology , American Sociological Review , European Sociological Review , Social Forces , Socio-Economic Review , Labour Economics , Political Behavior , Electoral Studies , International Migration , and Social Indicators Research .

Jonas Radl is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid and Head of the Research Group ‘Effort and Social Inequality’ at WZB Berlin Social Science Center. Current research interests comprise social stratification and the life course. His work has been published in journals such as European Sociological Review , Social Forces , and Socio-economic Review .

Ruta Yemane is a Research Fellow at WZB Berlin Social Science Center in the migration, integration, and transnationalization research unit. Her research focuses on labor market discrimination, racism, and stereotypes. Her work has been published in the British Journal of Social Psychology and the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2672
• Print ISSN 0266-7215
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research

• Open Access
• First Online: 09 April 2021

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Rosita Fibbi 4 ,
• Arnfinn H. Midtbøen 5 &
• Patrick Simon 6  

Part of the book series: IMISCOE Research Series ((IMIS))

11k Accesses

Increasing migration-related diversity in Europe has fostered dramatic changes since the 1950s, among them the rise of striking ethno-racial inequalities in employment, housing, health, and a range of other social domains. These ethno-racial disadvantages can be understood as evidence of widespread discrimination; however, scholarly debates reflect striking differences in the conceptualization and measurement of discrimination in the social sciences. Indeed, what discrimination is, as well as how and why it operates, are differently understood and studied by the various scholarships and scientific fields. It is the ambition of this book to summarize how we frame, study, theorize, and aim at combatting ethno-racial discrimination in Europe.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

European societies are more ethnically diverse than ever. The increasing migration-related diversity has fostered dramatic changes since the 1950s, among them the rise of striking ethno-racial inequalities in employment, housing, health, and a range of other social domains. The sources of these enduring inequalities have been a subject of controversy for decades. To some scholars, ethno-racial gaps in such outcomes are seen as transitional bumps in the road toward integration, while others view structural racism, ethnic hostility, and subtle forms of outgroup-bias as fundamental causes of persistent ethno-racial inequalities. These ethno-racial disadvantages can be understood as evidence of widespread discrimination; however, scholarly debates reflect striking differences in the conceptualization and measurement of discrimination in the social sciences.

What discrimination is, as well as how and why it operates, are differently understood and studied by the various scholarships and scientific fields. A large body of research has been undertaken over the previous three decades, using a variety of methods – qualitative, quantitative, and experimental. These research efforts have improved our knowledge of the dynamics of discrimination in Europe and beyond. It is the ambition of this book to summarize how we frame, study, theorize, and aim at combatting ethno-racial discrimination in Europe.

1.1 Post-War Immigration and the Ethno-racial Diversity Turn

Even though ethnic and racial diversity has existed to some extent in Europe (through the slave trade, transnational merchants, and colonial troops), the scope of migration-related diversity reached an unprecedented level in the period following World War II. This period coincides with broader processes of decolonization and the beginning of mass migration from non-European countries, be it from former colonies to the former metropoles (from the Caribbean or India and Pakistan to the UK; South-East Asia, North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa to France) or in the context of labor migration without prior colonial ties (from Turkey to Germany or the Netherlands; Morocco to Belgium or the Netherlands, etc.).

The ethnic and racial diversity in large demographic figures began in the 1960s (Van Mol and de Valk 2016 ). At this time, most labor migrants were coming from other European countries, but figures of non-European migration were beginning to rise: in 1975, 8% of the population in France and the UK had a migration background, half of which originated from a non-European country. By contrast, in 2014, 9.2% of the population of the EU28 had a migration background from outside of Europe (either foreign born or native-born from foreign-born parent(s)), and this share reached almost 16% in Sweden; 14% in the Netherlands, France, and the UK; and between 10 and 13% in Germany, Belgium, and Austria. The intensification of migration, especially from Asia and Africa, has heightened the visibility of ethno-racial diversity in large European metropolises. Almost 50% of inhabitants in Amsterdam and Rotterdam have a “nonwestern allochthon ” background (2014), 40% of Londoners are black or ethnic minorities (2011), while 30% of Berliners (2013) and 43% of Parisians (metropolitan area; 2009) have a migration background. The major facts of this demographic evolution are not only that diversity has reached a point of “super-diversity” (see Vertovec 2007 ; Crul 2016 ) in size and origins, but also that descendants of immigrants (i.e., the second generation) today make up a significant demographic group in most European countries, with the exception of Southern Europe where immigration first boomed in the 2000s.

