DOJ ALLEGES SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEE

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, March 30, 2015
Justice Department Files Lawsuit Alleging that Southeastern Oklahoma State University Discriminated Against Transgender Woman

The Justice Department announced today the filing of a lawsuit against Southeastern Oklahoma State University (Southeastern) and the Regional University System of Oklahoma (RUSO) for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against a transgender employee on the basis of her sex and retaliating against her when she complained about the discrimination.  Attorney General Eric Holder announced in December 2014 that the Department of Justice takes the position that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination is best read to extend the statute’s protection to claims based on an individual’s gender identity, including transgender status.

According to the United States’ complaint, filed in federal district court in Oklahoma City today, Rachel Tudor began working for Southeastern as an Assistant Professor in 2004.  At the time of her hire, Tudor presented as a man.  In 2007, Tudor, consistent with her gender identity, began to present as a woman at work.  Throughout her employment, Tudor performed her job well, and in 2009, she applied for a promotion to the tenured position of Associate Professor.  Southeastern’s administration denied her application, overruling the recommendations of her department chair and other tenured faculty from her department.  The United States’ complaint alleges that Southeastern discriminated against Tudor when it denied her application because of her gender identity, gender transition and non-conformance with gender stereotypes.

“By standing beside Dr. Tudor, the Department of Justice sends a clear message that we are committed to eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.  “We will not allow unfair biases and unjust prejudices to prevent transgender Americans from reaching their full potential as workers and as citizens.  And we will continue to work tirelessly, using every legal tool available, to ensure that transgender individuals are guaranteed the rights and protections that all Americans deserve.”

In 2010, Tudor filed complaints regarding the denial of her application for promotion and tenure.  Shortly after it learned of her complaints, Southeastern refused to let Tudor re-apply for promotion and tenure despite Southeastern’s own policies permitting re-application.  At the end of the 2010-11 academic year, Southeastern and RUSO terminated Tudor’s employment because she had not obtained tenure.

Tudor filed a charge of discrimination with the Oklahoma City Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that Southeastern’s decisions were unlawful.  The EEOC investigated the charge and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred.  The EEOC’s attempts at conciliation were unsuccessful, and it referred the matter to the Department of Justice.

This lawsuit was brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a joint effort to enhance collaboration between the EEOC and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division for vigorous enforcement of Title VII.

“The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including transgender Americans,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division.  “Discrimination against employees because of their gender identity, gender transition, or because they do not conform to stereotypical notions about how men and women should act or appear violates Title VII.  Retaliating against an employee for complaining about unlawful discrimination, as happened in this case, is also unacceptable under Title VII.”

“This is a tremendous example of how collaboration between EEOC and the Department of Justice leads to strong and coordinated enforcement of Title VII,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang.  “This case furthers the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, which includes coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII's sex discrimination provisions as a national enforcement priority.”

“The American workplace must be a level playing field free from discrimination – a place where employees compete based on their merit,” said Director Holly Waldron Cole of the EEOC’s Oklahoma City Area Office.  “Here, the decisions about Dr. Tudor’s employment should have been based on her qualifications, not on impermissible bias and stereotype.”

As alleged in the complaint, Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination because of gender identity or because an employee has completed a gender transition or is undertaking a gender transition.  Title VII also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because her behavior or appearance does not conform to traditional gender stereotypes.  In addition, Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees, like Tudor, who lodge complaints about discriminatory treatment.  Through its lawsuit, the United States seeks both monetary and injunctive relief.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in December 2014 that the Department of Justice takes the position that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination is best read to extend the statute’s protection to claims based on an individual’s gender identity, including transgender status.

DEPUTY AG KAPPELHOFF'S OPENING STATEMENT AT CONVENTION ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Kappelhoff Delivers Opening Statement at the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Geneva, Switzerland ~ Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Mr. Chairperson, distinguished Members of the committee, and representatives of civil society.   My name is Mark Kappelhoff and I serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.   It is an honor to be a member of the U.S. delegation and to share with you some of the Justice Department’s work to address racial discrimination and to fulfill our obligations under the convention.  

Since our founding, the people of the United States have strived to realize our Constitution’s promise of equal opportunity and equal justice for all.   Last month, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark law that relegated the age of legal segregation to the history books.   As President Lyndon B. Johnson said, the act’s purpose was to ensure that all people are “equal in the polling booths, in the classrooms, in the factories, and in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and other places that provide service to the public.”

Our nation has made great progress over the last five decades, but the journey is not yet complete.   Our dialogue with this committee allows us to reflect on the great advances we have made as a nation to realize equality and to express our commitment to address the challenges that remain.   Three basic principles guide the Justice Department’s work in realizing the noble goals of our Constitution and laws: expanding opportunity for all; safeguarding the infrastructure of our democracy; and protecting the most vulnerable among us.   Our ceaseless efforts to advance these principles directly enhance our country’s implementation of its convention obligations.

The right to vote is one of the most fundamental promises of our democracy.   Among our highest priorities is ensuring equal access to the ballot box,   and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been our most powerful tool in this effort.   While the U.S. Supreme Court recently invalidated a part of this cornerstone civil rights law, we continue to use every legal tool available to take swift action against jurisdictions that have hindered equal access to the franchise.   For example, the Civil Rights Division is currently challenging discriminatory state election laws in North Carolina and Texas.   Attorney General Holder also is taking steps to ensure that American Indians and Alaska Natives have meaningful access to the polls.

The division continues its work to dismantle racial discrimination in our nation’s schools to ensure that school districts fulfill their legal obligation to provide equal educational opportunity for all students.   We also have targeted racial disparities in school discipline in an effort to end the “school to prison pipeline.”   Working with our partners at the Department of Education, we issued guidance to inform schools nationwide of their responsibility to establish nondiscriminatory policies and practices aimed at keeping young people in the classroom and out of the criminal justice system.   This is just one of many examples the committee will hear during our dialogue of how federal agencies work with state and local officials to advance our implementation of the convention.

