Case Summaries

Beneath the title of each case summary below are links that connect to lists of similar cases sorted by topic areas relevant to each case by protected class. Links within each case summary connect to important case documents including complaints, briefs, settlement agreements, consent decrees, orders, and press releases.

On March 18, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Section moved to intervene in A.B. v. Rhinebeck Central School District and Thomas Mawhinney, a sexual harassment case brought against the Rhinebeck Central School District and the former high school principal Thomas Mawhinney. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 9, 2003, by four current and former high school students and a school employee. The plaintiffs alleged that the school district and Mawhinney violated state and federal laws, including Title IX. The United States filed an intervention brief and complaint-in-intervention alleging that Mawhinney sexually harassed the four plaintiff students as well as other female high school students during his ten-year tenure as principal and that the school district violated Title IX by acting with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment of these students. The district opposed the United States' intervention, and the United States filed a reply. On August 25, 2004, the court granted the United States' intervention motion.

On March 22, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that requires the district to develop and implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a discrimination-free educational environment for all students. The district must retain an expert regarding sexual harassment training and prevention to assist in developing the comprehensive plan, to evaluate the district's sexual harassment policies, to conduct a school climate assessment, and to develop a mandatory training program. The consent decree also requires the district to educate school board members and employees regarding how to respond to sexual harassment complaints. Lastly, the district must pay $152,500 to compensate the student victims and to pay their attorney's fees. On December 9, 2009, the parties informed the court that the case could be closed based on the district's implementation of the consent order.

On October 3, 2018, the Section and the District of Colorado U.S. Attorney’s Office (collectively the “United States”) entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the Adams 12 Five Star Schools (“the District”) in Colorado to bring the District’s English Learner (EL) program into compliance with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). This is the United States’ second settlement agreement with the District. The first settlement agreement was reached in 2010 and aimed to resolve numerous EEOA violations that the Section had identified during a compliance review of all the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices. This 2010 agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: ensure timely, adequate and appropriate EL services; train EL teachers and administrators; recruit and hire qualified staff for EL students; provide translation services for parents and guardians; ensure EL students are appropriately evaluated for special education and receive dual services when eligible; provide adequate and appropriate materials for EL classes; monitor current and exited EL students; and evaluate its EL programs adequately. The Section ended its monitoring of the 2010 agreement in 2015.

In 2016, the United States began conducting a complaint investigation to determine whether the District was appropriately serving its approximately 5,600 EL students as required by Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. The second settlement agreement addresses the narrower set of conditions that the United States identified as noncompliant with the EEOA in 2018. The 2018 agreement requires the District to: provide adequate language services to all EL students; provide EL students with appropriate access to core content through sheltered instruction; adequately train the administrators and teachers who provide language services and implement the EL program, including on how to use its curricula for EL students; adequately monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and properly evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the 2018 agreement will remain in place for three years.

On July 24, 2013, the Section and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights entered into a resolution agreement with the Arcadia Unified School District in Arcadia, Calif., to resolve an investigation into allegations of discrimination against a transgender student based on the student's sex. Under the agreement, the school district will take a number of steps to ensure that the student, whose gender identity is male and who has consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years, will be treated like other male students while attending school in the district. The agreement resolves a complaint filed in October 2011. As detailed in the closure letter sent to the district, the complaint alleged that the district had prohibited the student from accessing facilities consistent with his male gender identity at school and on a school-sponsored overnight trip because he is transgender. The United States investigated this complaint under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both Title IX and Title IV prohibit discrimination against students based on sex. Under the agreement, the district will work with a consultant to support and assist the district in creating a safe, nondiscriminatory learning environment for students who are transgender or do not conform to gender stereotypes; amend its policies and procedures to reflect that gender-based discrimination, including discrimination based on a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity with gender stereotypes, is a form of discrimination based on sex; and train administrators and faculty on preventing gender-based discrimination and creating a nondiscriminatory school environment for transgender students. Additionally, the district will take a number of steps to treat the student like all other male students in the education programs and activities offered by the district. The district-wide provisions of the agreement will be in place until the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The student-specific provisions of the agreement will be in place as long as the student is enrolled in the district. For more information, please see this press release.

On July 23, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the South District of Texas in Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District.  In this case, the District disciplined two black boys when they refused to cut their locs to conform to the District’s hair length policy.  Because similarly situated girls would not have been in violation of the District’s policy, the boys and their parents brought suit, alleging that the hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex (among other bases) in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  Plaintiffs further allege that the District retaliated against one of the parents in violation of Title IX.  On June 21, 2021, the District filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal, arguing primarily that Fifth Circuit precedent establishes a per se rule barring judicial review of all school hair length regulations and that a parent lacks standing to bring a Title IX retaliation claim.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that there is no binding Fifth Circuit precedent barring review of plaintiffs’ sex-based challenges to the District’s hair length policy.  The United States further advises that Title IX applies to all aspects of a federal funding recipient’s education programs and activities, including its dress and grooming code, and that parents of minor schoolchildren have standing to bring Title IX retaliation claims.  Applying the proper Equal Protection Clause and Title IX standards, the United States concludes that plaintiffs adequately allege that the District’s hair length policy unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, and that the District unlawfully retaliated against a parent who complained about the hair length policy’s discriminatory effect.  For this reason, the United States asserts that the District’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ sex discrimination claims should be denied. 

On January 28, 1975, Mississippi was sued for maintaining an unconstitutional dual system of higher education. Plaintiffs argued that Mississippi denied equal opportunities to black students and faculty members by favoring the State's historically white colleges and universities at the expense of its historically black colleges and universities, and by failing to remove the vestiges of racial segregation in the former de jure dual system. On April 21, 1975, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring Mississippi's higher education system into conformity with constitutional and statutory provisions.

After a trial, the district court and appellate court found for the defendants, but, in 1992, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case to the district court to determine if Mississippi had taken the necessary steps to ensure that a student's choice of college was indeed free and unconstrained by Mississippi's former discriminatory policies. The case marked the first time that the Supreme Court defined the applicable legal standards for higher education desegregation.

On February 15, 2002, the court entered a final judgment approving a $503 million settlement. Endorsed by the Mississippi legislature, the settlement will fund a comprehensive plan over a seventeen-year period aimed at improving academic programs, making capital improvements, and expanding summer programs at the State's historically black colleges and universities. The State also will recognize the historically black Jackson State University as a comprehensive university. The district court dismissed the case, but has retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

On January 30, 2017, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana approved a consent order that addresses the remaining issues in the desegregation case and when fully implemented will lead to its closing. The consent order, negotiated with the school district (the “District”) and private plaintiffs, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, puts the District on a path to full unitary status within three years provided it:

• Implements a new student assignment plan that desegregates its three nearly all-black elementary schools to the extent practicable, by revising feeder patterns and creating specialized academic programs that will attract a diverse student body;
• Revises the District’s code of conduct to ensure fairness and consistency in the handling of subjective disciplinary offenses that do not threaten safety, and provides District staff with additional tools to address student misbehavior in nondiscriminatory ways;
• Takes reasonable steps to recruit a diverse pool of applicants for faculty and staff vacancies that arise in the course of implementing the new student assignment plan; and
• Incorporates into its student handbook a statement prohibiting discrimination in extracurricular activities and encouraging participation by students of all races.

The consent order declares that the District has already met its desegregation obligations in the area of transportation. The court will retain jurisdiction over the consent order during its implementation, and the Justice Department will monitor the district’s compliance. For more information, please see this press release.

This longstanding desegregation case was filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs, with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and local cooperating attorneys serving as counsel. The United States intervened later that year. In 1969, the Fifth Circuit entered a desegregation order permanently enjoined the District from discriminating on the basis of race or color in the operation of the Meridian schools. In 2010, as part of efforts to enforce the desegregation order, the department began to investigate complaints that the District had implemented a harsh and punitive student discipline policy that resulted in the disproportionate suspension, expulsion, and school-based arrest of black students in Meridian schools. The department found that these kinds of disparities persisted even when the students were at the same school, were of similar ages, and had similar disciplinary histories.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a proposed consent decree filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 22, 2013. Along with the proposed consent decree, the parties jointly filed a motion to approve the decree, and the United States separately filed a memorandum of law. Under the consent decree, the district will take steps to create safe and inclusive learning environments in all Meridian schools, including providing students with supports and interventions before excluding them from school; limiting the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; ensuring that discipline consequences are fair and consistent; establishing clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and building data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On May 30, 2013, the Court adopted the consent order.

For more information regarding the proposed consent decree, please see this press release.

On June 21, 2010, the Division filed a Motion for Leave to file an amicus brief in Biediger, et al. v. Quinnipiac University. Plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac failed to provide female students an equal opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics, and that this failure constituted intentional sex discrimination in violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(1). The plaintiffs allege that Quinnipiac misrepresented its athletic participation numbers by, among other things, requiring women’s teams to artificially increase their number of participants, resulting in some members lacking a genuine varsity athletic participation opportunity; underrepresenting the number of male athletes on teams; eliminating the women's volleyball program; and counting participants on its cheer squad as a sport under Title IX. The United States' amicus brief provided guidance as to what constitutes a genuine participation opportunity, as well as guidance concerning what constitutes a sport for Title IX compliance.

On October 1, 2010, the Section, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education (OCR), and the Boston Public Schools (BPS) entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve violations of English Language Learner (ELL) students' rights under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 20 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. The 2010 Agreement, which grew out of the Section’s and OCR’s joint compliance review of BPS' ELL programs, was needed to address as soon as possible its failure to test approximately 7,000 students in reading and writing to determine if they were ELL students and over 4,000 known ELL students whom it had misidentified as having opted out of ELL programs between 2003 and 2009. The 2010 Agreement secured ELL and compensatory services for the more than 4,000 misidentified “opt out” students and the 4,300 of the 7,000 students who were improperly identified as non-ELL students. The 2010 Agreement further required BPS to provide all ELL students with English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction by ESL-certified teachers and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) content classes by teachers trained to provide SEI instruction. While BPS was implementing the 2010 Agreement, OCR and DOJ completed the remainder of their compliance review and negotiated a Successor Agreement with BPS to resolve the additional areas of noncompliance identified in the review. The April 19, 2012 Successor Agreement replaced the 2010 Settlement Agreement and provides systemic, comprehensive relief across BPS’s ELL programs, procedures, and practices. The Successor Agreement requires, inter alia: accurate and timely identification of ELL students; appropriate ESL and SEI services provided by qualified faculty; meaningful communications with Limited English Proficient parents through translations and qualified interpreters; assessments and services specially designed to meet the needs of ELL students who face unique challenges, such as students with disabilities and students with interrupted formal education; and greater access for ELL students to the higher-level learning opportunities in BPS. To ensure these programmatic changes are effective, the agreement further requires BPS to evaluate the effect of these changes on student achievement over time through robust, disaggregated data analyses. For more information on both agreements, please see the 2010 press release and 2012 press release.