The coming of age of the second generation has challenged the capacity of different models of integration to fulfill promises of equality, while the socio-cultural cohesion of European societies is changing and has to be revised to include ethnic and racial diversity. Native-born descendants of immigrants are socialized in the country of their parents’ migration and, in most European countries, share the full citizenship of the country where they live and, consequently, the rights attached to it. However, an increasing number of studies show that even the second generation faces disadvantages in education, employment, and housing that cannot be explained by their lack of skills or social capital (Heath and Cheung 2007 ). The transmission of penalties from one generation to the other – and in some cases an even higher level of penalty for the second generation than for the first – cannot be explained solely by the deficiencies in human, social, and cultural capital, as could have been the case for low-skilled labor migrants arriving in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, the persistence of ethno-racial disadvantages among citizens who do not differ from others except for their ethnic background, their skin color, or their religious beliefs is a testament to the fact that equality for all is an ambition not yet achieved.

Citizenship status may represent a basis for differential treatment. Undoubtedly, citizenship status is generally considered a legitimate basis for differential treatment, which is therefore not acknowledged as discrimination. Indeed, in many European countries, the divide between nationals and European Union (EU) citizens lost its bearing with the extension of social rights to EU citizens (Koopmans et al. 2012 ). Yet, in other countries, and for non-EU citizens, foreign citizenship status creates barriers to access to social subsidies, health care, specific professions, and pensions or exposure to differential treatment in criminal justice. In most countries, voting rights are conditional to citizenship, and the movement to expand the polity to non-citizens is uneven, at least for elections of representatives at the national parliaments. Notably, in countries with restrictive access to naturalization, citizenship status may provide an effective basis for unequal treatment (Hainmueller and Hangartner 2013 ). The issue of discrimination among nationals, therefore, should not overshadow the enduring citizenship-based inequalities.

The gap between ethnic diversity among the population and scarcity of the representation of this diversity in the economic, political, and cultural elites demonstrate that there are obstacles to minorities entering these positions. This picture varies across countries and social domains. The UK, Belgium, or the Netherlands display a higher proportion of elected politicians with a migration background than France or Germany (Alba and Foner 2015 ). Some would argue that it is only a matter of time before newcomers will take their rank in the queue and access the close ring of power in one or two generations. Others conclude that there is a glass ceiling for ethno-racial minorities, which will prove as efficient as that for women to prevent them from making their way to the top. The exception that proves the rule can be found in sports, where athletes with minority backgrounds are often well represented in high-level competitions. The question is how to narrow the gap in other domains of social life, and what this gap tells us about the structures of inequalities in European societies.

1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe

Discrimination is as old as human society. However, the use of the concept in academic research and policy debates in Europe is fairly recent. In the case of differential treatment of ethnic and racial minorities, the concept was typically related to blatant forms of racism and antisemitism, while the more subtle forms of stigmatization, subordination, and exclusion for a long time did not receive much attention as forms of “everyday racism” (Essed 1991 ). The turn from explicit racism to more subtle forms of selection and preference based on ethnicity and race paved the way to current research on discrimination. In European societies, where formal equality is a fundamental principle protected by law, discrimination is rarely observed directly. Contrary to overt racism, which is explicit and easily identified, discrimination is typically a hidden part of decisions, selection processes, and choices that are not explicitly based on ethnic or racial characteristics, even though they produce unfair biases. Discrimination does not have to be intentional and it is often not even a conscious part of human action and interaction. While it is clear that discrimination exists, this form of differential treatment is hard to make visible. The major task of research in the field is thus to provide evidence of the processes and magnitude of discrimination. Beyond the variety of approaches in the different disciplines, however, discrimination researchers tend to agree on the starting point: stereotypes and prejudices are nurturing negative perceptions, more or less explicit, of individuals or groups through processes of ethnicization or racialization, which in turn create biases in decision-making processes and serve as barriers to opportunities for these individuals or groups.

