ALEXANDER, DIRECTOR, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al. V. SANDOVAL
532 U.S. 275 (2001)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Sandoval (P) brought this class action to enjoin the Department's (D)
decision to administer state driver's license examinations only in English, arguing that it
violated a Department of Justice regulation because it had the effect of subjecting
non-English speakers to discrimination based on their national origin. Both the District
Court and the Eleventh Circuit rejected Ds' argument that Title VI did not provide
respondents a cause of action to enforce the regulation.
FACTS: D accepted grants of financial assistance from the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) and Department of Transportation (DOT) and so subjected itself to the
restrictions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, as amended, 42 U. S.
C. 2000d et seq. Section 601 of that Title provides that no person 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' covered by Title VI. 42
U. S. C. 2000d. Section 602 authorizes federal agencies 'to effectuate the provisions of
[601] ... by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability,' 42 U. S. C.
2000d-1, and the DOJ in an exercise of this authority promulgated a regulation forbidding
funding recipients to 'utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect
of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin
... .' 28 CFR 42.104(b)(2) (1999). See also 49 CFR 21.5(b)(2) (2000) (similar DOT
regulation). The State of Alabama amended its Constitution in 1990 to declare English 'the
official language of the state of Alabama.' D decided to administer state driver's license
examinations only in English. P, as representative of a class, brought suit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to enjoin the English-only policy,
arguing that it violated the DOJ regulation because it had the effect of subjecting
non-English speakers to discrimination based on their national origin. The District Court
agreed. It enjoined the policy and ordered D to accommodate non-English speakers. The Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, affirmed and both courts rejected D's argument that
Title VI did not provide respondents a cause of action to enforce the regulation.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment