Alexander v. Sandoval

Last updated

Alexander v. Sandoval
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 16, 2001
Decided April 24, 2001
Full case nameJames Alexander, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety, et al., Petitioners v. Martha Sandoval, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Citations532 U.S. 275 ( more )
121 S. Ct. 1511; 149 L. Ed. 2d 517; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3367; 69 U.S.L.W. 4250; 80 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 40,456; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3194; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3941; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2042; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 206
Case history
PriorSandoval v. Hagan, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (M.D. Ala. 1998), aff'd, 197 F.3d 484 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 530 U.S. 1305(2000).
Subsequent268 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2001).
Holding
There is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
DissentStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Laws applied
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [1] did not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact. [2]

Contents

Background

In 1990, Alabama added an amendment to its state constitution to make English the state's official language. Thereafter, James Alexander, Director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety, ordered that the test for Alabama driver's license test to be given only in English.

Plaintiff Martha Sandoval sued Alexander and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and claimed that the English-only test policy was discriminatory.

Sandoval sued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two sections of Title VI would prove important to her lawsuit. The first was section 601, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, or national origin" by programs or agencies that receive federal funding, such as the Alabama Department of Public Safety. [3] The other was section 602, which authorizes federal agencies "to effectuate the provisions of [section 601]... by issuing rules, regulations or orders of general applicability." [4]

In her lawsuit, Sandoval invoked a regulation that the US Department of Justice had promulgated under section 602. The regulation prohibited agencies and programs receiving federal funding from taking actions that had a disparate impact on persons of a certain race, color, or nationality. [5] She sought to enjoin Alabama's policy of giving the tests for driver's licenses in English only. She argued that the policy had a disparate impact on those born outside the United States because it denied non-English-speakers, who are disproportionately born outside the US, the opportunity to obtain driver's licenses. [6]

The state defendants, however, argued that the regulation under which Sandoval was suing them did not include what is called an "implied private right of action," a cause of action not expressly created by a statute or regulation but one that a court has interpreted the statute or regulation to create implicitly.

The district court agreed with Sandoval that she had a private right of action and agreed that Alabama's policy was discriminatory under Title VI. The court therefore enjoined the policy.

The state defendants then appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It first held that the regulation under which Sandoval sued allowed a private litigant to enforce its provisions and then affirmed the district court's ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on "only the question [of] whether there [was] a private cause of action to enforce the regulation." [7]

Decision

The Court's opinion, written by Justice Scalia, began by describing the assumptions under which the Court would decide the case.

First of all, "it is clear" that section 601 of title VI contained an implied private right of action. [7] The Court held that Cannon v. University of Chicago was controlling. Cannon held that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which is identical to Title VI but applies to gender-based discrimination, contained an implied private right of action. [8] Under Cannon, section 601 of Title VI also contained a private right of action.

Then, the Court noted that "it is beyond dispute" and that "no party disagrees" that section 601 prohibits only intentional discrimination but does not prohibit activities with a disparate impact on certain races, colors, or nationalities. [9]

Finally, the Court said it would assume for purposes of deciding the case that regulations promulgated under section 602 of Title VI may validly prohibit actions that have a disparate impact on certain races, colors, or national origins. [10]

The Court then turned to the question that was at issue in the case: whether the disparate-impact regulation that Sandoval invoked created an implied private right of action. The Court rejected the argument, put forward both by Sandoval and by Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion, that because Cannon involved disparate impact, Cannon held that Title IX and, by extension Title VI, create a private right of action to enjoin policies that create a disparate impact. Both Sandoval and Justice Stevens relied on a footnote in Cannon, which stated that the effect of the policies that the Cannon plaintiff challenged was "to exclude women from consideration." [11] The Court responded that Cannon was decided on the assumption that the University of Chicago had engaged in intentional discrimination, and hence the holding of case applied only to intentional discrimination. The Court asserted that "this Court is bound by holdings, not language." [12] Therefore, from the majority's point of view, the holding of Cannon did not include the footnote.

The Court also rejected the argument that Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission , a case the Court decided in 1983, dictated the outcome of Sandoval. The Court noted that although five Justices in Guardians had agreed that disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI were valid, a majority of the Justices had not decided that those regulations were enforceable by private plaintiffs. [13]

The Court then examined section 602, the section of Title VI under which the disparate-impact regulation was promulgated, to determine whether it created an implied private right of action. It began by noting that certain "rights-creating" language that was present in section 601 and Cannon relied on for its holding, was absent from section 602. [14] The Court pointed out that section 602, by specifying that the federal government could cut off funding to a program which violated regulations, expressly provided for "one method of enforcing" those regulations. [15] It concluded that this "express provision of one method" of enforcement "suggests that Congress intended to preclude others," such as a private right of action. [16] It, therefore, held that Sandoval had no private right of action under the disparate-impact regulation.

Dissent

In his dissent, Justice Stevens explained the Cannon decision as follows:

In providing a shorthand description of her claim in the text of the opinion, we ambiguously stated that she had alleged that she was denied admission "because she is a woman," but we appended a lengthy footnote setting forth the details of her disparate impact claim. Other than the shorthand description of her claim, there is not a word in the text of the opinion even suggesting that she had made the improbable allegation that the University of Chicago and Northwestern University had intentionally discriminated against women. In the context of the entire opinion (including both its analysis and its uncontested description of the facts of the case), that single ambiguous phrase provides no basis for limiting the case’s holding to incidents of intentional discrimination. If anything, the fact that the phrase "because she is a woman" encompasses both intentional and disparate impact claims should have made it clear that the reasoning in the opinion was equally applicable to both types of claims. In any event, the holding of the case certainly applied to the disparate impact claim that was described in detail in footnote 1 of the opinion. [17]

His response to the majority's account of the relation between sections 601 and 602 was as follows:

Beyond its flawed structural analysis of Title VI and an evident antipathy toward implied rights of action, the majority offers little affirmative support for its conclusion that Congress did not intend to create a private remedy for violations of the Title VI regulations. The Court offers essentially two reasons for its position. First, it attaches significance to the fact that the "rights-creating" language in § 601 that defines the classes protected by the statute is not repeated in § 602. But, of course, there was no reason to put that language in § 602 because it is perfectly obvious that the regulations authorized by § 602 must be designed to protect precisely the same people protected by § 601. Moreover, it is self-evident that, linguistic niceties notwithstanding, any statutory provision whose stated purpose is to “effectuate” the eradication of racial and ethnic discrimination has as its "focus" those individuals who, absent such legislation, would be subject to discrimination. Second, the Court repeats the argument advanced and rejected in Cannon that the express provision of a fund cut-off remedy "suggests that Congress intended to preclude others." [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1964</span> Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason, and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave their job without reason or warning. The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1991</span>

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award. It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.

Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case which interpreted Congressional silence in the face of earlier interpretations of similar laws to determine that Title IX of the Higher Education Act provides an implied cause of action.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held that since non-English speakers were denied a meaningful education, the disparate impact caused by the school policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the school district was demanded to provide students with "appropriate relief".

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

A cause of action or right of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify suing to obtain money or property, or to justify the enforcement of a legal right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit. The legal document which carries a claim is often called a 'statement of claim' in English law, or a 'complaint' in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories". The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA) is Title 49, Section 41705 of the U.S. Code.

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Rehnquist</span> Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 to 2005

William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American attorney and jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years. Rehnquist was an associate justice from 1972 to 1986 and the 16th chief justice from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a staunch conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the Court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

Sandoval is a surname of Spanish origin.

Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.

Gebser v. Lago Vista 524 U.S. 274 (1998) is a United States Supreme Court ruling regarding sexual harassment in schools. The case was heard before the Rehnquist Court on March 25, 1998, and decided on June 22, 1998. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that a school district may be liable for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student, but in order for an aggrieved party to recover damages under Title IX, a school official who had authority to address the alleged discrimination must have actual knowledge of the discrimination and must be deliberately indifferent.

References

  1. ↑ 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000-d to 2000d-7.
  2. ↑ Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
  3. ↑ 42 U.S.C.   § 2000d.
  4. ↑ 42 U.S.C.   § 2000d-1.
  5. ↑ 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (2000).
  6. ↑ SeeSandoval v. Hagan, 197F.3d484 ( 11th Cir. 1999).
  7. 1 2 Alexander, 532 U.S. at 279.
  8. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 280 ("The reasoning of [Cannon] embraced the existence of a private right to enforce Title VI as well [as Title IX].").
  9. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 280.
  10. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 281.
  11. ↑ The disputed footnote from Cannon reads in pertinent part:
    According to her complaints, petitioner was qualified to attend both of the respondent medical schools based on both objective (i.e., grade-point average and test scores) and subjective criteria. In fact, both schools admitted some persons to the classes to which she applied despite the fact that those persons had less impressive objective qualifications than she did. Both medical schools receive federal aid, and both have policies against admitting applicants who are more than 30 years old (petitioner was 39 years old at the time she applied), at least if they do not have advanced degrees.... Because the incidence of interrupted higher education is higher among women than among men, it is further claimed, the age and advanced-degree criteria operate to exclude women from consideration even though the criteria are not valid predictors of success in medical schools or in medical practice.
    441 U.S. at 680 n.2.
  12. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 282.
  13. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 283.
  14. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 288-89.
  15. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 289-90.
  16. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 290.
  17. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 298 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  18. ↑ Alexander, 532 U.S. at 315-16 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.