Although the concepts of inequality, discrimination, and racism are sometimes used interchangeably, the concept of discrimination entails specificities in terms of social processes, power relations, and legal frameworks that have opened new perspectives to understand ethnic and racial inequalities. The genealogy of the concept and its diffusion in scientific publications still has to be studied thoroughly, and we searched in major journals to identify broad historical sequences across national contexts. Until the 1980s, the use of the concept of discrimination was not widespread in the media, public opinion, science, or policies. In scientific publications, the dissemination of the concept was already well advanced in the US at the beginning of the twentieth century in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery to describe interracial relations. In Europe, there is a sharp distinction between the UK and continental Europe in this regard. The development of studies referring explicitly to discrimination in the UK has a clear link to the post-colonial migration after World War II and the foundation of ethnic and racial studies in the 1960s. However, the references to discrimination remained quite limited in the scientific literature until the 1990s – even in specialized journals such as Ethnic and Racial Studies , New Community and its follower Journal for Ethnic and Migration Studies , and more recently Ethnicities  – when the number of articles containing the term discrimination in their title or keywords increased significantly. In French-speaking journals, references to discrimination were restricted to a small number of feminist journals in the 1970s and became popular in the 1990s and 2000s in mainstream social science journals. The same held true in Germany, with a slight delay in the middle of the 2000s. Since the 2000s, the scientific publications on discrimination have reached new peaks in most European countries.

The year 2000 stands as a turning point in the development of research and public interest in discrimination in continental Europe. This date coincides with the legal recognition of discrimination by the parliament of the EU through a directive “implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,” more commonly called the “Race Equality Directive.” This directive put ethnic and racial discrimination on the political agenda of EU countries. This political decision contributed to changing the legal framework of EU countries, which incorporated non-discrimination as a major reference and transposed most of the terms of the Race Equality Directive into their national legislation. The implementation of the directive was also a milestone in the advent of the awareness of discrimination in Europe. In order to think in terms of discrimination, there should be a principle of equal treatment applied to everyone, regardless of their ethnicity or race. This principle of equal treatment is not new, but it has remained quite formal for a long time. The Race Equality Directive represented a turning point toward a more effective and proactive approach to achieve equality and accrued sensitivity to counter discrimination wherever it takes place.

The first step to mobilize against discrimination is to launch awareness-raising campaigns to create a new consciousness of the existence of ethno-racial disadvantages. The denial of discrimination is indeed a paradoxical consequence of the extension of formal equality in post-war democratic regimes. Since racism is morally condemned and legally prohibited, it is expected that discrimination should not occur and, thus, that racism is incidental. Incidentally, an opinion survey conducted in 2000 for the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (which was replaced in 2003 by the Fundamental Rights Agency [FRA]), showed that only 31% of respondents in the EU15 at the time agreed that discrimination should be outlawed. However, the second Eurobarometer explicitly dedicated to studying discrimination in 2007 found that ethnic discrimination was perceived as the most widespread (very or fairly) type of discrimination by 64% of EU citizens (European Commission 2007 ). Almost 10 years later, in 2015, the answers were similar for ethnic discrimination but had increased for all other grounds except gender. Yet, there are large discrepancies between countries, with the Netherlands, Sweden, and France showing the highest levels of consciousness of ethnic discrimination (84%, 84%, and 82%, respectively), whereas awareness is much lower in Poland (31%) and Latvia (32%). In Western Europe, Germany (60%) and Austria (58%) stand out with relatively lower marks (European Commission 2015 ).