In this matter involving the Bound Brook New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs) as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; ELLs' access to basic skills instruction, special education services, and academic enrichment programs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; and monitoring of students currently enrolled in the ELL program and those students who have exited from the program. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues and on October 16, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement required the district to provide, among other things: timely assessment of all students with non-English speaking backgrounds; quality curricula and instruction for ELLs; adequate teacher training; and careful monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of current and former ELLs. After the district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement, the agreement ended on January 12, 2007.

On June 17, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in evaluating the Title IX and Equal Protection claims in B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00316.  In this case, the plaintiff, an 11-year-old girl who is transgender, challenged H.B. 3293, a state law that prohibits girls who are transgender from participating on female interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by any public secondary school or state institution of higher education.  She asked the court to enjoin West Virginia from enforcing H.B. 3293 and allow her to participate on girls’ sports teams consistent with her gender identity.  The plaintiff alleged that H.B. 3293 requires her school, a recipient of federal financial assistance, to exclude her from school athletics on the basis of sex, causing her harm in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The plaintiff also alleges that H.B. 3293 violates the Equal Protection Clause because the state law discriminates against her because of sex and gender identity and is not substantially related to an exceedingly persuasive justification.  In its statement of interest, the United States advised the court that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit discrimination against students because of their sex, including because a student is transgender.  The United States concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on these claims in support of her motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Memorandum and Order - B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

On November 13, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Burlington School District in Burlington, Vermont, to resolve an investigation into allegations of sex discrimination.  The Section initiated its investigation in response to a complaint by a group of parents alleging that their children had been subject to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment, including assault, that went unaddressed by the District.  As a result, their children feared for their safety and several withdrew from the school.  Under the Agreement, the District will take a number of steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on sex.  Those steps include retaining the technical assistance of the Mid Atlantic Equity Center to support a review of the District’s sex-based harassment policies, practices, and procedures as well as the District’s training on and implementation protocols for such policies.  The Agreement further requires that the District work with the Equity Center to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District-level to ensure that all schools have the capacity to implement fully the District’s policies and procedures.  Under the Agreement, the District will provide particularized training for students and faculty at the elementary school implicated in the complaint, and will conduct climate surveys at that school to assess the presence and effects of harassment and bullying, the inclusiveness and safety of the educational environment, and the effectiveness of the measures taken pursuant to the Agreement.  The Agreement will be in place through the 2021-22 school year.    

On July 14, 2014, the Division filed a Statement of Interest in D.J. et al v. State of California, a state case brought by parents and guardians of English Language Learner (ELL) students against the State of California and the California Department of Education (CDE) among others, which alleged that the State violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (“EEOA”) by failing to respond to credible information that tens of thousands of ELL students were not receiving ELL instructional services.  The Division’s Statement of Interest articulated what the United States maintains are the correct legal standards governing the State’s obligations under the EEOA, including monitoring local education agencies (LEAs) provision of EL instructional services.  In an August 12, 2014 decision, the state court ruled that the State had violated the EEOA and ordered it to take remedial action, reiterating many of the legal standards discussed in the United States’ brief.  In November 2014, the State appealed the ruling, and then subsequently settled the appeal and all of D.J. plaintiffs’ claims in a private settlement approved by the state court.

Applying the standards in the Statement of Interest in its own EEOA compliance review of the State’s monitoring practices, the Division notified CDE and the California State Board of Education in a letter dated May 22, 2015, that the State was not meeting its obligations under the EEOA and needed to respond promptly and appropriately to ensure LEAs provide their EL students with appropriate EL instructional services.  On September 8, 2016, the Division and the State settled the matter in a two-year settlement agreement that requires the State to respond in a timely and effective manner to credible evidence that LEAs are failing to serve their ELLs, including notifying them of violations and providing a protocol by which they must submit to CDE documented evidence that resolves the violations.  The agreement also requires CDE to: consider LEAs’ reports of unserved ELs when selecting schools for monitoring reviews; improve CDE’s online monitoring tool; require that schools found to be out of compliance with specific requirements in this online tool receive onsite monitoring if they fail to provide adequate evidence that the noncompliance has been resolved; and develop and provide training on the monitoring, review, and corrective action processes associated with CDE’s system of monitoring schools for ELL service violations.  For more information, please see the press release.

In this religious discrimination case, the plaintiffs alleged that their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the school board excluded them from using school facilities for a "prayer meeting" at which civic and social issues would be discussed. The school board permits community groups and non-students to use school facilities for a wide variety of civic and recreational purposes such as luncheons, homeowner association meetings, seminars, and athletic activities. The policy permits groups to use school facilities to engage in discussions having a "religious viewpoint," but not to engage in "religious services or instruction." Relying on this distinction, the board denied facility access to the plaintiffs on the grounds that the proposed prayer meeting was a religious service rather than a meeting presented from a religious viewpoint. On April 25, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, arguing that (1) plaintiffs' proposed meeting fits well within the forum created under the school board's facility use policy, and (2) there is no legal or practical distinction between religious viewpoints on a topic and "religious services or instruction." On June 3, 2003, the Section filed an amicus brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On July 10, 2003, the court held a hearing on the parties' motions in which the Section participated. On July 29, 2003, the court issued an order granting summary judgment for plaintiffs. The court concluded that although the plaintiffs' proposed meeting was primarily a religious service, it also included a discussion of family and political issues from a legally protected religious viewpoint. Thus, the court held that the proposed meeting was not "mere religious worship," but included speech that the school district permitted through its facility use policy. The school district therefore improperly denied the plaintiffs access to school facilities for their evening meeting. On February 19, 2004, the case was dismissed.

On February 19, 2021, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio opened an investigation into Case Western Reserve University’s (“CWRU”) response to reports of sexual harassment, including sexual assault, and sexual misconduct in its Greek Life community.  The Department’s investigation included interviews with former and current campus employees, students, and alumni, and an extensive review of CWRU’s polices grievance procedures, training, and response to reports of sexual harassment.

On August 22, 2023, the Department and CWRU reached a resolution agreement under Title IX to address the areas of noncompliance identified through the Department’s investigation.  Under the agreement, CWRU will, among other steps: reorganize the Title IX reporting structure to remove it from the purview of the Office of General Counsel and ensure CWRU follows its grievance procedures free from conflicts of interest; promote greater awareness about the Office of Equity and the Title IX Coordinator; require annual training for all students and employees; invest resources into enhanced prevention programming and training for CWRU fraternities and sororities; conduct campus-wide outreach; and implement a campus-wide student survey to better serve its community.  The Department will carefully monitor the CWRU’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2025-2026 academic year.  For more information, please see this letter, press release, and a plain-language summary of the agreement.

On September 12, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Cedar Rapids Community School District in Cedar Rapids, Iowa to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: end its use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint, revise its restraint procedures and practices, and consistently implement those procedures and practices in all schools; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified; offer counseling and other services to students who are restrained; adopt policies and procedures to assess suicide risk, prevent suicide and self-harm, and implement immediate crisis intervention for students who threaten or engage in self-harm; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and hire two new administrators to oversee schools’ use of restraint and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this letter, press release, and summary of settlement agreement.

In this matter involving Charleston County School District in Charleston, South Carolina, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina conducted an investigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The United States received complaints that the school district failed to communicate essential information to Spanish-speaking, limited English proficient (LEP) parents, denying their children full and equal access to the school district’s education programs and services.  The United States found that, over the course of several years, the school district often failed to use qualified interpreters to communicate with Spanish-speaking LEP parents and guardians, even when their need for an interpreter was documented or otherwise evident.  The United States also found that the school district did not consistently translate essential written information into Spanish, and asked parents who can only communicate in Spanish to make important decisions about school programs and services without explaining the options in a language they understand. 

On March 2, 2021, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district to ensure that the school district and each its 80 schools and programs use qualified interpreters and translators to communicate with LEP parents about matters essential to their children’s education, including special education services.  The agreement requires, among other things, that the district take proactive steps by: developing and implementing effective language access policies and procedures; training faculty and staff on how to properly identify and meaningfully communicate with LEP parents and guardians; informing LEP parents and guardians of their right to language access services at special-education related meetings and receive translated special-education related documents; and providing a language-assessment report and bi-annual compliance reports to DOJ.  For more information, please see this press release and a translated version in Spanish.  A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish.

On July 9, 2004, Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF), an organization that sponsors after-school Good News Bible Clubs, filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction, alleging that officials of the Upland Unified School District (California) discriminated against CEF by allowing non-profit organizations such as the Boy Scouts free use of school facilities while at the same time charging religious organizations such as CEF rent equal to “direct costs.”

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States’ motion.

The United States filed a brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States argued that the district’s practice of charging religious groups a fee to use school facilities for activities serving local youth when the district does not charge secular groups a fee to use facilities serving local youth violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the fee discriminated against CEF’s religious viewpoint.

On November 15, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction thereby enjoining the district from requiring CEF to pay any rental fees or other fees that are not required of other non-profit community organizations for use of the district’s facilities.

Then, on February 4, 2005, the Court entered a Stipulated Dismissal without prejudice with an attached Settlement Agreement stating that the district agreed, among other terms, to permit CEF equal access to school facilities on the same terms and conditions as other similar non-profit groups.

The department conducted a compliance review of the English Language Learner (ELL) program at the Clay County School District in Alabama to determine whether ELL students were receiving services required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 19, 2014, a settlement agreement was reached that will ensure that this rural district takes appropriate action to serve its small but growing population of ELL students, including: increasing services for ELL students, obtaining additional English as a Second Language-certified instructors, conducting significant professional development for teachers, providing adequate materials and classroom supports for ELL students, monitoring the academic performance of current and former ELL students and improving language-accessible communication with limited English proficient parents. For more information, please see this press release.