The Civil Rights Division and our federal partner agencies continue to handle a large volume of housing and employment discrimination complaints.   This is a stark reminder that, despite the end to legal segregation, our work to combat unfair treatment must persist.   Our robust enforcement efforts have produced tangible results for people’s lives.   Just a few months ago, we obtained our largest-ever settlement in an employment discrimination case involving the discriminatory hiring practices of the New York City Fire Department, which brought jobs to some 290 eligible claimants and $98 million in monetary damages.   And, in 2013, the division collected record civil penalties in resolving employment claims based on citizenship status or national origin under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The division responded forcefully to the housing and foreclosure crisis in the U.S., which hit African-American and Latino families especially hard.   They paid more for loans because of their race or national origin, or were steered to more expensive and riskier subprime loans.   Consistent with our convention obligations, the U.S. brought legal action to remedy these abuses, which has resulted in the three largest residential lending discrimination settlements in the Justice Department’s history.  

We know that law enforcement is dangerous work and most officers are dedicated public servants.   With this in mind, the division has worked hard to produce sustainable models for effective, nondiscriminatory and constitutional policing and prison systems.   Over the last five years, we have achieved 14 ground-breaking reform agreements with police departments all across the United States to address excessive use of force and racial profiling.   We also criminally prosecuted 337 officers for misconduct.   And we are working to improve conditions in America’s prisons — examining, for example, the overuse of solitary confinement—and to safeguard the rights of youth in the juvenile justice system.

The Justice Department also is aggressively prosecuting hate crimes.   As a long-time federal prosecutor, I can tell you first-hand that the devastation caused by a single act of hate can reverberate through families, communities and the entire nation.   No one should have to sleep less easily at night or live in fear that they too might be attacked simply because of their skin color, the country they were born in, their faith or whom they love.

In 2009, we gained a powerful prosecution tool to combat hate crimes when President Barack Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.   Armed with this new tool, Justice Department prosecutors over the last five years have convicted over 160 defendants on hate crimes charges – amounting to nearly a 50 percent increase over the previous five years.

I have described for you just some of the Justice Department’s work advancing the promise in America’s founding documents of equality under the law.   We are proud to stand with our fellow agencies in our collective responsibility to fulfill our nation’s obligations under the convention, as well in our shared moral responsibility to eradicate discrimination and ensure equal justice for all.

It is my pleasure now to introduce our next speaker, Catherine Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.

ASSOCIATE AG WEST DELIVERS REMARKS AT PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Associate Attorney General Tony West Delivers Remarks at the Progressive National Baptist Convention

Fort Lauderdale, Florida ~ Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Dr. [Carroll] Baltimore, for that kind introduction.  I salute you for your leadership of this convention and I congratulate you on this successful convening.

I have to say, I feel very much at home here, being the great-grandson of two South Florida Baptist preachers – although clearly, the program organizers were unaware of my Baptist pedigree as they only allotted me 10 minutes to speak.

It is such an honor to address this convention.  I was thinking on the way down here about the living history that this convention represents: About the fact that this was the denominational home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; about how we cannot talk about the Civil Rights Movement and not in the same breath speak of this organization, and about the leadership of Dr. Taylor, Rev. Booth, Rev. Chambers and so many others.

And I thought about how much I owe to this convention, as an African-American man: too young to remember first-hand the Civil Rights Movement’s most dramatic, seminal moments; yet too old not to feel the weight of responsibility for preserving, protecting, defending and promoting the movement's legacy in the public service I am now privileged to perform.

We’re in a time when we're celebrating a number of significant anniversaries – milestones that make all the more salient the historic centrality of this great, Progressive National Baptist Convention:

Fifty years since they came by the hundreds of thousands to gather peacefully on the Washington Mall, marching for jobs and freedom;

Since college students, black and white, boarded buses in the North and rode them deep into the South, riding with the certainty of danger but the faith of Paul;

Since the ’64 Civil Rights Act and Mississippi’s “Freedom Summer.”

And as we think about the those anniversaries, we have reason to rejoice in the great progress forged by ordinary men and women in shattering boundaries once thought unbreakable – enormous change wrought in the short space of five decades.

And yet, I am struck by the fact that at the heart of what Dr. King, his contemporaries and this convention were grappling with back then remain, fundamentally, the same challenges facing us today:

How do we build a society that allows all people the freedom to realize fully their own potential?

How do we ensure that, in Dr. King’s words, “[l]aw and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice” and not as “dams that block the flow of social progress?”

How do we make certain that this bold experiment in self-government is inclusive, responsive and maintains its legitimacy in the eyes of those it serves?

The opening lines of our story as one nation begin with a promise:  a promise that we are all created equal.  And nowhere is this promise manifest more tangibly than in the right to vote.

That sacred franchise – the right to choose who will speak and act in our names; the right to express sovereignty over our government; a right that is, to paraphrase Lincoln, the foundation on which the temple of liberty is built because it protects all other rights – that right, more than any other, is what defines us as joint and equal members of this unique, democratic idea called the United States of America.

And next year, we’ll mark 50 years since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  You know, after President Lyndon signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, there were those – many of them his close allies – who told him to wait, to slow down; that it was too soon to start work on another major piece of civil rights legislation.

But President Johnson knew that 100 years after the franchise had been promised to African-Americans – a commitment forged by Civil War and consummated by constitutional amendment – Johnson knew that the time for waiting had run out.

Instead of waiting, Johnson acted, saying, “About this there can and should be no argument.  Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.”

So it is a sad irony that five decades later, we find ourselves working overtime to hold onto to that promise.  It is ironic that 50 years later, we are battling efforts that make it harder, not easier, for people to cast their votes.  It is ironic that in 2014, we must litigate against laws that impede voter registration that curtail democratic participation; or impose restrictive voter ID requirements that we know have a disproportionate effect on poor people and people of color, making it harder for them to exercise the franchise.

Now, I don’t want there to be any confusion about this so let me be clear: where there’s evidence of voter fraud, we won’t tolerate it.  Voter fraud undermines our democracy.  Nobody believes we should accept that.

But public policy studies from across the political spectrum come to the same conclusion that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare.  Too often, the fervor surrounding voter ID laws seems more like a solution in search of a problem.  And so we need to be mindful that “the real voter fraud,” as the president says, “is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud.”

The right to vote faces other challenges, as well.  Repeatedly, a bipartisan Congress of the United States reauthorized Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act – most recently in 2006 with unanimous support in the Senate and near-unanimous support in the House.  And repeatedly, Republican and Democratic Administrations used these provisions to secure the franchise for all American citizens.

Yet notwithstanding this bipartisan history, last year we lost an important tool in our anti-discrimination toolbox when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights Act.

So, on the eve of the 50 th anniversary of the ’65 Voting Rights Act – in the middle of a season where we remember Mississippi’s “Freedom Summer” – we know that our work is far from done.  We know that the perennial lesson of history is that the triumphs won by Dr. King, by Fannie Lou Hamer, by the Progressive National Baptist Convention and by so many others – those triumphs must be won anew in this generation, because the hard reality is that the right to vote faces threats today as stark and serious and urgent as any it faced 50 years ago.

And that is why we must continue to act.  That is why protecting the fundamental right to vote for all Americans remains one of the Justice Department’s highest priorities.  Because standing by as the voices of some Americans are shut out of the democratic process is simply not an option.

So at the Department of Justice, we are continuing to monitor jurisdictions around the country, and we're watching for changes in their voting laws that may hamper voting rights.

Our message is unequivocal: we will use every legal tool that remains available to us, against any jurisdiction that seeks to hinder eligible citizens’ full and free right to vote.

When we see something that causes us concern, we won't hesitate to make it plain.  In Texas, we have gone to court to challenge a voter ID law and a congressional redistricting map that we contend discriminate against Latino voters.  In North Carolina, we have sued the state over discriminatory voting laws that restrict access to the polling place and make it harder for voters to case their ballots.

Last week, we submitted filings in voting rights cases in two different states: Wisconsin and Ohio.  In Wisconsin, we're contending that the federal judge there got it right when she struck down Wisconsin’s strict photo voter ID requirement due to its adverse effects on minority voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In Ohio, in a case challenging that state’s law curtailing early voting and same-day registration, we filed a statement in support of the NAACP's position, arguing that Ohio has misinterpreted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in defending its law.

And while we will continue to use all the legal authority we have to protect vigorously the right to vote, the fact is there is no substitute – as the president has made clear – for strong congressional action which guarantees that every American has equal access to the polls.  That is why the Justice Department is providing assistance to Congress to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination.

And, importantly, this work is bipartisan, because the fundamental right to vote must be above party or partisanship – too much hard work has been done, too much blood has been shed, too many lives lost and voices silenced for this to be simply about partisan politics.

No, this is about something much deeper, much more important.  We know what this is about.  It’s about who we are as a nation – who we are as a free and fair democratic society.

Because if a government of, by and for the people means anything at all, it means that a ballot has the power to give equal voice to the high and the low; the weak and the strong; those at the bottom as well as the top.  It means that in the polling place, the line is just as long for the richest among us as it is for those who often work the hardest but have the least.

And just as in 1965, those of us in the federal government – we cannot win this battle alone.  We will need your help.  We will need your hands.  We will need your voices to help us walk and not grow faint; to push us on and not get discouraged; to lift us up and carry us forward.  We will need your leadership to help us pull our nation out of its acquiescence and, in the proud tradition of this great convention, push it into action once again.

Thank you and God bless you.

ACTING ASSISTANT AG SAMUELS SPEECH ON 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels Speaks at “Celebrating Our History & Commissioning Our Future: a Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”

Milwaukee ~ Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Thank you for that kind introduction.  I’d like to thank United States Attorney James Santelle for inviting me to speak today and for the remarkable work that this office does to protect the civil rights of those in the Milwaukee community and across the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Just last month, the Civil Rights Division worked hand-in-hand with the Eastern District’s talented team to prosecute a Milwaukee man for sex trafficking.  Thanks to this close collaboration we were able to secure guilty pleas on five counts.

I’d also like to thank the cosponsors of today’s event – the NAACP Milwaukee Chapter, the Milwaukee Urban League and Centro Hispanico – both for their support of this event and for all of their work to advance the cause of civil rights.  Finally, thank you to all of you who came here today to celebrate this milestone in the continued fight for equality under the law.

Fifty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  With its landmark protections against discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and religion, the act ended the era of legal segregation in America, relegating the age of Jim Crow to the history books.  As he prepared to sign the bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced the goal of the law – to ensure that all should “be equal in the polling booths, in the classrooms, in the factories, and in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters and other places that provide service to the public.”

Prior to the passage of the act, there were no effective federal protections against discrimination based on race.  No effort to accommodate language minorities.  No federal protections for Americans with disabilities.  Elite colleges and universities set quotas capping admission of women or prohibited them from attending altogether.  African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans were excluded from hospitals, restaurants and theaters.

Thankfully, in the decades since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there is no doubt that we as a country have come a long way.  The act laid the groundwork for other critical federal civil rights statutes, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  Many of the rights for which civil rights pioneers fought, bled and gave their lives are now guaranteed by law.

Yet civil rights is not an issue for the history books.  Sixty years after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, too many children remain in segregated schools or are denied equal access to advanced courses.  Students are disciplined unfairly due to their race or separated by race in prom and homecoming events.  Discrimination in employment and housing contributes to social inequalities.  LGBT Americans continue to face discrimination and animus.  And for too many, the right to vote is still not effectively guaranteed.

Fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Division’s robust caseload remains a stark reminder that too many in our nation continue to face barriers to equal opportunity.  As we contemplate a half-century of progress—and look to the work that remains—the Civil Rights Division does not waver in its responsibility to address both longstanding and emerging civil rights challenges.

Five decades after its passage, the Civil Rights Act continues to touch the lives of Americans across the country – and to serve as a potent tool for combating discrimination.  The Civil Rights Division maintains nearly 200 long-standing desegregation cases where we strive to ensure that Brown’s promise is realized in all aspects of a school district’s operations.  We aggressively enforce Title VII to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace.  In March, for example, the Department of Justice reached a settlement with the city of New York to resolve allegations that New York’s fire department discriminated against African-American and Hispanic applicants through its entry-level test.  The division uses Title VI of the act to work with court systems across the country to ensure that people with limited English proficiency are not denied equal justice.  And the Civil Rights Act’s core principle of equality under the law animates the work of the Civil Rights Division to the present day.