These Eurobarometer surveys provide useful information about the knowledge of discrimination and the attitudes of Europeans toward policies against it. However, they focus on the representation of different types of discrimination rather than the personal experience of minority members. To gather statistics on the experience of discrimination is difficult for two reasons: (1) minorities are poorly represented in surveys with relatively small samples in the general population and (2) questions about experiences of discrimination are rarely asked in non-specific surveys. Thanks to the growing interest in discrimination, more surveys are providing direct and indirect variables that are useful in studying the personal experiences of ethno-racial disadvantage.

The European Social Survey, for example, has introduced a question on perceived group discrimination (which is not exactly a personal self-reported experience of discrimination, see Chap. 4 ). In 2007 and 2015, the FRA conducted a specialized survey on discrimination in the 28 EU countries, the Minorities and Discrimination (EU-MIDIS) survey, to fill the gap in the knowledge of the experience of discrimination of ethnic and racial minorities. The information collected is wide ranging; however, only two minority groups were surveyed in each EU country, and the survey is not representative of the population.

Of course, European-wide surveys are not the main statistical sources on discrimination. Administrative statistics, censuses, and social surveys at the national and local levels in numerous countries bring new knowledge of discrimination, either with direct measures when this is the main topic of data collection or more indirectly when they provide information on gaps in employment or education faced by disadvantaged groups. The key point is to be able to identify the relevant population category in relation to discrimination, as we know that ethno-racial groups do not experience discrimination to the same extent. Analyses of immigrants or the second generation as a whole might miss the significant differences between – broadly speaking – European and non-European origins. Or, to put it in a different way, between white and non-white or “visible” minorities. Countries where groups with a European background make up most of the migration-related diversity typically show low levels of discrimination, while countries with high proportions of groups with non-European backgrounds, especially Africans (North and Sub-Saharan), Caribbean people, and South Asians, record dramatic levels of discrimination.

1.3 Who Is Discriminated Against? The Problem with Statistics on Ethnicity and Race

Collecting data on discrimination raises the problem of the identification of minority groups. Migration-related diversity has been designed from the beginning of mass migration based on place of birth of the individuals (foreign born) or their citizenship (foreigners). In countries where citizenship acquisition is limited, citizenship or nationality draws the boundary between “us” and “the others” over generations. This is not the case in countries with more open citizenship regimes where native-born children of immigrants acquire by law the nationality of their country of residence and thus cannot be identified by these variables. If most European countries collect data on foreigners and immigrants, a limited number identify the second generation (i.e., the children of immigrants born in the country of immigration). The question is whether the categories of immigrants and the second generation really reflect the population groups exposed to ethno-racial discrimination. As the grounds of discrimination make clear, nationality or country of birth is not the only characteristic generating biases and disadvantages: ethnicity, race, or color are directly involved. However, if it seems straightforward to define country of birth and citizenship, collecting data on ethnicity, race, or color is complex and, in Europe, highly sensitive.

Indeed, the controversial point is defining population groups by using the same characteristics by which they are discriminated against. This raises ethical, political, legal, and methodological issues. Ethical because the choice to re-use the very categories that convey stereotypes and prejudices at the heart of discrimination entails significant consequences. Political because European countries have adopted a color-blind strategy since 1945, meaning that their political philosophies consider that racial terminologies are producing racism by themselves and should be strictly avoided (depending on the countries, ethnicities receive the same blame). Legal because most European countries interpret the provisions of the European directive on data protection and their transposition in national laws as a legal prohibition. Methodological because there is no standardized format to collect personal information on ethnicity or race and there are several methodological pitfalls commented in the scientific literature. Data on ethnicity per se are collected in censuses to describe national minorities in Eastern Europe, the UK, and Ireland, which are the only Western European countries to produce statistics by ethno-racial categories (Simon 2012 ). The information is collected by self-identification either with an open question about one’s ethnicity or by ticking a box (or several in the case of multiple choices) in a list of categories. None of these questions explicitly mention race: for example, the categories in the UK census refer to “White,” “black British,” or “Asian British” among other items, but the question itself is called the “ethnic group question.”