Settlement Agreement in: Spanish

Press Release in: Spanish

In this matter involving the Clay County School District, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida investigated whether the District was providing appropriate language services to its English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). The investigation revealed that the District was not appropriately identifying EL students or providing them with the educational services and supports needed for EL students to become proficient in English and participate equally in school. On October 30, 2023, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the District will modify its practices so that EL students are properly assessed and identified shortly after their enrollment, promptly provided with language services if they qualify and have the opportunity to equally benefit from the academic and behavioral supports provided to their peers. The District will also make certain that all teachers are qualified, trained and provided enough support and resources to help EL students become fluent in English and understand their core-content courses. The District will also translate and interpret important school information for parents who are not fluent in English. For more information, please see the press release in English, Spanish, and Haitian-Creole. The agreement is available in English, Spanish, and Haitian-Creole, and summaries of the agreement are available in English, Spanish, and Haitian-Creole.

In this matter involving the Colton Joint Unified School District in California, the United States investigated whether the district’s programming for English learners was adequate under Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. After a multi-year investigation conducted by the Educational Opportunities Section along with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office for the Central District of California, the United States found that English learners in the district did not receive adequate English language instruction, and that core content teachers did not have the requisite training to meet English learner needs in math, science and social studies courses. On December 19, 2022, the United States entered an out-of-court settlement agreement with the district to ensure that every English learner in the district receives English language instruction, and that teachers working with English learners are trained and qualified to meet their needs. The district will also implement additional changes to ensure that English learners have an equal opportunity to participate in the district’s various programs, including programs for gifted and talented students. The agreement will remain in place for three years. For more information please see this press release in English and Spanish (español).

In this sex discrimination case, high school girls in Michigan filed a complaint alleging that the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that MHSAA refused to sanction additional sports for high school girls, provided inferior practice and playing facilities for post-season tournaments held in certain girls' sports, and required girls to play certain sports in disadvantageous seasons. This last contention allegedly reduced participation opportunities for high school girls by shortening playing seasons, thereby preventing participation in club competitions and all-star competitions involving players from other states and negatively affecting their chances of being recruited for collegiate-level sports programs. On September 7, 1999, the Section was granted leave to participate as litigating amicus curiae and filed an amicus brief at the summary judgment stage, arguing that the case should go forward under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On January 21, 2002, the court ruled in plaintiffs' favor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

In the summer of 2001, the parties participated in mediation which resulted in a settlement of all claims except for the issue of playing seasons. The court conducted a two-week bench trial in September 2001 and received evidence concerning the following questions: (1) whether MHSAA, by assuming controlling authority over interscholastic athletics from member schools that receive federal funds, is subject to Title IX; (2) whether MHSAA is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) whether MHSAA's scheduling of only girls' sports in disadvantageous seasons violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. On December 17, 2001, the court issued its ruling finding in favor of the plaintiffs and the Section on all three issues. See Communities for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 178 F. Supp.2d 805 (W.D. Mich. 2001). The court held that MHSAA is subject to Title IX and is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In so holding, the court further concluded that MHSAA's scheduling practices violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Lastly, the court ordered MHSAA to submit a compliance plan to remedy the discriminatory scheduling of girls' sports.

The Section filed an opposition to the compliance plan in June 2002. After reviewing briefing on the issue of the remedial plan and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court issued a ruling requiring MHSAA to switch girls' basketball and volleyball to their traditional, advantageous seasons of the winter and fall respectively. The Court ultimately approved the rest of MHSAA's remedial plan, finding that the switching of the remaining sports at issue (soccer, golf, tennis, swimming, and diving) balanced the inequity of nontraditional playing seasons amongst high school boys and girls in Michigan.

MHSAA appealed the district court's rulings on liability and the remedial plan to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit. The Division filed an amicus brief in August 2003. In July 2004, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that MHSAA's scheduling of sports violates the Equal Protection Clause. MHSAA then appealed to the Supreme Court, which instructed the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the case. On August 16, 2006, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion that again affirmed the district court's ruling that the sports schedule discriminates against female athletes on the basis of sex. On December 7, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied review of MHSAA's petition for certiorari.

In 1999, the Section intervened in this lawsuit alleging the Denver Public Schools (DPS) violated Title VI and the EEOA by failing to take appropriate actions to overcome language barriers of its English Language Learner (ELL) students. On June 16,1999, the district court approved a new English Language Acquisition Plan for the Denver Public Schools.

The result of compliance monitoring by the Section and the Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE), and DPS’s recognition that the 1999 order no longer reflected the district’s own best practices for serving ELL students, moved the parties to develop a new consent decree to replace the existing plan. On April 16, 2013 the district court in Denver approved a comprehensive consent decree between the Department of Justice, CHE, and DPS that requires DPS to provide language services to the more than 28,000 ELL students enrolled in the district’s 170 schools.

The consent decree requires the district to implement comprehensive measures to ensure that ELLs have equal opportunities to succeed academically in district educational programs, starting with the proper identification of ELL students when they enter DPS.  Among other things, the consent decree requires DPS to: provide language acquisition services to ELL students in district schools, including charter schools, until they are proficient in English and to monitor ELL students after they exit services to ensure they are participating meaningfully and equally in mainstream classes; to make translation and interpretation services available for thousands of Limited English Proficient parents who speak more than 130 different languages – ensuring that all parents have access to essential information about their children’s education;  to provide Pre-K language services at each school where DPS offers early childhood education; and to make  appropriate language services available for ELL students who face unique challenges, including refugee students and students with disabilities.

For more information about the 2013 Consent Decree, please see the following fact sheet available in: English | አማርኛ (Amharic) | العربية (Arabic) | မြန်မာစကား (Burmese) | Soomaali (Somali) | Español (Spanish) | Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese).

The June 16, 2009 complaint alleges that FHSAA’s new policy discriminates against female students by reducing the maximum number of competitions that a school can schedule by 20% for varsity teams and 40% for sub-varsity teams while exempting 36,000 boys who play football and only 4,300 girls and 201 boys who participate in competitive cheerleading. The complaint also alleges that OCR has not recognized competitive cheerleading as a sport under Title IX and that even if it were recognized as a sport, the new policy exempts nearly nine times as many boys than girls from the reductions in their competition schedule. The complaint further alleges that FHSAA sanctions football for a total of 23 weeks of coaching, practices, and competitions, while the majority of girls’ sports operate for only a total of 15 weeks. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 19, 2009. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July1, 2009. On July 14th, the Division filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The United States’ amicus brief argues that plaintiffs’ allegations establish claims of intentional discrimination, not just disparate impact, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause that are sufficiently detailed to survive the motion to dismiss. The brief also argues that there is a substantial likelihood that the Title IX and Equal Protection claims will succeed on the merits, and that the court should preliminarily enjoin new Policy 6. On July 15, the court granted the United States’ motion for leave to file its brief and its request for oral argument at a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for July 17. Shortly thereafter on July 15, FHSAA voted unanimously to rescind its challenged policy. On July 16, 2009, the court cancelled the preliminary injunction hearing because the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that FHSAA’s rescission of the policy rendered the motion for a preliminary injunction moot. On October 21, 2009, the court issued an order granting the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss the case without prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement until December 31, 2010.

In this matter involving the Coolidge Unified School District (“the District”) in Arizona, the Section examined whether the District’s instructional services and materials for English Learner (EL) students and its training for their teachers and administrators complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Opportunities Act of 1974.  On April 16, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to improve and increase language instruction for EL students so they can become fluent in English and understand the coursework in all of their academic subjects.  The agreement also requires the district to provide robust teacher and administrator training, obtain the special materials and curricula that English learner students need to succeed academically, and actively evaluate students’ progress over time.  The agreement will remain in place for three full school years.  For more information, please see this press release in English and Spanish. A translated version of the agreement is available in Spanish.

In this longstanding desegregation case involving the Franklin County Board of Education (North Carolina), the Section monitors the school district's compliance with existing court orders. The school district achieved partial unitary status in certain areas in 2002 and additional areas in 2018. The court retains jurisdiction over the Green factor of student assignment, including the school district’s administration of discipline and its gifted and talented programs.

On April 13, 2000, the school district moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that it had attained unitary status. On November 22, 2000, the Section filed a memorandum opposing, in part, the school district's motion. On June 24, 2002, the district court held that the school district was partially unitary with respect to school transportation, extracurricular activities, school construction and facilities, student transfers, and faculty desegregation. On June 17, 2003, the Court approved a Consent Order governing the school district’s remaining areas of obligation (student assignment, staff desegregation, and quality of education). A new student assignment plan was approved in a May 2005 order.

At the court’s request, in a January 2018 response to the school district’s annual report the Section identified two areas of ongoing district noncompliance with the 2003 Consent Order that pertain to the assignment of students within schools: (1) discipline that excludes students from schools and classrooms; and (2) the referral and assignment of students to the gifted and talented program. With the consent of the  school district, the Section simultaneously filed a joint motion to declare the district partially unitary and approve a proposed stipulation with regard to several of the school district’s remaining desegregation obligations. Separately, counsel for Plaintiffs asked the Court to require the school district to provide notice of the proposed changes and invite public comment before dismissing any part of the 2003 Order. The Court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s request.

Having provided the public appropriate notice and an opportunity to submit comments pursuant to a court-approved schedule, the United States and the school district filed a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Support on December 14, 2018, to declare the District partially unitary with respect to desegregation of staff and the following quality of education areas governed by the 2003 Order: academic achievement, advanced course offerings and enrollment, special education program, and student dropouts. The court granted the joint motion in an order dated December 18, 2018.

This case was brought by the Henrico County School Board (board) to appeal a Virginia hearing officer’s decision in favor of R.T.’s parents’ private school placement. R.T. is an autistic child entitled to a free and appropriate education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The hearing officer agreed with R.T.’s parents that the board failed to provide R.T. with a FAPE and that the private school placement was a FAPE. One issue before the federal district court was which party should pay for the private school placement pending the board’s appeal of the state hearing officer’s decision. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s regulation, 34 C.F.R. §300.514(c), which implements the IDEA’s stay put provision, 20 U.S.C. §1415(j), the board should fund the placement while litigation is pending. The board challenged the validity of the statutory and regulatory stay put provisions, and the Section filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education to defend both provisions. The Section argued that the regulation was consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory provision and that the statutory provision was a valid exercise of the Spending Clause power. On June 22, 2006, the court issued an opinion rejecting the board’s Spending Clause challenge and agreeing with the United States that the board must pay for R.T.’s private pendent placement.