The Civil Rights Division is committed to eliminating crimes of hate, as true legal equality necessitates a freedom from fear.  The ability to live safely in one’s community is one of the most basic civil rights.  Throughout a diverse nation like ours, we all must be able to live and work without fear of being attacked because of how we look, what we believe, where we come from or whom we love.
The Milwaukee Sikh community recognizes this reality all too well.  Two years ago, a gunman fatally shot six people who were gathered in prayer at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Oak Creek.  Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the memorial service on behalf of the President of the United States, saying:
“In the recent past, too many Sikhs have been targeted and victimized simply because of who they are, how they look and what they believe.
“This is wrong.  It is unacceptable.  And it will not be tolerated.  We must ask necessary questions of ourselves: what kind of nation do we truly want to have?  Will we muster the courage to demand more of those who lead us and, just as importantly, of ourselves?  What will we do to prevent that which has brought us here today from occurring in the future?”

Today, as we near the two year anniversary of the attack, and remember those who lost their lives, I can promise you that the Justice Department will continue to combat hate crimes wherever they occur.

Last week, I visited Philadelphia, Mississippi, to mark the 50th anniversary of the murders of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman – civil rights workers who were killed while investigating a church burning as part of the Freedom Summer movement.  In 1964, when the state declined to prosecute their murderers, then-Assistant Attorney General John Doar flew down to personally investigate.  He pursued the investigation relentlessly, and ultimately convicted Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price, Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel Bowers and five others for that cold-blooded murder.

Today, the Civil Rights Division continues to seek justice for the hate crimes of the 1960s: in 2003, a Civil Rights Division attorney working alongside the United States Attorney’s office in Jackson, Mississippi, successfully convicted former Klansman Ernest Avants for the 1966 murder of an African-American sharecropper named Ben Chester White.  In 2007, a Civil Rights Division attorney working alongside the same United States Attorney’s Office successfully convicted former Klansman James Ford Seale for the murders of 19-year-olds Charles Moore and Henry Dee.

In recent years, the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act has greatly increased the federal government’s ability to prosecute hate crimes.  Signed by President Obama in 2009, the act removed unnecessary jurisdictional obstacles in previous federal criminal laws that made the prosecution of certain racial and religious hate crimes unduly difficult.  It also empowers the department, for the first time, to prosecute crimes committed because of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender or disability as hate crimes.  Since 2009, we have used this law to indict individuals in 28 hate crimes cases, including at least eight cases involving attacks on LGBT individuals, and the first ever hate crimes case involving the abuse of individuals with disabilities.

The division’s expanded ability to prosecute hate crimes reflects our effort to address the civil rights challenges of the 21st century.  To name but a few, these challenges include addressing racial disparities in school discipline, defending the rights of LGBT Americans, combating discrimination in both housing and in lending, ensuring the fair treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system and defending the right to vote in the 21st century.

Sixty years ago, in his opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.”  Yet nearly six decades after this landmark decision, considerable work remains to provide equal educational opportunities to all of our nation’s students.

In recent months, we have devoted considerable resources to addressing a modern form of school exclusion: disparities in school discipline.  Too often, the effects of school discipline policies are not felt equally—students of color and those with disabilities receive more severe punishments than their peers for comparable misbehavior.

Last year, a division investigation into disciplinary practices in the Meridian, Mississippi, public school system found that black students frequently received far harsher disciplinary consequences than white students for comparable misbehavior.  A minor school discipline offense should not land a student in a police precinct.  In too many cases, the adverse effects of this early interaction with the juvenile or criminal justice systems can be permanent, depriving those caught up in the system of opportunities for educational advancement, employment, access to housing and even the right to vote.

With the cooperation of the Meridian School Board, the division entered into a first-of-its-kind settlement to prevent and address racial discrimination in school discipline.  Under the consent decree, the district will provide students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; establish clear guidelines for the limited and extremely serious circumstances when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; and ensure that discipline consequences are fair and consistent.

Earlier this year, the Departments of Justice and Education released guidance to public schools across the country on their obligations to administer student discipline without discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.  This guidance provides templates for schools to adopt effective disciplinary practices that avoid discrimination and take steps to keep all students in school.  Through technical assistance documents like the discipline guidance, the Civil Rights Division attempts to ensure that our schools receive the support they need to keep young people in the classroom and out of the criminal justice system.

Additionally, the Civil Rights Division has achieved significant victories in its efforts to defend the rights of LGBT students.  Students cannot learn if they are afraid to go to school.  Students cannot learn if they are being harassed and threatened.  Students cannot learn if they feel that school administrators don’t or won’t protect them.

In a speech earlier this year, Attorney General Holder called LGBT rights one of the “civil rights challenges of our time.”  And under his leadership, the Civil Rights Division has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that our schools foster safe and nurturing learning environments for all students, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In 2010, working with the Department of Education, the Civil Rights Division began investigating a complaint that the learning environment in the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota was unsafe and unwelcoming for students who did not conform to gender stereotypes, including LGBT students.  Many students reported being harassed because they did not dress or act in ways that conform to gender stereotypes.  Some students faced threats, physical violence, derogatory language or other forms of harassment every day at school.  Several of these students stopped attending school; a few even contemplated or attempted suicide.

In 2012, the division reached a landmark settlement with the Anoka-Hennepin school district to address this harassment.  The consent decree systemically reforms the district’s policies and practices related to harassment, and we hope it will serve as a blueprint for other districts who wish to accommodate their students’ needs.

Additionally, in 2013, the division and the Department of Education entered into a first-of-its-kind settlement agreement with the Arcadia Unified School District to resolve allegations of discrimination against a transgender student based on the student’s sex.  The student’s gender identity is male, and he has presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years.  Yet prior to the agreement, the district prohibited the student from accessing facilities consistent with his male gender identity—including restrooms and locker rooms at school as well as sex-specific overnight accommodations at a school-sponsored trip.  Under the agreement, the district will treat the student like other male students in all activities, and it will also adopt policies to ensure nondiscrimination for all students going forward.