In the rest of Europe, place of birth and nationality of the parents would be used as proxies for ethnicity in a limited number of countries: Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Belgium to name a few. Data on second generations can be found in France, Germany, and Switzerland among others in specialized surveys with limitations in size and scope. Moreover, the succession of generations since the arrival of the first migrants will fade groups into invisibility by the third generation. This process is already well advanced in the oldest immigration countries, such as France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Asking questions about the grandparents and the previous generations is not an option since it would require hard decisions to classify those with mixed ancestry (how many ancestors are needed to belong to one category?), not to mention the problems in memory to retrieve all valuable information about the grandparents. This is one of the reasons why traditional immigration countries (USA, Canada, Australia) collect data on ethnicity through self-identification questions.

The discrepancies between official categories and those exposed to discrimination have fostered debates between state members and International Human Rights Organizations – such as the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) at the Council of Europe, and the EU FRA – which claim that more data are needed on racism and discrimination categorized by ethnicity. The same applies to academia and antiracist NGOs where debates host advocates and opponents to “ethnic statistics.” There is no easy solution, but the accuracy of data for the measurement of discrimination is a strategic issue for both research and policies.

1.4 Discrimination and Integration: Commonalities and Contradictions

How does research on discrimination relate to the broader field of research on immigrant assimilation or integration? On one hand, assimilation/integration and discrimination are closely related both in theory and in empirical studies. Discrimination hinders full participation in society, and the persistence of ethnic penalties across generations contradicts long-term assimilation prospects. On the other hand, both assimilation and integration theory tend to assume that the role of discrimination in shaping access to opportunities will decrease over time. Assimilation is often defined as “the decline of ethnic distinction and its corollary cultural and social difference” (Alba and Nee 2003 , 11), a definition that bears an expectation that migrants and their descendants will over time cease to be viewed as different from the “mainstream population,” reach parity in socioeconomic outcomes, and gradually become “one of us.” In the canonical definition, integration departs from assimilation by considering incorporation as a two-way process. Migrants and ethnic minorities are expected to become full members of a society by adopting core values, norms, and basic cultural codes (e.g., language) from mainstream society, while mainstream society is transformed in return by the participation of migrants and ethnic minorities (Alba et al. 2012 ). The main idea is that convergence rather than differentiation should occur to reach social cohesion, and mastering the cultural codes of mainstream society will alleviate the barriers to resource access, such as education, employment, housing, and rights.

Of course, studies of assimilation and integration do not necessarily ignore that migrants and ethnic minorities face penalties in the course of the process of acculturation and incorporation into mainstream society. In the landmark book, Assimilation in American Life , Milton Gordon clearly spelled out that the elimination of prejudice and discrimination is a key parameter for assimilation to occur; or to use his own terms, that “attitude receptional” and “behavioral receptional” dimensions of assimilation are crucial to complete the process (Gordon 1964 , 81). Yet, ethnic penalties are believed to be mainly determined by human capital and class differences and therefore progressively offset as education level rises, elevating the newcomers to conditions of the natives and reducing the social distance between groups. Stressing the importance of generational progress, assimilation theory thus tends to consider discrimination as merely a short-run phenomenon.

The main blind spots in assimilation and integration theories revolve around two issues: the specific inequalities related to the ethnicization or racialization of non-white minorities and the balance between the responsibilities of the structures of mainstream society and the agencies of migrants and ethnic minorities in the process of incorporation. Along these two dimensions, discrimination research offers a different perspective than what is regularly employed in studies of assimilation and integration.

Discrimination research tends to identify the unfavorable and unfair treatment of individuals or groups based on categorical characteristics and often shows these unfair treatments lie in the activation of stereotypes and prejudices by gatekeepers and the lack of neutrality in processes of selection. In this perspective, what has to be transformed and adapted to change the situation are the structures – the institutions, procedures, bureaucratic routines, etc. – of mainstream society, opening it up to ethnic and racial diversity to enable migrants and ethnic minorities to participate on equal footing with other individuals, independent of their identities. By contrast, in studies of assimilation and integration, explanations of disadvantages are often linked to the lack of human capital and social networks among migrants and ethnic minorities, suggesting that they have to transform themselves to be able to take full part in society. To simplify matters, studies of assimilation and integration often explain persistent disadvantages by pointing to characteristics of migrants and ethnic minorities, while discrimination research explains disadvantages by characteristics of the social and political system.

