Greg Murphy Voted Against Restoring Civil Rights Protections For Disparate Impact Discrimination

2020: Murphy Voted Against Allowing Individuals To File Civil Discrimination Lawsuits Over Disparate Impacts As A Result Of Federal Policies

2020: Murphy Voted Against Allowing Individuals To File Civil Discrimination Lawsuits Over Disparate Impacts As A Result Of Federal Policies. In September 2020, Murphy voted against: “Passage of the bill, as amended, that would allow individuals to file civil discrimination lawsuits with regard to disparate impacts -- or unintentional discriminatory effects -- as a result of federal policies, enforceable to the same extent as intentional violations under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act regarding nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs. It would require all school districts and colleges that receive federal education funding to designate an employee to oversee compliance with Title VI requirements and investigate complaints of noncompliance. It would also establish a special assistant for equity and inclusion within the Education Department to promote, coordinate, and evaluate equity and inclusion programs consistent with Title VI, including the dissemination of information, technical assistance, and coordination of research activities.” The bill passed by a vote of 232-188. [H.R. 2574, Vote #192, 9/16/20; CQ, 9/16/20]

• H.R. 2574 Would Amend Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 To Create A Private Right Of Action To File Disparate Impact Claims. “H.R. 2574 would amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to create a private right of action to file disparate impact claims. Disparate impact refers to the discriminatory effects caused by policies that, on their face, appear neutral as instituted by an organization or employer.” [Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 2574, 5/5/20]
• H.R. 2574 Would Make Disparate Impact Lawsuits Enforceable To The Same Extent As Intentional Violations Of Title VI. “Passage of the bill, as amended, that would allow individuals to file civil discrimination lawsuits with regard to disparate impacts -- or unintentional discriminatory effects -- as a result of federal policies, enforceable to the same extent as intentional violations under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act regarding nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs. It would require all school districts and colleges that receive federal education funding to designate an employee to oversee compliance with Title VI requirements and investigate complaints of noncompliance. It would also establish a special assistant for equity and inclusion within the Education Department to promote, coordinate, and evaluate equity and inclusion programs consistent with Title VI, including the dissemination of information, technical assistance, and coordination of research activities.” [H.R. 2574, Vote #192, 9/16/20; CQ, 9/16/20]

The Office For Civil Rights In The Department Of Education Used Title VI To Protect Civil Rights On Campuses At All Educational Levels. “Although Title VI's nondiscrimination prohibition accompanies nearly all awards of federal financial support, much of the statute's doctrine has been shaped by its use in the public schools. That doctrinal history has centered on one agency in particular: the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Title VI continues to play a central part in OCR's mission of protecting civil rights on campuses at all educational levels, and in institutions both public and private.” [Congressional Research Service, Civil Rights at School: Agency Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 4/4/19]

The Supreme Court Initially Ruled That Federally Funded Programs Could Not Have A Disparate Impact On People Of Different Races But Later Decided Federal Law Only Prohibited Intentional Discrimination

Initially, The Supreme Court Said Title VI Barred Federally Funded Programs From Having Policies That Had A Disparate Impact On People Of Different Races. “Title VI has long been understood to bar federally funded programs from intentionally discriminating based on race. At least for the first few decades following its adoption, however, there was considerably more debate about whether Section 601 might also forbid policies that, while not purposefully discriminatory, nonetheless had a disparate effect on persons of different races. And in its first case involving Title VI—Lau v. Nichols—the Supreme Court seemed to say exactly that. In its most recent encounter with disparate impact under Title VI, however, in Alexander v Sandoval, the Court squarely rejected Lau's ruling on that point. Today, as a result, the only discrimination Title VI directly prohibits is intentional.” [Congressional Research Service, Civil Rights at School: Agency Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 4/4/19]

As Of 2019, The Only Discrimination Title VI Directly Prohibited Was Intentional Discrimination. “Title VI has long been understood to bar federally funded programs from intentionally discriminating based on race. At least for the first few decades following its adoption, however, there was considerably more debate about whether Section 601 might also forbid policies that, while not purposefully discriminatory, nonetheless had a disparate effect on persons of different races. And in its first case involving Title VI—Lau v. Nichols—the Supreme Court seemed to say exactly that. In its most recent encounter with disparate impact under Title VI, however, in Alexander v Sandoval, the Court squarely rejected Lau's ruling on that point. Today, as a result, the only discrimination Title VI directly prohibits is intentional.” [Congressional Research Service, Civil Rights at School: Agency Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 4/4/19]