Through our enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the division works hard to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability status.  Work is a fundamental part of adult life for people with and without disabilities.  It provides a sense of purpose, shaping who we are and how we fit into our community.  Meaningful work – being a contributing part of society – is essential to economic self-sufficiency, as well as self-esteem and well-being.  That’s why the division works hard to ensure implementation of the Supreme Court’s landmark Olmstead v. L.C. decision, which made clear the right of individuals with disabilities to live and receive services in their communities rather than in institutions or other segregated settings.  Our Olmstead enforcement work from 2009 to 2014 has helped protect the rights of over 46,000 people with disabilities, ensuring they will have the opportunity to participate fully in their communities.  In Fiscal Year 2013, the division continued its strong track record on this issue, participating in 18 Olmstead matters across the country.  These cases have benefitted people of all ages and all types of disabilities.

In April of this year, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the state of Rhode Island on behalf of more than 3,000 Rhode Islanders with intellectual and developmental disabilities.  Prior to this year, the vast majority of these Rhode Islanders were consigned to sheltered workshops, where they rarely had contact with people without disabilities, performed rote menial tasks and were paid well below the minimum wage.  These workers were capable of working integrated jobs within their communities, and yet were unauthorized to do so.  This unnecessary segregation was harmful, both to those directly affected and to the community as a whole.

In response, the Justice Department, the state of Rhode Island and the business community came together to embrace real integration of people with disabilities – committing to make the state a model for others to follow.

As a result of this settlement, Rhode Islanders with intellectual and developmental disabilities will have opportunities to work real jobs with competitive wages.  State funding previously used for segregated, separate day programs will be re-directed to provide integrated options for non-work hours.  And students with disabilities will get transition services starting at age 14 so that when they leave school, they can transition into the work force.

This settlement is already improving the lives of Rhode Islanders.  For 30 years, a Rhode Island man with disabilities named Steven did what millions of Americans do every day: he got up and reported to work.  But for most of Steven's life, he had little choice other than to work in a sheltered workshop where he earned $2 an hour.  Steven didn’t expect to spend 30 years working there – even the name of the program, “Training Thru Placement,” suggested that a brighter future lay ahead.  But a lack of employment services and supports kept Steven in a segregated low-wage work environment.  Now, Steven has transitioned to an integrated office setting, where he earns minimum wage and has been receiving computer training.

A young man named Pedro, who spent his high school years unpacking and sorting buttons, was forced on graduation to take a sheltered workshop job paying just 48 cents an hour.  Now, he is working in a restaurant, where he was recently named employee of the month.  His progress has been so rapid that he no longer needs a job coach – instead, he helps his former coach assist other employees with disabilities.  These stories illustrate the transformative power of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Olmstead decision; the Civil Rights Division is proud to continue to build on their promises.

Let me turn to access to housing, which stands at the heart of the American dream.  A family’s access to housing determines far more than whether they have a roof over their heads—it affects their access to good schools, to transportation and to jobs.  Ensuring that local governments and private housing providers offer safe and affordable housing on a non-discriminatory basis has been a division priority for decades.  But in 2014, a family’s access to housing is almost always linked to its access to credit.  That’s why the division has maintained its robust fair housing enforcement efforts while also reinvigorating its efforts to ensure that all qualified borrowers have equal access to fair and responsible lending.

Since its creation in 2010, the division’s Fair Lending Unit has obtained more than $1 billion in monetary relief for impacted communities—sending a clear message that financial institutions of all sizes will be held accountable for lending discrimination whenever and wherever it occurs.

While many communities nationwide were devastated during the housing and foreclosure crises, African-American and Latino families were hit especially hard.  Across the country, the division found cases where qualified African-American and Latino families paid more for loans because of their race or national origin, or were steered to more expensive and risky subprime loans.  We also found some lenders who failed to offer credit in African-American and Latino communities on an equal basis with white communities.

Two weeks ago, the division joined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to announce an $169 million settlement with GE Retail Capital Bank, recently renamed to Synchrony.  The bank engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination by excluding Hispanic borrowers from two of its credit card debt-repayment programs.  The bank offered credit relief to its cardholders, but denied that relief to borrowers who requested information in Spanish, or who had mailing addresses in Puerto Rico.  Lending discrimination in any form is unacceptable, and this settlement – the largest credit card discrimination settlement in history – was an important victory in the fight for equal financial opportunity.

The division has also recently expanded our enforcement efforts to include auto lending.  For example, working with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Civil Rights Division reached a $98 million settlement with Ally Bank and Financial last year for pricing discrimination in its automobile lending practices.  This complaint was the division’s first against a national auto lender as well as its first joint fair lending enforcement action with the CFPB.  The settlement provided $80 million in relief to the more than 200,000 minority borrowers who received higher interest rates due to their national origin or the color of their skin.  Ally also agreed to pay an $18 million civil penalty to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and to institute safeguards to ensure that these discriminatory lending practices come to an end.

In addition, the division is acutely aware of the impact that the criminal justice system has on communities of color.  It remains an inescapable fact that disparities at nearly every stage of the criminal process keep too many African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities in poverty and deny them the opportunities that so many in the civil rights movement fought to achieve.

Over the last five years, the division has obtained groundbreaking reform agreements with police departments that will serve as models for effective and constitutional policing nationwide.  Every investigation involves a thorough examination of the challenges facing the police department, which may include the excessive use of force; unlawful stops, searches, or arrests; or policing that unlawfully discriminates against protected minority groups or women.

In recent years, the division has expanded its efforts to better protect the rights of youth in the juvenile justice system.  In Shelby County, Tennessee, a division investigation found that the juvenile court systemically violated the due process rights of youth in delinquency proceedings, as well as the equal protection rights of African-American youth.  At every critical inflection point, we found that African-American youth were statistically more likely than similarly situated whites to be driven deeper into the juvenile justice system.  And there was a significantly higher risk for young black men to be removed to the adult system than their white peers.