Both assimilation and integration theories have gradually opened up for including processes of ethnicization and racialization and the consequences of such processes on assimilation prospects. Most prominently, segmented assimilation theory (Portes and Rumbaut 2001 ; Portes and Zhou 1993 ) shifts the focus away from migrants’ adaptation efforts and to the forms of interaction between minority groups – and prominently the second and later generations – and the receiving society. In this variant of assimilation theory, societies are viewed as structurally stratified by class, gender, and race, which powerfully influence the resources and opportunities available to immigrants and their descendants and contribute to shaping alternative paths of incorporation. According to segmented assimilation theory, children of immigrants may end up “ascending into the ranks of a prosperous middle class or join in large numbers the ranks of a racialized, permanently impoverished population at the bottom of society” (Portes et al. 2005 , 1004), the latter outcome echoing worries over persistent ethnic and racial disadvantage. Another possible outcome is upward bicultural mobility (selective acculturation) of the children of poorly educated parents, protected by strong community ties.

The major question arising from these related fields of research – the literature on assimilation and integration, on the one hand, and the literature on discrimination, on the other – is whether the gradual diversification of Europe will result in “mainstream expansion,” in which migrants and their descendants over time will ascend the ladders into the middle and upper classes of the societies they live in, or whether we are witnessing the formation of a permanent underclass along ethnic and racial lines. This book will not provide the ultimate answer to this question. However, by introducing the main concepts, theories, and methods in the field of discrimination, as well as pointing out key research findings, policies that are enacted to combat discrimination, and avenues for future research, we hope to provide the reader with an overview of the field.

1.5 The Content of the Book

The literature on discrimination is flourishing, and it involves a wide range of concepts, theories, methods, and findings. Chapter 2 provides the key concepts in the field. The chapter distinguishes between direct and indirect discrimination as legal and sociological concepts, between systemic and institutional discrimination, and between discrimination as intentional actions, subtle biases, and what might be referred to as the cumulative effects of past discrimination on the present. Chapter 3 reviews the main theoretical explanations of discrimination from a cross-disciplinary perspective. Mirroring the historical development of the field, it presents and discusses theories seeking the cause of prejudice and discrimination at the individual, organizational, and structural levels.

Of course, our knowledge of discrimination depends on the methods of measurement, since the phenomenon is mainly visible through its quantification. Hence, Chapter 4 offers an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of available methods of measurement, including statistical analysis of administrative data, surveys among potential victims and perpetrators, qualitative in-depth studies, legal cases, and experimental approaches to the study of discrimination (including survey experiments, lab experiments, and field experiments).

Importantly, discrimination does not occur similarly in all domains of social life, and it takes different forms according to the domain in question (e.g., the labor market, education, housing, health services, and public services). Chapter 5 taps into the large body of empirical work that can be grouped under the heading “discrimination research” in order to provide some key findings, while simultaneously highlighting a distinction between systems of differentiation and systems of equality.

What happens when discrimination occurs? Chapter 6 addresses the consequences of unfair treatment for targeted individuals and groups, as well as their reaction to it. These individual and collective responses to discrimination are seconded by policies designed to tackle discrimination. However, antidiscrimination policies vary greatly across countries, and Chapter 7 provides an overview of the different types of policies against discrimination in Europe and beyond, both public policies and schemes implemented by organizations. The chapter also reflects on some of the key political and societal debates about the implementation and the future of these policies. Chapter 8 concludes on the future of discrimination research in Europe, stressing the main challenges ahead for a burgeoning scientific field.

Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers no more: Immigration and the challenges of integration in North America and Western Europe . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Alba, R., Reitz, J. G., & Simon, P. (2012). National Conceptions of assimilation, integration, and cohesion. In M. Crul & J. H. Mollenkopf (Eds.), The changing face of world cities: Young adult children of immigrants in Europe and the United States (pp. 44–61). New York: Russel Sage.

