Section IV- Interplay of Title VI with Title IX, Section 504, th Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VII

This is just a section of the larger revised Title VI Legal Manual.  Please click here to see the complete revised Manual.

Title VI Legal Manual

IV:   INTERPLAY OF TITLE VI WITH TITLE IX, SECTION 504, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND TITLE VII

Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Specifically, Title VI provides as follows:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Title VI served as the model for several subsequently promulgated statutes that prohibit discrimination on other grounds in federally assisted programs or activities, including Title IX (sex discrimination in education programs) and Section 504 (disability discrimination). See U.S. Dep’t of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597, 600 n.4 (1986); Grove City Coll. v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 566 (1984) (Title IX was patterned after Title VI); Consol. Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624 (1984) (Section 504 patterned after Titles VI and IX).[1]  Accordingly, courts have “relied on case law interpreting Title VI as generally applicable to later statutes.” Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. at 600 n.4.

The three statutes do not treat all issues identically. For example, Title VI statutorily restricts claims of employment discrimination to instances where a “primary objective” of the financial assistance is to provide employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3. An employment discrimination claim against a recipient of federal financial assistance that otherwise might raise a Title VI issue must be brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., if a “primary objective” is not employment. No such restriction applies to Title IX or Section 504. See N. Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 530 (1982) (“[T]he legislative history thus corroborates our reading of the statutory language and verifies the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that employment discrimination comes within the prohibition of Title IX.”); Bentley v. Cleveland Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 41 F.3d 600 (10th Cir. 1994) (Section 504 claim alleging discriminatory termination of former employee).

Courts also have held that Title VI adopts or follows the Fourteenth Amendment’s standard of proof for intentional discrimination, see Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 412-18 (1978); and, generally, the Title VII standard of proof for disparate impact. See Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 639 (1983); Elston v. Talladega Cty. Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394, 1405 n.11, 1407 n.14 (11th Cir. 1993) (see, infra,  Section V, ch. 1). Accordingly, cases under these constitutional and statutory provisions may shed light on the Title VI analysis in a given situation.

Finally, cases decided under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., may also be instructive regarding the disparate impact analysis under Title VI.