In response to these findings, the division entered into a comprehensive settlement to ensure that children in Shelby County will receive the full protections provided under our Constitution.  This agreement has already led to significant improvements, including the hiring of a juvenile defender, and will help make Shelby County a model for juvenile courts across the country.  Moreover, data collected from this settlement will help us better understand what interventions work to keep children in the community and out of detention.

Finally, I want to discuss the Civil Rights Division’s work in safeguarding every eligible citizen’s access to the ballot box.  When he signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson announced, “Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color.  This law will ensure them the right to vote.  The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify.  The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny.”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has played a critical role in ensuring that the right to vote is not abridged based on discrimination against racial or language minorities.  In thehalf-century since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, as well as support from the executive branch.  Notably, after extensive hearings, Sections 4 and 5 of the act were reauthorized most recently in 2006, with the unanimous support of the U.S. Senate and the near-unanimous support of the House of Representatives.  Yet in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated an essential part of this cornerstone civil rights law.  This decision represents a serious setback for voting rights – and has the potential to negatively affect millions of Americans across the country.

There are many examples demonstrating that discrimination in voting has not been consigned to history.  Our country has changed for the better since 1965, but the destination we seek has not yet been reached.  This is why the Department of Justice will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights.  We will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action – using every legal tool that remains available to us – against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling by hindering eligible citizens’ full and free exercise of the franchise.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision, the Civil Rights Division has filed three cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  One complaint challenges the legality of Texas’ congressional and legislative redistricting maps - maps which prior to the Shelby County decision were blocked by federal courts for intentionally discriminating against Latino and African-American citizens.  A second complaint challenges Texas’s restrictive photo identification requirement as racially discriminatory in both purpose and effect.

And a third complaint challenges portions of a restrictive North Carolina voting law, passed within days of the Shelby County decision, that limits the number of early voting days, eliminates same-day registration during early voting; imposes a restrictive photo identification requirement for in-person voting; and prohibits the counting of otherwise legitimate provisional ballots that are mistakenly cast in the right county, but in the wrong precinct.  These changes were made despite evidence before the North Carolina General Assembly that such action would make it harder for many minority voters to participate in the electoral process.  Trials in all three of these voting rights cases are beginning this summer.

In June, Attorney General Holder announced the administration’s plans to consult with tribes on ensuring that American Indians and Alaska Natives have a meaningful opportunity to claim their right to vote.  It is a tragic irony that in this country – history's greatest democratic experiment – it is First Americans who have, for decades, too often been deprived the right to vote.  Standing by as Native voices are shut out of the democratic process is not an option.  That is why the Justice Department supports providing voters on Indian reservations and in Alaska Native villages with an effective opportunity to cast a ballot.  We seek formal consultation on a proposal that would give American Indian and Alaska Natives a polling place in their community, somewhere to cast their ballots and ensure their voices are heard – something most other citizens already take for granted.

Last week, the Attorney General made a statement on the one-year anniversary of the Shelby decision.  In addition to discussing the work just described, he referred to a voting rights controversy happening here in Wisconsin.  I’d like to read you what he said:

“In April, a federal district court in Wisconsin ruled that Wisconsin’s unnecessarily restrictive voter-ID law, which disproportionately impacted the state’s African-American and Latino voters, violated both the equal protection clause of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“The Wisconsin law erected significant barriers to equal access without serving any legitimate government interest – because, as the judge found, and I quote, ‘The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.’

“By restricting access and decreasing voter participation, laws such as those in Wisconsin would shrink – rather than expand – access to the franchise.

“This is inconsistent not only with our history, but with our ideals as a nation – a nation founded on the principle that all citizens are entitled to equal opportunity, equal representation, and equal rights.

“And that’s why, across this country, the Department of Justice will continue to take aggressive steps to stand against disenfranchisement wherever it exists – and in whatever form.”

The Civil Rights Division recognizes that case-by-case litigation is no substitute for Congressional action on legislation to fill the void left by the Supreme Court’s Shelby decision.  President Obama and Attorney General Holder remain committed to working with leaders from across the political spectrum to ensure that modern voting protections are adequate to the challenges of the 21st century.  History shows that advances in voting rights have been hard-won, and that progress is not inevitable: the Department of Justice will never abdicate its responsibility to protect and preserve this critical right.

I’ve touched on only a few of the division’s activities.  We enforce the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure employers do not deny employment opportunities to immigrants who are legally authorized to work or to subject these men and women to discriminatory verification procedures.  And our Policy Section works to develop policy and legislative proposals to close the gaps in our nation’s civil rights protections.

Five decades after its passage, the Civil Rights Act continues to touch the lives of Americans across the country – and to serve as a potent tool for combating discrimination.  As we contemplate a half-century of progress—and look to the work that remains—the Civil Rights Division remains committed to its mission to protect, defend and advance civil rights in our nation.  Together, in collaboration with all here today, we will continue to work to ensure equal justice under the law.  Thank you.

CITY OF AUSTIN SETTLES EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS WITH DOJ

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Monday, June 9, 2014

Justice Department Settles Employment Discrimination Allegations Against City of Austin

The Department of Justice announced today that it has entered into and filed a consent decree that, if approved by the court, will resolve the department’s allegations that the city of Austin violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against African-American and Hispanic applicants for entry-level firefighter positions at the Austin Fire Department (AFD).

Title VII’s prohibitions of discrimination in employment forbid not only intentional discrimination, but also the use of employment practices, such as written tests, that result in disparate impact against any group based on the race, color, sex, national origin or religion of that group’s members, unless an employer can prove that such practices are job related and consistent with business necessity.  Absent such proof, those practices do not identify the best qualified candidates and violate the law.  The complaint, filed along with the consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin, alleges that in 2012, the city used a written test that disproportionately eliminated African-Americans and Hispanics from the hiring process, and that Austin cannot demonstrate that its use of the test was job related and consistent with business necessity.  Similarly, the complaint alleges that Austin’s method of weighting the 2012 assessments and processing candidates in descending rank order by composite score had an adverse impact on individuals in these protected groups who passed the written test, and that this practice was also not job related or consistent with business necessity.  The United States has challenged the hiring process Austin planned to use for these positions in 2013 as well.