Google Scholar  

Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42 (1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1061425 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory . Newbury Park: Sage.

European Commission. (2007). Discrimination in the European Union (Special Eurobarometer, Vol. 263). Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission. (2015). Discrimination in the EU in 2015 (Special Eurobarometer, Vol. 437). Brussels: European Commission.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and National Origins . New York: Oxford University Press.

Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2013). Who gets a swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review, 107 (01), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000494 .

Heath, A. F., & Cheung, S. Y. (Eds.). (2007). Unequal chances: Ethnic minorities in Western labour markets . Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.

Koopmans, R., Michalowski, I., & Waibel, S. (2012). Citizenship rights for immigrants. National political processes and cross-national convergence in Western Europe, 1980–2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117 (4), 1202–2045. https://doi.org/10.1086/662707 .

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (Eds.). (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530 , 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716293530001006 .

Portes, A., Fernández-Kelly, P., & Haller, W. (2005). Segmented assimilation on the ground: The new second generation in early adulthood. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (6), 1000–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870500224117 .

Simon, P. (2012). Collecting ethnic statistics in Europe: A review. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35 (8), 1366–1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.607507 .

Van Mol, C., & de Valk, H. (2016). Migration and immigrants in Europe: A historical and demographic perspective. In B. Garcés-Mascareñas & R. Penninx (Eds.), Integration processes and policies in Europe (IMISCOE Research Series). Cham: Springer.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchatel, Switzerland

Rosita Fibbi

Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway

Arnfinn H. Midtbøen

National Institute for Demographic Studies, Paris, France

Patrick Simon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Fibbi, R., Midtbøen, A.H., Simon, P. (2021). Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research. In: Migration and Discrimination. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2_1

Published : 09 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-67280-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-67281-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How can we help?

• Share this page via email
• Share this page via Facebook
• Share this page via Twitter
• Share this page via Instagram
• Visit our YouTube profile

Disability Discrimination Case Study – The Equality Act 2010

BY ADISH FARKHAD, EMPLOYER LAW  

Taken from: NRAS magazine, Autumn 2012  

The following is a real case which  Adish  dealt with…  

Joe suffers from left hip early osteoarthritis with femoroacetabular impingement. He believes that this condition amounts to a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.    Joe is currently employed as a Personal Trainer at “All About Health” gymnasium (his “Employer”) and has worked with them for the past 10 years. Joe was diagnosed with hip early osteoarthritis with femoroacetabular impingement 3 years ago. He feels that he has been treated less favourably by his Employer because of his disability, contrary to the Equality Act 2010.    Joe has, on several occasions, made his Employer aware that he is suffering from a disability for which he requires reasonable adjustments to his working practices. Joe has requested the following adjustments:    1.    regular breaks from his shifts so that he can rest to ease the pain in his hip;  2.    a reduction in his hours but not so much of a reduction that would prevent him from earning a living. He wants to work 27 hours per week;  3.    an adjustment to the shift pattern for Personal Trainers to allow him to work Mondays and Tuesday which are his busiest days (so that he can continue to look after his key clients); and  4.    that his Employer waives its unreasonable request that Joe works every weekend (the quietest times) as part of his working hours as Joe wants to be treated in the same way as his non-disabled colleagues who only have to work one weekend per month.    Employee Booklets