On January 18, 2017, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Covington Independent Public Schools to ensure the District does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its administration of school discipline. The agreement will guarantee that the District provides reasonable modifications of school policy for students with disabilities to avoid the use of exclusionary discipline, isolation, seclusion, or restraint, and contact with law enforcement. The agreement will also replace the use of punitive discipline with more positive approaches as part of an overall focus on improving student achievement and school climate.

This is a cooperative resolution of the Justice Department’s investigation, opened in November 2015 in response to complaints that the District’s discipline practices discriminated on the basis of race and disability. As a part of the settlement agreement, the District will continue its current practice of not stationing School Resource Officers (SROs) at elementary schools; cease requesting SROs to enforce disciplinary rules; eliminate the use of seclusion and isolation rooms; prohibit the use of restraints unless there is imminent danger to the physical safety of the student or others; develop a protocol to identify students who are disproportionately subject to disciplinary referrals, particularly those students who receive exclusionary discipline as a result, and provide those students with interventions and supports intended to reduce disciplinary actions; take prompt and effective steps to help students who are in crisis; implement a code of conduct that focuses on positive interventions, rather than punitive discipline; and train administrators and teachers on how to provide all students with effective interventions and supports.

On August 7, 2017, Cleveland Central High School and Cleveland Central Middle School opened in Cleveland, Mississippi, a major milestone in this longstanding desegregation case, which was initially filed in 1965 by private plaintiffs (the United States intervened in 1985).

On May 2, 2011, the United States had filed a motion for further relief asking the court to find that the district had violated its desegregation obligations under several previously-entered desegregation orders governing the District, and to compel the district's compliance with federal law. In its brief, the United States argued that, while the district had been governed by desegregation orders for more than 42 years, the predominantly black schools on the east side of the District had never been desegregated. The United States further asserted that the ratio of black and white faculty at numerous District schools reinforced the reputation of those schools in the community as "white" or "black" schools. The district filed an opposition brief on August 18, 2011, and the United States filed a reply brief on October 6, 2011.

In an opinion issued on March 28, 2012, the court determined that two schools, a middle school and high school that were formerly de jure black schools, had never been desegregated. The court also found that the ratio of black and white faculty at every school in the District deviated from the district-wide faculty ratio. The court ordered the district to submit a proposed desegregation plan addressing these issues. On December 11, 2012, following a hearing on the District’s proposed plan, the Court issued an order and opinion, finding that the District's proposal did not meet constitutional requirements and ordering the District to implement a "freedom of choice" plan for its middle and high school students.

On February 21, 2013, the United States filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its remedial order, arguing in its brief that "freedom of choice" was an inadequate remedy in this case. The Court denied the motion in an April 30, 2013 order. On April 1, 2014, following the United States' appeal of the court's remedial order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding for further proceedings. On January 23, 2015, the United States submitted a proposed desegregation plan to the Court. The district filed two separate plans. The United States objected to the District's plans on February 13, 2015 and responded to the District's objections to its plan on February 27, 2015. The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing on the proposed plans in May 2015. 

On May 13, 2016, the Court approved the U.S. plan and ordered the Cleveland School District to consolidate its secondary schools, rejecting as unconstitutional both of the District’s proposals. For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release.  After several months during which the District proceeded with an appeal of the Court’s May 2016 decision to the Fifth Circuit and submitted additional proposals to the district court, the Parties reached an agreement.  On February 8, 2017, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Modification of the Court’s May 2016 Order that would end the appeal and remove the additional proposals from the district court’s consideration.  In a March 13 order, the Court granted the Parties’ motion, and on March 17, 2017, the Court issued an updated implementation timeline. For more information on the Court’s order, please see this press release.

Cleveland Central High School opened to all District 9th-12th graders and Cleveland Central Middle School opened to all District 7th-8th graders in August 2017.  The Department of Justice will continue to monitor the District’s compliance with the Court’s orders and federal law.

In this matter involving the Crestwood School District in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, the Department investigated a complaint alleging violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. §1703 et seq., related to the district's English Language Learner (ELL) program, as well as claims of employment discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On August 13, 2014, the Department and the district entered into a comprehensive, multi-part Settlement Agreement. The agreement requires the district to ensure all of its ELL students, most of whom are native Arabic speakers, receive appropriate English as a Second Language and sheltered content instruction taught by teachers who are properly qualified and trained. The district also must provide ELL students and limited English proficient parents with meaningful access to important information, including discipline and special education materials and procedures. Pursuant to the agreement, the district will work with the Department' Community Relations Service to improve parental outreach and community engagement, establish a community advisory panel, and implementing training on cultural competency. The district also will retain a qualified consultant to help it draft a comprehensive recruitment and hiring policy and implement best practices for recruiting, hiring, and retaining a qualified and diverse faculty and staff. The agreement also requires the district to institute internal complaint processes to investigate and resolve allegations of employment discrimination and/or retaliation. The district's compliance with the agreement will be monitored for four years. For more information, please see this press release.

Settlement Agreement in: Arabic

Press Release in: Arabic

On June 16, 2004, the parents of a 5th-grade student at the Hadley School Program for the Creative and Academically Talented sued the school district of the City of Saginaw, Michigan for allegedly discriminating against the student’s religious beliefs. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the district prohibited him from “selling” candy cane ornaments with an attached card explaining the religious origin of the candy cane as part of “Classroom City”–a multi-disciplinary marketplace town simulation that was part of the school’s social studies curriculum. The district conceded that the student had properly followed the assignment’s directions and received a grade of A for the simulation. Both the plaintiffs and the district filed cross motions for summary judgment.

The United States filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in this matter, as the United States is charged with enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief if a school deprives students of the equal protections of the laws. The Court granted the United States’ motion.

The United States filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The United States argued that the district’s censorship of student religious speech that otherwise fulfills the assignment criteria violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments proscribing government regulation of speech that discriminates against a particular point of view–here a religious viewpoint. On September 18, 2006, the Court issued an opinion finding that the district had abridged the plaintiff student’s First Amendment free speech rights, but granted the district’s motion for summary judgment on other grounds.

On September 7, 2022, the Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. Department of Education filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Czerwienski, et. al. v. Harvard University, et. al.  The plaintiffs in this case are doctoral students at Harvard University who allege that they were retaliated against for reporting sexual harassment by a professor.  Harvard argues that it cannot be held liable for any retaliatory acts by the professor.  The United States’ brief clarifies that a recipient of federal financial assistance, like Harvard University, may be held liable for damages under Title IX where retaliatory conduct amounts to an official act of the recipient or where the recipient is deliberately indifferent to its employee’s retaliatory conduct.

On July 17, 2019, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah notified the Davis School District in Utah that we had opened an investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to parent complaints that Davis deprived students of equal protection of the law based on race. The Department’s investigation principally focused on Davis’s response to serious and widespread racial harassment of Black and Asian-American students.  The Department also investigated reports that Davis disciplined Black students more harshly than their white peers for similar behavior and that Davis denied Black students the ability to form student groups while supporting similar requests by other students.  After conducting over 100 interviews and an extensive review of Davis’s policies, trainings, discipline and other records, and responses to reports of racial harassment and other discrimination, the Department concluded that Davis violated students’ equal protection rights.

On September 15, 2021, the Department issued a letter notifying Davis of the Department’s conclusions, and on October 20, 2021, the Department entered into a settlement agreement with Davis to address its violations of the Equal Protection Clause.  Under the Agreement, Davis will take significant steps to prevent and appropriately respond to racial harassment and other discrimination, including to: create a new department to handle complaints of race discrimination; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; create a centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and Davis’s response to complaints; implement student, staff, and parent training and education on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; analyze and review discipline data and amend policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies; and develop a districtwide procedure to assess requests for student groups and treat such requests fairly.  The Department will carefully monitor Davis’s implementation of this agreement, which will remain in place through the 2024-2025 school year. For more information, please see this summary and the press release. An Amendment to the 2021 Agreement is available, here.

In October 2012, counsel for the Sikh Coalition filed a complaint with the Department of Justice alleging that a middle school student had been repeatedly targeted with verbal and physical harassment because of his Sikh faith. The United States has authority to investigate and resolve complaints of religious and national origin harassment through its enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Following an inquiry into the student-specific complaints, the United States notified the district of its concerns that the district had failed to respond promptly and appropriately to the Sikh Coalition's allegations of harassment, including allegations that the student was called "Aladdin" because he wore a turban and was told by a fellow student to "go back to his country." The United States also raised concerns that the district had not investigated witness statements that the student had been called a "terrorist" and that there was a history of fellow students targeting him because of his turban. The United States also found that the disciplinary measures the district did take had not been effective in ending the harassment, and that the student feared continued harassment.

The district worked cooperatively with the United States to resolve the complaint and ensure greater protections for the student. The May 2013 Resolution Agreement, which will be in effect until the end of the 2014-2015 school year, requires the district to: work with a consultant to develop and implement anti-harassment training at the student's middle and high school; immediately implement a safety plan to ensure that the student is safe at school and, should incidents of harassment occur, that the district responds quickly and effectively; and meet with the student, his family, and administrators from his middle school and the high school where he will enroll, to identify key school personnel who can support the student should any future incidents of harassment occur. The Parties also agreed to continue to work collaboratively to resolve the United States' remaining concerns regarding the district's anti-harassment policies, procedures, and practices, and to ensure that district students and employees had appropriate training and guidelines on their federal civil rights and obligations as they pertain to harassment based on religion and national origin.

As a result of that joint effort, the district and the United States agreed to a second Resolution Agreement in November 2014 that supplements the existing and operative May 2013 agreement. The districtwide agreement, which will be in effect through the 2016-2017 school year, is designed to enhance the district's ability to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on national origin and religion and to provide clear and consistent procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to such conduct. The agreement requires the district to: review and revise all district anti-harassment and discipline policies and procedures to ensure consistency with the district's obligations under federal law; ensure that parents and students with limited English proficiency have access to essential information, including discipline policies and procedures, in a language they understand; develop and implement annual age- and position-appropriate trainings on religious and national origin harassment for all students, district and school administrators, faculty, and staff; and continue to build upon the district's existing anti-bullying initiatives and the May 2013 resolution agreement.

For more information, please see this press release.

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA

EOS Fact Sheet: AAPI MASSA (Punjabi)

The Department of Justice, through the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, filed a statement of interest on July 7, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Doe v. Fulton County School District.  In this case, the plaintiff, a middle school girl with significant physical, developmental, and intellectual disabilities, alleges that the Fulton County School District subjected her to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.  Her claims of discrimination arise from an escalating series of sexual assaults and rape that she endured at the hands of other students while riding on a District special needs school bus, all with no intervention by the bus driver.  The plaintiff seeks damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as injunctive relief under the Georgia Open Records Act.  On June 15, 2020, the District filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing primarily that the knowledge of a bus driver categorically may not be attributed to the District for purposes of plaintiff’s discrimination claims.  In its statement of interest, the United States advises the court that determining whether a school district employee is an “appropriate person” under Title IX is fact-dependent and thus may not be based on the employee’s title alone.  The United States concludes that proper application of Title IX case law requires that plaintiff be permitted to demonstrate facts in support of her allegations and that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should therefore be denied.

In November 2010, the Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that students in the school district were being harassed by other students because they didn't dress or act in ways that conform to gender stereotypes. Pursuant to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Departments of Justice and Education conducted an extensive investigation into sex-based harassment in the district's middle and high schools. Many students reported that the unsafe and unwelcoming school climate inhibited their ability to learn.

Six student plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Anoka-Hennepin School District in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in July 2011. In August 2011, the Court asked the United States to join in the mediation of the lawsuit. On March 5, 2012. The United States, the six student plaintiffs, and the District filed a Consent Decree, which was entered by the Court on March 6, 2012. Also on March 5, 2012, the three parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree and a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Joint Motion to Approve the Proposed Consent Decree, and the United States filed its Complaint-in-Intervention.

The Consent Decree requires the school district to retain an expert consultant in the area of sex-based harassment to review the district's policies and procedures concerning harassment; develop and implement a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment at the middle and high schools; enhance and improve its training of faculty, staff and students on sex-based harassment; hire or appoint a Title IX coordinator to ensure proper implementation of the district's sex-based harassment policies and procedures and district compliance with Title IX; retain an expert consultant in the area of mental health to address the needs of students who are victims of harassment; provide for other opportunities for student involvement and input into the district's ongoing anti-harassment efforts; improve its system for maintaining records of investigations and responding to allegations of harassment; conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation of its anti-harassment efforts; and submit annual compliance reports to the departments during the five year life of the Consent Decree. For more information on the Consent Decree, please see this press release.

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating Colorado Springs' Falcon School District 49 in response to complaints that the District was not adequately responding to incidents of racial harassment and discrimination in its schools. On January 25, 2010, the parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve the United States' concerns. A modified settlement agreement designed to address the District's non-compliance with the parties' original settlement agreement was executed on October 14, 2014. The modified settlement agreement requires the District to adequately address incidents of racial harassment by keeping adequate records, analyzing those records, training teachers and students, and providing appropriate disciplinary responses. For more information on this settlement, please see this press release and agreement.

On November 12, 2020, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington entered into a Settlement Agreement with Federal Way Public Schools in Federal Way, Washington to resolve an investigation into allegations of peer-on-peer harassment on the basis of religion and national origin between 2014 and 2018, and that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians who are not English language proficient. The Department initiated its investigation under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to complaints by parents alleging their children had been subjected to severe and pervasive religion- and national-origin-based harassment that went unaddressed by the District. The complaints alleged that other students repeatedly called Muslim students “terrorists,” pulled off their hijabs, and physically assaulted them, and told a Latina student to “Go back to Mexico,” threatened to kill her, and physically assaulted her. The Department also investigated complaints that the District failed to properly communicate with parents and guardians with English language barriers as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. Under the Agreement, the District will take proactive steps to improve its ability to prevent and appropriately respond to peer-on-peer harassment based on religion and national origin. Those steps include retaining consultants to provide technical assistance to support a review of the District’s harassment policies, practices, and procedures, as well as the District’s training on and implementation of protocols for such policies. The Agreement also requires the District to work with the consultants to assess its resources and build capacity at individual schools and at the District level to ensure that antiharassment policies are properly implemented. The District will also provide training for students and faculty, and will survey the educational environment and effectiveness of measures taken pursuant to the Agreement. Lastly, the District will ensure that it communicates essential school-related information in a language that parents and guardians with limited English proficiency understand so that their children can access the District’s educational programs. The Section will monitor compliance with this three-year agreement. For more information, please see this press release and Extension Agreement.

Settlement Agreement: English | Español (Spanish) | العربية (Arabic) | Soomaali (Somali)   

On February 6, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona approved a Unitary Status Plan ("USP") filed by the Department of Justice, together with private plaintiffs and the Tucson Unified School District. The USP is the latest step in this longstanding desegregation case, originally filed in 1974. The United States intervened in the case in 1976. In 2012, after extensive negotiations, the parties jointly submitted the USP, a four-year plan requiring the District to undertake a robust set of measures to desegregate its schools. The USP touches on nearly every aspect of school operations and lays a strong foundation for a high quality educational environment for all students. For more information, please see this press release.

On December 1, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Frederick County Public School District in Maryland to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities.  The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into complaints that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained children enrolled in the district’s specialized programs for students with autism and emotional and behavioral disabilities.  Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities.  The district will, among other things: prohibit the use of seclusion; report all instances of restraint and evaluate whether they were justified; designate trained staff to collect and analyze restraint data and oversee the creation of appropriate behavior intervention plans; deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; design and implement procedures for handling complaints about restraint; offer counseling and compensatory education services to students with disabilities who were subjected to the district’s discriminatory practices; and hire an administrator to supervise school-based staff and ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA.  For more information, please see this letter, press release, and summary of the agreement.

In this matter involving the Ganado Unified School District in Arizona, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner (“ELL”)  students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).  On February 18, 2014, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the district’s noncompliance with the EEOA.  The agreement requires the district to: improve language acquisition instruction to ELL students; conduct significant training for staff and teachers of ELL students; provide adequate materials to support their acquisition of English and academic content; monitor ELL students who opt out of ELL services and after they exit such services to ensure they are participating equally in instructional programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL program.  The training-related remedies require teachers to facilitate ELL students’ access to the grade-level core content curriculum by using appropriate instructional strategies and providing a culturally responsive learning environment.  For more information, please see this press release.

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) partnered with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division - Educational Opportunities Section (DOJ) to initiate a compliance review of the Gallup-McKinley County School District (District). The purpose of the review was to determine whether the District discriminated against Native Americans by excluding them from college and career readiness programs and courses, such as Gifted and Talented (GATE), Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and honors courses. We also evaluated whether the District discriminated against Native American parents by failing to ensure meaningful access to the information surrounding the aforementioned programs and courses.

On June 16, 2017, the District entered into a Resolution Agreement to address OCR and the DOJ’s concerns. As part of the Agreement, the District agreed to (i) retain a consultant to examine and make recommendations to address the underrepresentation of Native American students in the college and career readiness programs and courses; (ii) improve outreach to the Native American community to ensure that Native American students and their parents are timely informed about the various college and career readiness programs and courses, including the application and admission processes and procedures; (iii) review and revise its practices and procedures for identifying and recommending students to college and career readiness programs and courses; (iv) provide mandatory training to teachers involved in the identification or referral of students to the college and career readiness programs and courses; (v) increase the number of college and career readiness programs and courses offered in its high schools; (vi) monitor the academic performance of students enrolled in the college and career readiness programs and courses, providing academic support where necessary; and (vii) provide language assistance, including translation services, for limited English proficient parents/guardians.

On January 4, 2001, the court approved a five-year consent decree negotiated by the parties to eliminate further the vestiges of segregation in the Tennessee system of public higher education. Under this consent decree, the State committed to creating new high-demand programs at TSU, particularly at the downtown campus (the former UT-N site), to appeal in particular to nontraditional students. Other efforts included revitalization of the downtown TSU campus, an increase in system-wide efforts to recruit black undergraduate students, and the creation and funding of a TSU endowment for educational excellence. In an order dated September 21, 2006, the court recognized the parties' efforts and achievements in the case in establishing a unitary system of public higher education in Tennessee, and approved the parties' joint motion for a final order of dismissal and terminated this longstanding litigation.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education filed a statement of interest on June 29, 2015 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board.  In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that the Gloucester County School Board unlawfully discriminated against him and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex when it passed a policy that prohibited transgender students from using facilities matching their gender identity.  The plaintiff, represented by the A.C.L.U., asked the court for a Preliminary Injunction to permit him to use the boys’ restrooms the beginning of next school year.  In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments also stated that a sex-stereotyping claim can be based on an individual’s anatomical features, as well as behavior and appearance.  The departments concluded that the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction had a likelihood of success on the merits under Title IX and that granting the relief would serve the public interest.

A sixth-grade student who practiced Islam wore her hijab, a religious head covering, for several weeks at the beginning of the 2003-04 school year in the Muskogee Public School District. On September 11, 2003, school officials told the sixth-grader that she could no longer wear her hijab because of the “no hats” policy in the school’s dress code. The dress code, however, had not been applied consistently, and the school district had allowed students to wear hats for medical, educational, and other secular purposes. When the sixth-grader refused to remove her hijab, she was suspended for eight days.

In October 2003, the student, through her father, sued the school district for alleged violations of her constitutional rights and Oklahoma law. The United States opened an investigation in November 2003, and then intervened in the lawsuit upon finding evidence to support a claim based on the denial of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 6, 2004, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying memorandum in support.

On May 20, 2004, the parties negotiated a consent order. Under the six-year consent order, the school district must: allow the plaintiff to wear her hijab; make similar religious accommodations for any other student in the school system who has a bona fide religious objection to the dress code; implement a training program for all teachers and administrators regarding the revised dress code; and publicize the revisions to students and parents. The district also must certify its compliance with the terms of the order to the United States for a four-year period. The private plaintiffs and the school district also negotiated a confidential damages settlement and the claim for expungement of her school records. For more on this settlement, please see the press release linked here.

In this matter involving the Horry County Schools, the Section examined whether South Carolina’s third-largest public school district was providing appropriate services to its rapidly growing population of English Learner (“EL”) students, as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”). On August 24, 2017, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the district would take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement required the district to: properly identify and place EL students when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English and access grade-level core content instruction; secure enough teachers certified in English as a Second Language to serve all EL students; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time. The agreement required the district to regularly report to the Section on the agreement’s implementation; the agreement was terminated December 2023.

In a long-standing desegregation case, the Huntsville City Schools proposed plans for construction to replace or expand several schools. Following negotiations, the United States agreed not to oppose the district's proposed motion for approval of school construction plan, which the district submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The court approved the plan on May 20, 2013. On April 21, 2015, the court issued an opinion setting forth its reasons for approving a consent order jointly filed by the United States and the Huntsville City Schools. The consent order revises attendance zones and strengthens magnet offerings across the school district; expands access to pre-K, gifted programs, advanced course offerings, academic after-school programs, and college counseling; and includes comprehensive remedies to address racial discrimination in student discipline, among other areas.

On August 28, 2023, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas entered into a Settlement Agreement with Highland Community College in Kansas to resolve an investigation into allegations it discriminated against Black students—primarily Black student-athletes—on the basis of race in the administration of its discipline, housing and campus security policies and procedures, and its response to complaints of racial discrimination. The investigation was conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the settlement, the college will strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure an effective response to  students’ complaints of racial discrimination and clarify campus security policies, procedures, and training to promote consistent, non-discriminatory interactions between security personnel and students. The college will, among other steps, train relevant staff on how to respond to and resolve allegations of discrimination; promote fair and equitable application of discipline policies and analyze discipline data to ensure non-discrimination; train campus security and other staff on effective de-escalation techniques and non-coercive methods of gathering information; survey and improve the climate and culture of the college’s main campus and cultivate safe, welcoming spaces for Black students; and ensure students’ equitable access to the college’s education programs and activities regardless of race. For more information, please see the cover letter to the agreement and press release.

On November 22, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with Illinois Central College in Peoria, Illinois, to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the College’s programs, and to address concerns related to the College’s process for investigating complaints of disability discrimination. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that a student with a hearing disability was denied access to the College’s theatre program, and that the College failed to adequately investigate the student’s complaint. Under the settlement agreement, the College will update its investigation process to ensure that student complaints of disability discrimination are handled in a fair and timely manner. In addition, the College will train the managers and staff involved in investigations, as well as staff in the College’s theatre department, on the new complaint investigation procedures and the requirements of the ADA. Finally, the College will appoint an ADA Coordinator charged with overseeing implementation of the revised processes and compliance with Title II of the ADA.

In this matter involving the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), the Section conducted a review to determine whether ISBE was providing appropriate guidance and monitoring of school districts' services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). The Section determined that ISBE was violating the EEOA because its administrative rules and guidance did not ensure that districts serve ELL students beyond the three-year requirement under State law for transitional bilingual education (TBE) and transitional program of instruction (TPI) services. Although ISBE denied violating the EEOA, it agreed to revise its administrative rules and guidance to make clear that ELLs must receive services until they achieve English proficiency on the State's mandated test. The amended rules were approved by ISBE on June 24, 2010, were cleared by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules on July 13, 2010, and will take effect once filed with the Illinois Secretary of State. See press release. The amended rules require school districts that terminate TBE and TPI services at year three to submit to ISBE a plan explaining the ELL services to be provided beyond year three, the staff providing such services, and the resources available to implement those services. ISBE also agreed to monitor these plans to determine if they are sufficient and appropriately implemented. ISBE further agreed that it will issue guidance identifying educationally sound ELL services that could be provided in lieu of TBE and TPI services after year three. ISBE released this guidance in March 2011. Pursuant to the agreement between the Department and ISBE, ISBE will apply the amended rules and this guidance when monitoring districts' ELL programs.

Following negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order, which the court approved on July 14, 2000. The order required the district to take steps to increase African-American student participation in its gifted program and its advanced classes. To decrease the number of African-American students in resource classes, the order also required the district to annually evaluate students in resource classes to determine if placement in a regular class would be more appropriate. The JISD provided three reports in conjunction with its requirements under the order, as well as supplemental reports requested by the Section. On October 16, 2001, the parties agreed to, and the court signed, an agreed order of dismissal, indicating that the JISD had achieved unitary states in all facets of its operations.

In September 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights began investigating the Jefferson Parish Public School System ("JPPSS") after the Departments received several complaints alleging violations of federal civil rights laws. Specifically, the complaints concerned JPPSS's policies and practices for student registration, enrollment, and graduation; JPPSS's policies and practices for communicating with national origin minority parents who have limited English proficiency; and JPPSS's response to alleged harassment of Latino students based on their national origin. After requesting and reviewing documents and information provided by JPPSS, the Departments visited Jefferson Parish and interviewed many administrators, faculty, and students in May 2013. At the conclusion of the Departments' visit, JPPSS voluntarily agreed to resolve the investigation by entering into an agreement that includes school-specific and parish-wide remedial measures to address the United States' concerns.

The agreement, signed by the parties on July 9, 2014, will ensure that all students who reside in Jefferson Parish can enroll in school regardless of their or their parents' national origin or immigration status. The agreement also requires JPPSS to review and revise its policies and practices for communicating with national origin essential parents who have limited English proficiency to make sure that parents receive important information in a language they can understand. Additionally, JPPSS will review and revise its policies and practices to ensure that all complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, including allegations of harassment, are appropriately investigated and resolved.

For more information, please see this press release and the full agreement available in English and Spanish.

Summary in: Spanish.

Summary in: Arabic.

Summary in: Vietnamese.

On January 14, 2010, in the Northern District of New York, the Section moved to intervene in J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District. The lawsuit was filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of J.L., a 15-year-old student in the District. J.L. alleged that the District violated state and federal laws including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, both of which prohibit discrimination based on sex, including discrimination based on failure to conform to gender stereotypes. According to the United States' motion, J.L. failed to conform to gender stereotypes in both behavior and appearance. He exhibited feminine mannerisms, dyed his hair wore makeup and nail polish, and maintained predominantly female friendships. The alleged severe and pervasive student-on-student harassment based on sex escalated from derogatory name-calling to physical threats and violence. The United States further alleged that the District had knowledge of the harassment, but was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take timely, corrective action, and that the deliberate indifference restricted J.L.'s ability to fully enjoy the educational opportunities of his school. The District denied all allegations. Prior to the court ruling on the United States' intervention motion, an out-of-court settlement was reached among J.L., the District, and the United States. The court approved the settlement agreement on March 29, 2010. The agreement requires the District to (1) retain an expert consultant in the area of harassment and discrimination based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation to review the District's policies and procedures; (2) develop and implement a comprehensive plan for disseminating the District's harassment and discrimination policies and procedures; (3) retain an expert consultant to conduct annual training for faculty and staff, and students as deemed appropriate by the expert, on discrimination and harassment based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation; (4) maintain records of investigations and responses to allegations of harassment for five years; and (5) provide annual compliance reports to the United States and private plaintiffs. Lastly, $50,000.00 will be paid to J.L. and $25,000.00 in attorneys' fees will be paid to the New York Civil Liberties Foundation.

On May 5, 2006, Junior Does filed a complaint against the Allentown School District alleging that, as six- and seven-year-old students, they were sexually assaulted by another student in the bathrooms at Central Elementary School during the 2003-2004 school year. On April 21, 2009, Junior Does amended their complaint to include a sex discrimination claim pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and on July 10, 2009, the Division intervened. On August 3, 2011, Junior Does again amended their complaint to include allegations that a fifth student was sexually assaulted, adding another minor plaintiff as a party.

In the case, the Division alleged the following: that sexual assaults occurred on at least five separate occasions; that the district was made aware of each incident immediately after it occurred; and that despite this notice, the district did not take appropriate action, and in some circumstances took no action, to prevent the harassment from recurring. Furthermore, the department alleged that both before and after the sexual harassment of the students, the district failed to adopt and implement adequate and effective sexual harassment policies and procedure as required by federal law; had the district adopted and implemented such policies and procedures, the district would have prevented the continued sexual assault of students.

After extensive discovery, the Division and the school district negotiated a consent decree. The court approved the proposed consent decree on July 31, 2012. The consent decree provides for substantial systemic relief and requires the school district to take the following steps: develop and implement a comprehensive plan for addressing and preventing sexual harassment in all district schools; retain an expert consultant in the area of student-on-student harassment to draft and implement a sexual harassment policy and procedures; provide training to administrators, faculty, staff, students and parents on sex-based harassment; select qualified district and school-based equity coordinators to ensure proper implementation of the district's harassment policies and procedures and compliance with Title IX, including prompt investigation, resolution and reporting of sexual harassment complaints and allegations; create procedures for identifying, monitoring, and supervising students with a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students; develop and implement policies and procedures for communicating with outside agencies, such as police, hospital and child protection agencies, of allegations of sexual harassment in the district; and submit annual compliance reports to the Division.

On July 1, 2016, the Section and the United State Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas filed two statements of interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with evaluating the Title IX sexual assault claims in T.F. v. Kansas State University and S.W. v. Kansas State University. In these cases, the plaintiffs, both students of Kansas State University (K-State), allege that K-State discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when K-State allegedly refused to respond to or investigate their reports of sexual assault by K-State students during parties hosted at and by fraternities recognized and supported by K-State. In the statements of interest responding to K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the United States advised the court that Title IX imposes an obligation on federally-funded schools to respond to reports of rape that occurred at off-campus school-recognized fraternity houses and events and to determine if a hostile educational environment exists in such school-recognized activities or other education programs or activities. The United States further argued that under the proper Title IX standards, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims for damages and equitable relief should be allowed to proceed. On March 14, 2017, after considering the parties pleadings and the United States’ statements of interest, the court denied K-State’s motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, holding that both plaintiffs had alleged the elements required to state a plausible Title IX harassment claim. Specifically, the court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that K-State had substantial control over the alleged assailants and the context of the assaults, which were so severe as to deny plaintiffs access to educational benefits and opportunities, and that K-State’s alleged deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ reports of rape made them “liable or vulnerable” to further harassment or assault.

Memorandum and Order - T.F. v. K-State      

Memorandum and Order - S.W. v. K-State

In this case, formerly known as Lau v. Nichols, the United States Supreme Court held that the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and its implementing regulations by failing to provide special programs designed to rectify the English language deficiencies of students who do not speak or understand English, or are of limited English-speaking ability, and by failing to provide these students with equal access to the instructional program. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). The Supreme Court remanded the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief. On October 22, 1976, the parties entered into a Consent Decree that incorporated a Master Plan that requires bilingual-bicultural education for the English Language Learner (ELL) students who speak Chinese, Filipino, and Spanish. Chinese and Spanish bilingual programs continue subsequent to the passage of California's Proposition 227. The Consent Decree also requires the provision of other special programs and English as a Second Language (ESL) for ELL students of other language groups, as well as the provision of bilingual instruction, whenever feasible. The Consent Decree calls for annual reporting to the Court by the SFUSD regarding its ELL programs and the establishment of a Bilingual Community Council (BCC) to assist the SFUSD in filing these annual reports.

On August 24, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the Court should not relieve the SFUSD of responsibility for reporting under the extant Consent Decree. The United States filed a response to the show cause order that identified problems with the ELL programs and recommended continued reporting by the SFUSD, additional on-site visits of the ELL programs, and the development of an updated Master Plan for ELL programs. The SFUSD and the private plaintiffs filed responses agreeing to this approach for going forward. The Court continued the reporting obligations and assigned the case to an active judge. On May 1, 2007, the new judge held a status conference in which he agreed to let the parties continue their school visits and work collaboratively on developing an updated Master Plan. The United States' consultant and members of the BCC completed visits to twenty-four schools on May 18, 2007. The parties agreed to a new Master Plan that would replace the outdated plan and filed a stipulated application to modify the 1976 Consent Decree. On September 11, 2008, the Court approved the new Master Plan and entered an order modifying the 1976 Consent Decree.

The United States and the Private Plaintiffs then monitored SFUSD's implementation of the 2008 Master Plan through the District's annual reports, regular site visits, community meetings, and communications with parents and students. To resolve the United States' and Private Plaintiff's consistent concerns about SFUSD's compliance, the parties negotiated a Modified Consent Decree (MCD). On June 24, 2015, the parties jointly filed a motion and supporting memo seeking court approval of the MCD. The MCD, approved by the court on June 29, 2015, requires SFUSD to, among other things: promptly identify, assess, and place EL students in effective EL programs; offer a range of EL programs and services to meet the needs of all EL students, including newcomers, students with disabilities, and long-term EL students; expand translation and interpretation services for LEP families; adequately train employees who serve EL students so that they can fulfill their roles; and conduct robust monitoring. The MCD also protects the educational rights of the district's most at-risk and vulnerable EL students who are learning in alternative education or juvenile justice settings. If SFUSD implements the MCD fully and in good faith, the MCD and this historic case are expected to end in the fall of 2018. For more information about the MCD, please see the June 24, 2015 press release. Translated copies of the MCD are linked here in Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Arabic.

This statewide settlement resolved issues relating to the overrepresentation of black students in the mental retardation and emotional disturbance special education classifications and the underrepresentation of black students in the specific learning disabilities and gifted and talented special education classifications. This consent decree, approved by the court on August 30, 2000, involves special education issues that were raised as a result of information gathered during unitary status reviews in eleven desegregation cases pending before the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. Parties to the decree include the United States, private plaintiffs, and the Alabama State Department of Education.

The settlement required the State of Alabama to undertake initiatives in providing teacher training, to establish a program to improve reading achievement, and to make changes to Alabama administrative law in the areas of pre-referral, referral, evaluation procedures, and eligibility criteria. This emphasis on pre-referral intervention services resulted in substantial changes over the six years of implementing the consent decree. There have been significant reductions in racial disparities in the special education classifications of mental retardation (MR), and disparities have been virtually eliminated in the classifications of emotional disturbance (ED) and specific learning disabilities (SLD). There also has been an overall decrease in the number of students classified as MR or ED, and increases in students classified as SLD. The number of black students classified as gifted also has increased.

The settlement also required reevaluation of certain categories of minority students who had been identified as MR. As a result, several hundred students who had been inappropriately placed as MR were exited from special education. These students were provided with appropriate supplemental services to help transition successfully into the general education program, and were carefully monitored during this process.

On February 12, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a consent order filed by the Justice Department, together with private plaintiffs and the Calhoun County, Alabama School District, in this longstanding desegregation case. The order found that the district has met its desegregation obligations in certain areas and providing for additional, comprehensive relief in the areas of faculty and staff hiring and recruitment and student discipline and school climate.

In approving the consent order, the district court declared that the 9,200-student school district has eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation in the areas of student assignment, extracurricular activities, school facilities, and transportation, thereby ending the court's supervision in those areas. The order requires the district to take additional steps to reach full compliance, including adopting measures to promote racial diversity in its faculty and staff, expanding its use of positive behavioral supports and interventions throughout its schools, and revising its student discipline policies and procedures to ensure they are fair, non-discriminatory, and limit the use of exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions.

In this school desegregation case, the parties entered into a consent decree, which provided for the closure of two K-12 schools and the consolidation of the students into two central school zones. One of the K-12 schools to be closed had a virtually all-white student body and had never graduated a black student. The day after the decree was filed, the school board voted to rescind its consent. The Section filed a motion to enforce the consent decree, arguing that once the board had given its consent, granted authority to counsel to sign on its behalf, and jointly filed the consent decree, the board was bound by the terms of the consent decree.

At the same time, two groups moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of opposing the consent decree. The groups comprised parents, students, and other citizens from each of the two schools scheduled for closure. The Section filed briefs opposing both motions for intervention – one against the Mellow Valley School intervenors and one against the Bibb Graves School intervenors – arguing that the proposed intervenors did not express a cognizable interest in furthering desegregation, and, even if they had, the United States and private plaintiffs adequately represented any such interest.

On May 13, 2003, the district court accepted all of the Section's arguments and entered an order (1) denying the Board's motion to rescind its consent, (2) denying both motions to intervene, and (3) enforcing the consent decree. The parties worked to implement the consent decree, and the two schools were successfully closed prior to the beginning of the 2003-04 school year. The two groups of unsuccessful intervenors appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this matter involving the Lewiston, Maine school district, the United States reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs)–particularly among the district’s large population of Somalian refugees–as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On June 4, 2007, the school district and the United States entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The agreement requires the district to develop, among other things: standardized curricula for ELLs; adequate teacher training and collaborative opportunities; systematic monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of ELLs; and a comprehensive ELL program evaluation model.

This historic desegregation involving the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) began in 1972.  The Section continues to monitor the SPLS’s compliance with a 1999 Agreement that set forth requirements to ameliorate the effects of segregation through voluntary interdistrict transfers, remedial programs, school improvement and accountability, and the provision of funds from the state to the SLPS.  This Agreement has been consensually modified by new orders and agreements in recent years, including a 2011 agreement that allowed for the use of desegregation funds for specific programs, such as magnet school transportation, principal leadership training, early childhood, and enhanced computing and technology in the SLPS.  Section 10 of the 1999 Agreement set aside funds for “construction and site acquisition costs to accommodate any reasonable anticipated net enrollment increase caused by any  reduction or elimination of the voluntary transfer plan.” 1999 Agreement, Section 10, at 12.  While the parties anticipated in 1999 that the voluntary transfer program would continue for a number of years, Section 10 was designed to provide for SLPS’ capital needs if the transfer program ended and numerous students returned at one time to the SLPS.  Over the years, however, the assumptions underlying creation of the Section 10 fund did not come to pass, primarily as a result of population declines, the advent of charter schools, and the ongoing commitment by both city and county schools to the voluntary transfer program. Accordingly, in 2013, the court approved the parties’ agreement to allow the use of certain remedial funds set aside in the desegregation account to provide continued funding for the St. Louis Community Monitoring and Support Task Force.

On July 30, 2007, Kimberly Lopez filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) alleging her son was sexually assaulted by another student while riding a special education school bus operated by Metro. On April 30, 2008, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a sex discrimination claim against Metro pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Recognizing the United States’ substantial interest in ensuring recipients of federal funds do not discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX, the Court issued an order granting the United States Motion to Intervene and permitting the United States to file its complaint in intervention. In January 2009, the United States moved for summary judgment, and subsequently opposed Metro’s cross-motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim and submitted a reply brief in support of its own motion. On July 7, 2009, the Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment but adopting the Section’s interpretation of Title IX in numerous key respects. On February 8, 2010, the parties entered into a consent decree that obligates the Nashville Public School District to take substantial steps to enhance the security of students with disabilities on its public school transportation system. These steps include staffing bus monitors to assist drivers on all special education buses; implementing comprehensive screening procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are not assigned to buses where they would be at risk of harassment; expediting the investigation of suspected acts of sexual harassment involving students with disabilities; and ensuring open lines of communication between transportation officials and school-based personnel. Metro also agreed to pay Plaintiff $1.475 million as part of the settlement.

The Section intervened in this same-sex peer harassment case alleging the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to respond appropriately to harassment of a student on the basis of sex. Specifically, the Section alleged in our complaint-in-intervention : from the eighth grade through the eleventh grade, Jeremy Lovins was subjected to harassment on the basis of sex (ostensibly because other students believed he was gay); Jeremy and his parents repeatedly informed school officials of the harassment but the harassment continued; and Jeremy was eventually subjected to an assault and forced to leave school because of the harassment. On July 31, 2000, the Court entered a consent decree settling the case

The consent decree included monetary relief for Mr. Lovins in the amount of $72,500 and injunctive relief. Under the consent decree, the school district agreed, among other things: to conduct a climate assessment of student-to-student and teacher-to-student relations within its schools; to develop a comprehensive plan to identify, prevent, and remedy harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation; to educate and train teachers, staff, and students about the operation of the policy and procedures; to maintain written records of complaints and investigations; and to file implementation reports with the Section and the court.

The two plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Sullivan County Board of Education (SCBE) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to appropriately address known student-on-student harassment on the basis of race. Specifically, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that both Michael and Marquita Madison, who are black, were subjected to ongoing racial harassment while attending Sullivan East High School (East). This harassment included a constant barrage of racial slurs, some made within earshot of teachers, racially derogatory graffiti on walls and desks, and racially offensive paraphernalia. Though school officials knew or should have known of the harassment, they failed to take appropriate steps to address it. Marquita eventually transferred to another school after her sophomore year. Michael fell victim to a racially-motivated assault outside the school cafeteria his junior year. He did not return to East after the assault and finished high school on homebound studies.