The Justice Department, along with the city of Austin, filed a joint motion today requesting that the court provisionally approve the consent decree executed by the parties and schedule an initial fairness hearing regarding the terms of the consent decree.

The consent decree requires that Austin no longer use the selection practices challenged by the United States in screening and selecting candidates for the AFD’s entry-level firefighter positions.  The decree requires that Austin develop a new, lawful selection procedure that complies with Title VII, and also requires that the city pay $780,000 in back pay to entry-level firefighter applicants who were harmed by the 2012 hiring practice challenged by the United States and who are determined to be eligible for relief.  Additionally, African-American and Hispanic applicants determined to be eligible for relief under the decree will be eligible for one of 30 priority appointments to an entry-level firefighter position with the AFD.  All applicants must pass the new, lawful selection procedure and other lawful selection procedures in order to be considered for priority hire relief.  African-American and Hispanic applicants who are offered priority hire relief are also eligible for retroactive seniority.

“The Department of Justice will not permit employers to use screening and selection devices that adversely affect any protected group unless those devices are shown to properly distinguish between qualified and unqualified applicants,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division.  “The department commends Austin for its efforts to address these issues and to ensure that effective, Title VII-compliant selection practices are put into place.”

The department and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) each investigated the AFD’s hiring practices.  Today’s proposed resolution was made possible in part through collaboration between the department and the San Antonio Field Office of the EEOC.

More information about Title VII and other federal employment laws is available on the Department of Justice website.

JUSTICE SAYS EVIDENCE OF GENDER BIAS IN MISSOULA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Friday, February 14, 2014
Justice Department Finds Substantial Evidence of Gender Bias in Missoula County Attorney’s Office
Response to Sexual Assault Cases with Women Victims at Issue

Today, the Department of Justice issued a letter of findings describing problems in the Missoula County, Mont., Attorney’s Office’s response to sexual assault, and concluding that there is substantial evidence that the County Attorney’s response to sexual assault discriminates against women.  The department opened civil pattern or practice investigations of the Missoula County Attorney’s Office, along with the Missoula Police Department and the University of Montana’s Office of Public Safety, in May 2012.  The department investigations, brought under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, focused on allegations that the three law enforcement agencies were systematically failing to protect women victims of sexual assault in Missoula.   The department, along with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, also opened an investigation of the University of Montana’s handling of allegations of sexual assault and harassment of students under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The investigation of the Missoula Police Department and both investigations of the University of Montana were resolved in May 2013, via cooperative agreements with the Justice Department.

“Prosecutors play a critical role in ensuring that women victims of sexual assault have effective and equal access to criminal justice,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division.  “We uncovered evidence of a disturbing pattern of deficiencies in the handling of these cases by the County Attorney’s Office, a pattern that not only denies victims meaningful access to justice, but places the safety of all women in Missoula at risk.  We hope that this letter will enable us to move forward with constructive discussions with the County Attorney to resolve these serious concerns.”

The department’s investigation uncovered evidence indicating that the Missoula County Attorney’s Office engages in gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as well as relevant federal laws.  In particular, the investigation found evidence that the decisions of the County Attorney’s Office regarding the investigation and prosecution of sexual assaults and rape, particularly non-stranger assaults and rapes, are influenced by gender bias and gender stereotyping and adversely affect women in Missoula.  The investigation found that the following, taken together, strongly suggest gender discrimination:

·          Despite their prevalence in the community, sexual assaults of adult women are given low priority in the County Attorney’s Office;

·          The County Attorney does not provide Deputy County Attorneys with the basic knowledge and training about sexual assault necessary to effectively and impartially investigate and prosecute these cases;

·          The County Attorney’s Office generally does not develop evidence in support of sexual assault prosecutions, either on its own or in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies

·          Adult women victims, particularly victims of non-stranger sexual assault and rape, are often treated with disrespect, not informed of the status of their case and revictimized by the process;  and

·          The County Attorney’s Office routinely fails to engage in the most basic communication about its cases of sexual assault with law enforcement and advocacy partners.

“Over the past eight months, the City of Missoula, the University of Montana and the Missoula Police Department already have made important strides toward improving their response to sexual assault and strengthening the community’s confidence in its local police,” said U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter for the District of Montana.  “It is our sincere hope that the Missoula County Attorney will follow that example and work cooperatively with the Justice Department to address the deficiencies identified in our investigation, and to improve the safety of women in this community.

The investigation was conducted jointly by the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana.  The prevention of sex-based discrimination is a top priority of the Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices.  The Civil Rights Division has worked to ensure that women are not subject to discriminatory practices by law enforcement in New Orleans, Puerto Rico and elsewhere.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CLARIFIES OBLIGATIONS OF SCHOOLS TO OFFER EXTRACURRICULAR ATHLETICS TO DISABLIED STUDENTS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. Department of Education Clarifies Schools' Obligation to Provide Equal Opportunity to Students with Disabilities to Participate in Extracurricular Athletics

Today, the Department's Office for Civil Rights issued guidance clarifying school districts' existing legal obligations to provide equal access to extracurricular athletic activities to students with disabilities. In addition to explaining those legal obligations, the guidance urges school districts to work with community organizations to increase athletic opportunities for students with disabilities, such as opportunities outside of the existing extracurricular athletic program.

Students with disabilities have the right, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, to an equal opportunity to participate in their schools' extracurricular activities. A 2010 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that many students with disabilities are not afforded an equal opportunity to participate in athletics, and therefore may not have equitable access to the health and social benefits of athletic participation.

"Sports can provide invaluable lessons in discipline, selflessness, passion and courage, and this guidance will help schools ensure that students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to benefit from the life lessons they can learn on the playing field or on the court," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

The guidance letter provides examples of the types of reasonable modifications that schools may be required to make to existing policies, practices, or procedures for students with intellectual, developmental, physical, or any other type of disability. Examples of such modifications include:
The allowance of a visual cue alongside a starter pistol to allow a student with a hearing impairment who is fast enough to qualify for the track team the opportunity to compete.
The waiver of a rule requiring the "two-hand touch" finish in swim events so that a one-armed swimmer with the requisite ability can participate at swim meets.
The guidance also notes that the law does not require that a student with a disability be allowed to participate in any selective or competitive program offered by a school district, so long as the selection or competition criteria are not discriminatory.

"Participation in extracurricular athletics can be a critical part of a student's overall educational experience, said Seth Galanter, acting assistant secretary for the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). "Schools must ensure equal access to that rewarding experience for students with disabilities."

The mission of the Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. Among the federal civil rights laws OCR is responsible for enforcing are Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendment Act of 1972; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, COUNTRY CLUB SETTLE DISCRIMINATION CASE

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
　
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Justice Department Settles Race Discrimination Case Against Pennsylvania Country Club
　
The Justice Department announced today that it has reached a settlement agreement with Valley Club, a former swimming facility located in Huntingdon Valley, Pa, resolving allegations that the company discriminated against persons because of race. The Justice Department’s investigation was conducted under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and religion in places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment.
　
The settlement agreement, which must be approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, also resolves A.B., et al. v. The Valley Club of Huntingdon Valley, PA, a private suit filed by the children and their families, as well as discrimination claims filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The Chief Magistrate Judge of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved the settlement agreement after formal mediation efforts. The department investigated this matter jointly with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
　
In January 2010, the department filed a complaint following an incident at the Valley Club in June 2009. Creative Steps Inc. a Northeast Philadelphia children’s day camp, had paid the club a fee to give its campers access to the club’s swimming pool for the summer. On the first day they swam, the children reported hearing racial slurs while enjoying the pool. On July 3, 2009, the club refunded the day camp’s membership fee and prohibited the children from returning to swim.
　
"No one may be denied the right to use a swimming pool because of their race or the color of their skin," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Justice Department will continue to protect vigorously the rights of persons of all races to be free from discrimination in public accommodations across the country."
　
Valley Club filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy protection in November 2009. The club property was sold in June 2010 for $1,460,000. The settlement agreement stipulates that once the administration of the estate and the bankruptcy case is closed and after paying allowed costs and fees, the remaining assets will be paid to more than 50 children, their camp counselors and to Creative Steps.
　
"This settlement provides significant opportunity to children who were denied an opportunity based on their skin color," said JoAnn Edwards, executive director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. "Our hope is that this case serves as prevention for years to come and a reminder that discrimination is illegal, and has no place in Pennsylvania."
　
The settlement also provides that $65,000 will be set aside from the proceeds of the sale of the Valley Club property for the creation of a leadership council that comprises former Valley Club members, Creative Steps counselors, campers and their families. The children and families affected by the Valley Club incident will take leadership roles in planning swimming, educational and recreational opportunities for the community.

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION DUNCAN'S STATEMENT ON "CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964" ANNIVERSARY

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on the Anniversary of The Civil Rights Act of 1964
JULY 2, 2012
"Forty-eight years ago today, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states, 'No person in the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'

"In the education arena, Title VI applies to all elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities—public or private—that receive federal financial assistance, and its protection extends to all aspects of these institutions' programs and activities. Title VI also prohibits denial of equal access to college- and career-preparatory courses and programs and to other educational opportunities for English learners, as well as discriminatory discipline, harassment, or other barriers to equal education.

"The progress we've made toward fulfilling the promise of equal educational opportunities is marked by significant advances made by people of color across the nation. From the rising number of racial minorities with high school diplomas and bachelor's degrees to the increased attention and services designed to meet the educational needs of English learners, we have much to be proud of.

"But serious work remains to ensure equal opportunity for all students. A significant achievement gap persists between people of color and other groups. The high school graduation and bachelor's degree rates for Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Alaska Native students and other racial and ethnic minorities are still far lower than those for whites. Too many English learners still lack the instruction and services they need to be successful. As we are learning from the Civil Rights Data Collection, students of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds are receiving harsher discipline than other students. And there are too many racially isolated schools with unequal access to critical opportunities and programs. These trends are particularly troubling in an increasingly global economy where a postsecondary degree or certificate is more necessary than ever for a stable, well-paying career.

"So while today is an occasion to celebrate the progress this nation has made under Title VI, continuing that progress will require a sustained commitment to an equal education for all students. The Department's Office for Civil Rights will continue the legacy the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by vigorously enforcing Title VI and working to help end illegal discrimination in our nation's schools so that all children can learn and succeed."

Tags:  
Press Releases
Civil Rights
Civil Rights Act
Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)

JUSTICE, EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS AND UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REACH AGREEMENT OVER RACIAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, April 13, 2012
Departments of Justice and Education Reach Agreement with the University of California, San Diego to Resolve Harassment Allegations
The Departments of Justice and Education reached a settlement agreement with the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), to resolve an investigation into complaints of racial harassment against African-American students on campus.  Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 each prohibit harassment based on race.

The complaints alleged multiple incidents of racial harassment on campus, 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.   After conducting an extensive investigation into the alleged incidents, and following the receipt of additional complaints of racial discrimination and harassment on campus, the Departments of Justice and Education worked collaboratively with the university to address concerns regarding racial hostility on campus.

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.

“Students have a right to seek and obtain an education without facing racial harassment.   UCSD, like all colleges and universities, has an obligation to make clear that racial discrimination and harassment on campus will not be tolerated, and this agreement is a significant step in the right direction,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.  “We commend the university for working with us to address this matter, and we recognize the importance of this agreement in the context of larger efforts by the UC system to create supportive and inclusive learning environments for students.   We look forward to working with UCSD as it implements the measures and programs called for in the agreement.”

“We salute UCSD for taking these steps and we hope the entire school community learns from this experience and works together to overcome ignorance and intolerance,” said Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.   “America is a country that has always celebrated its diversity.   Nowhere is that more important than in our classrooms and schools – at every level – from the earliest grades to our colleges and universities. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice will continue to work cooperatively with UCSD to ensure that all students are safe from harassment and discrimination.”