Whilst Joe’s Employer has been on notice of his disability for over 3 years; it has persistently failed to make any adjustments to accommodate his disability. Joe’s manager regularly picks on him for demonstrating his hip pain in the way that he sometimes walks around the gym. His manager’s view is that Joe’s physical impairment does not create a positive image for the gymnasium and its Personal Trainers.    The subjecting of Joe to disability discrimination has meant that Joe has been prevented from working the reduced hours he requested and this has had a detrimental effect on his current health which has exacerbated the effects of his disability. Two months ago, Joe raised a formal grievance as he felt that he had no alternative but to do so in circumstances where all of his previous concerns raised verbally had been ignored. Joe’s Employer did not uphold his grievance and denied all liability for discrimination. Joe’s Employer did, however, agree to reduce his hours to 20 hours per week (with no flexibility or adjustment to enable him to work in excess of that should the need arise), requesting that he works at the quietest times every weekend and preventing him from working at the busiest times on Mondays and Tuesdays. He has also been allowed to take a 10-minute break when he feels in pain on the condition that he authorises the break with his manager so that his manager is aware of his whereabouts.    Joe’s Employer wishes to vary Joe’s terms and conditions of employment to reflect his new working hours (20 hours per week) and days of work to include working every weekend. Joe was told that he would face “proceedings” if he does not accept the proposed varied terms.    Joe considers that his Employer has failed to give any good reason for not agreeing to make the adjustments he requested and that the proposed adjustments that it is willing to make are unreasonable in the circumstances. Joe is aware that new staff are being recruited or being asked to cover Mondays and Tuesdays (his Employer has the maximum number of Personal Trainers already because it is allowing employees without a disability to work on a Monday and Tuesday instead of him).    Joe went to see a solicitor for legal advice to see if he had any potential employment claims against his Employer. He was advised that the Equality Act 2010 requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for employees who have a disability. Also, that employees with a disability should not be treated less favourably because of a disability. In Joe’s case, his employer did not provide any business reasons as to why it could not allow Joe to work 27 hours per week and on a Monday and/or Tuesday. Joe’s Employer had not sought a medical opinion from an Occupational Health Therapist about his disability and what recommended adjustments could be made. In all the circumstances, therefore, Joe’s Employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments. In addition to this, Joe’s Employer subjected him to less favourable treatment by insisting he works at the quietest times every weekend (when his colleagues who did not suffer from a disability did not have to work every weekend) and by insisting that he seeks his manager’s approval before taking breaks, in circumstances when it knew Joe had been bullied by him and that it would not always be possible to obtain such authority.    In addition to a claim for disability discrimination, Joe could also claim victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 because he was subjected to further less favourable treatment because he made a complaint (by raising his grievance) about disability discrimination, as his Employer threatened that he would face ‘proceedings’ if he does not accept the proposed variation to his terms and conditions of employment.    Joe was advised that if he were to pursue a claim in the Employment Tribunal for disability discrimination, he would be entitled to compensation for his injury to feelings, his future loss of income (if he were to resign and leave the gymnasium) and possibly the personal injury he had suffered due to his condition becoming worse as a result of his Employer’s failure to accommodate his disability. It was also explained to Joe that the Employment Tribunal would make a recommendation about reasonable adjustments for his continued employment (if he did not leave).    At the interview with his solicitor, Joe was concerned about the costs involved in pursuing an Employment Tribunal claim. However, when his solicitor discussed the matter with him, it became clear that he had Legal Expenses Insurance which would fund legal assistance. Joe was very surprised he had not realised he had such cover in his Home and Contents Policy. Joe’s solicitor assisted him to apply to his insurers for funding and then issued an Employment Tribunal claim on his behalf.    Employer Law     The Equality Act 2010 is the law which bans unfair treatment and helps achieve equal opportunities in the workplace and in wider society.  For further information and to download publications visit:  www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/equality-act  

Privacy Overview

Metrics for Dataset Demographic Bias: A Case Study on Facial Expression Recognition

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, expression-invariant face recognition by facial expression transformations.

In this paper, we present a method of expression-invariant face recognition that transforms input face image with an arbitrary expression into its corresponding neutral facial expression image. When a new face image with an arbitrary expression is ...

Facial expression recognition with Convolutional Neural Networks

Facial expression recognition has been an active research area in the past 10 years, with growing application areas including avatar animation, neuromarketing and sociable robots. The recognition of facial expressions is not an easy problem for machine ...

Subtle facial expression recognition using motion magnification

This paper proposes a novel method for subtle facial expression recognition that uses motion magnification to transform subtle expressions into corresponding exaggerated ones. Motion magnification consists of four steps: First, active appearance model (...

Information

Published in.

IEEE Computer Society

United States

Publication History

• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.