The Section filed its complaint-in-intervention, motion to intervene, and supporting memorandum in November 2000. In our complaint-in-intervention, we sought monetary relief for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief, such as policies and procedures to prevent or address such harassment in the future. The court granted the Section's intervention on November 28, 2000. The parties conducted discovery in 2001 and early 2002. Following discovery, the parties negotiated a consent order and monetary settlement of the Title VI and equal protection claims. Under the consent order, which was approved by the Court on October 16, 2002, the school system agreed to retain an expert to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination; provide an education and training program for teachers, staff, and students about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination; and maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations. For more details about the settlement, please see the press release linked here.

On June 12, 2023, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Madison County School District to address complaints of race-based harassment in its schools. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on allegations that the school district denied students equal protection of the laws based on their race. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will undertake significant institutional reforms. The district will, among other steps: revise its anti-discrimination policies and procedures; create three new central office positions to oversee effective handling of complaints of race discrimination; update its racial harassment and discipline policies to more accurately track and consistently respond to complaints of race-based harassment; train staff on how to identify, investigate, and respond to complaints of racial harassment and discriminatory discipline practices; inform students and parents of how to report harassment and discrimination; update its centralized, electronic reporting system to track and manage complaints and the district’s response to complaints; implement focus groups, conduct surveys, training and educational events on identifying and preventing race discrimination, including discriminatory harassment; and analyze and review its discipline data and amend its policies to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement of discipline policies. For more information, please see this letter to the District and press release.

In this matter involving the Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School of Excellence (“the School”), the Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts examined whether the School was adequately serving its English Learner (EL) students, including EL students with disabilities, as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On March 10, 2020, the School and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the issues identified by the United States and ensure the School’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the School to: provide all EL students – who make up nearly a quarter of the School’s population – with an adequate amount of daily English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction taught by an ESL-certified teacher; actively recruit qualified, certified staff for ESL, core content area, and special education teaching positions; ensure all ELs with disabilities receive both ESL and special education services unless their parents/guardians voluntarily and knowingly waive one or both services; train special education and ESL-certified teachers who work with EL students with disabilities on how to provide services to ELs with disabilities; communicate with Limited English Proficient parents about essential school information in a language they understand; and properly monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its EL program over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place through the end of the 2021-22 school year. 

Private plaintiffs filed this school desegregation case in 1965; the United States intervened later that year. On July 31, 1969, the Court approved the District's 1969-70 Revised Desegregation Plan, which was subsequently modified with the court's approval in 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, and 1978. In 2007, the United States initiated a review of the District's compliance with the court's desegregation orders and applicable federal law. This review resulted in the filing of negotiated consent order, which was approved by the court on February 5, 2009. On July 27, 2012, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on August 21, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on July 12, 2013. The consent order requires the district to close four of its seven elementary schools, including three racially identifiable schools; construct a new school; modify its attendance zones; and implement a controlled choice program at two of its elementary schools. The consent order also will require the district to continue certain intra-district transfers that have the effect of furthering the desegregation of the district's schools. On March 5, 2014, the court approved amendments to the July 12, 2013 consent order, which extended the timeline for implementing the elementary desegregation plan and established monitoring and reporting requirements sought by the United States.  On October 11, 2023, the court declared the district had met its desegregation obligations in several areas of operations, including staff assignment, facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities, and approved a negotiated consent decree that requires the district to take measures to desegregate its gifted program and advanced and dual enrollment courses.  The consent order also requires the district to implement changes to its student discipline policies designed to reduce racial disparities in discipline and eliminate the use of corporal punishment.

In this matter involving the Mercer County School District in West Virginia, the Section conducted a review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA"). After determining that the school district was not complying with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district on January 31, 2012. This agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: timely identify and assess all students with a primary or home language other than English; serve ELLs with appropriate instruction; provide adequate teacher training; and carefully monitor the academic progress of current and former ELLs.

On September 26, 2016, the Division filed a Statement of Interest to assist the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims under Title VI, its implementing regulations, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) in Methelus v. School Board of Collier County.  The plaintiffs filed on behalf of their newly-arrived, foreign-born English Language Learner (ELL) children ages 15-17, arguing that the Collier County School Board (Board) has violated the EEOA and Title VI by refusing to enroll these children in its regular high schools and diverting some to enroll in Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs that charge a fee and do not earn credit toward a high school diploma.  Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the Board’s practices did not constitute “appropriate action to overcome language barriers” under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA and intentionally discriminated against these foreign-born, ELL children on the basis for their national origin in violation of Title VI.  The Board moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims in their Amended Complaint.  The United States’ Statement of Interest, filed in response to the motion to dismiss, sets forth the legal standards applicable to the claim under Section 1703(f) of the EEOA, including the Castaneda v. Pickard standards binding on the Florida federal court. The filing explains why under those standards the plaintiffs adequately pled facts supporting a plausible Section 1703(f) claim.  The filing also sets forth the well-established Arlington Heights factors for evaluating intentional discrimination claims under Title VI, explaining how the plaintiffs’ factual allegations addressed many of these factors and sufficed to state a plausible Title VI claim.

On April 24, 2013, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township, Indiana to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment in schools. The agreement resolved the Section's review of the district's policies and practices related to harassment and bullying, which was initiated in June 2011 after reports of possible racial harassment at a district school. The agreement requires the district to take a number of steps to prevent and address harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability, and to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. These steps include forming a district-wide anti-harassment task force to review and revise the district's policies and procedures related to harassment, bullying, and discipline; establishing a cohesive process for receiving, investigating and monitoring complaints of harassment and bullying, enabling the district to track repeated incidents involving individual students or groups targeted for their membership in a protected class; and providing training, professional development and school climate assessments for both students and staff at two of the district's schools. For more information, please see this press release.

On November 18, 1963, private plaintiffs filed this case complaining that the Gadsden City Board of Education was maintaining a segregated school system. On May 9, 1966, the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring the school system into conformity with federal constitutional and statutory provisions.

Over the years, the court issued a series of orders aimed at eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination and completely desegregating the school system. In July 2003, the court approved the parties' proposed consent order that required the school district to take remedial actions in the areas of student assignment, personnel assignment, facilities, and quality of education. The consent order required the district to assign students randomly to classrooms and to enforce attendance zone lines strictly. With respect to personnel assignment, the consent order required the district to increase efforts to recruit minority teachers and to ensure that each school had a faculty whose racial diversity was reflective of the district-wide faculty. The consent order also required the district to make substantial improvements to its secondary schools so that these facilities were all of comparable quality. Finally, with respect to quality of education, the consent order required the district to equalize its offering of and access to advanced and honor classes among secondary schools. Having fulfilled these obligations, the district was declared unitary on August 26, 2005.

In this long-standing school desegregation case, the Jackson-Madison County School Board filed a motion for unitary status in December 1999, asserting that it had complied in good faith with prior desegregation decrees and had eliminated the vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable. The Section and the private plaintiffs opposed the board's motion for unitary status. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations, which resulted in an agreement shortly before trial in November 2000.

The agreement, which the court approved in December 2000, permits the board to proceed with its plan to construct five new schools and implement revised student attendance zones over the next four years. The agreement includes numerous measures that will further desegregation by voluntary means, including the construction of magnet schools and the introduction of other school choice options. The board is also required to take additional remedial action in faculty and staff assignments, and to encourage minority student participation in all programs and activities. Implementation and monitoring of the agreement is ongoing

Parents of students with disabilities who allege that their children were not properly identified, evaluated, and provided with special education services filed a class action lawsuit against the Newark Public Schools, the State of New Jersey, and several state officials. The lawsuit alleges that Newark does not have adequate systems in place to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and that New Jersey has violated its obligation to supervise local implementation of IDEA requirements.

In its motion to dismiss, New Jersey raised a constitutional challenge to the IDEA, claiming that the Eleventh Amendment afforded it immunity against a private lawsuit to enforce the IDEA. The Section sought and was granted intervention to defend the constitutionality of the IDEA. In its brief, the Section argued that New Jersey had agreed to comply with the IDEA and waive its sovereign immunity when it accepted federal IDEA funds to defray the cost of educating students with disabilities. In the alternative, the Section argued that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court accepted both arguments and denied the State's motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed the denials of their motions to dismiss, and the Appellate Section defended the IDEA's constitutionality on appeal. On September 16, 2003, the Third Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's holding that the State of New Jersey had waived its sovereign immunity.

In this matter involving the Nashua School District (“the District”) in New Hampshire, the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire investigated whether the District’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.  The investigation revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support they need to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.  On May 24, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the District’s compliance issues identified by the United States.  The agreement requires the District to provide English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction to all of its EL students, fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers, provide training to principals and core academic teachers of EL students, communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities, and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.  The agreement will remain in place for three school years. For more information, please see this press release in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Settlement Agreement: Español (Spanish) | Português (Portuguese)     

The United States initiated this litigation against the Nettleton Line Consolidated School District on September 8, 1969, and the court subsequently approved consent decrees requiring the District to desegregate on December 8, 1969 and June 19, 1970.  On August 8, 2011, following negotiations between the United States and the District, the court issued a consent order requiring the District to revise its policies and procedures and to terminate its race-based selection and election procedures for extracurricular activities (e.g., elections for class officers, homecoming court, and class superlatives).  After the United States completed a review of the District’s operations and compliance with the Court’s orders, on September 2, 2020 the court approved an additional consent order.  The 2020 Consent Order granted partial unitary status and found that the District had eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of student assignment, staff, extracurricular activities, and facilities.  The 2020 Consent Order also required the District to complete more work to demonstrate that it has eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of faculty and transportation.  Therefore, the 2020 Consent Order requires the District to take steps to (i) increase its recruitment of black applicants for teacher vacancies; (ii) conduct its hiring with the goal of eliminating any real or perceived racial barriers in hiring; (iii) retain qualified, black faculty members who are employed by the District; (iv) eliminate overlapping or duplicative bus routes; and (v) eliminate or reduce the number of racially identifiable bus routes or at least mitigate the disparities between the percentages of black and white students assigned to each racially identifiable bus.  The District may file a motion with the court for full or partial dismissal of the case after three full school years of compliance with the relevant provisions of the 2020 Consent Order.

In this matter involving the Newark Public Schools (“the District”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey examined whether the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices complied with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  The United States initiated its investigation in response to a complaint alleging that the District was failing to appropriately communicate with parents who have limited proficiency in English (“LEP parents”).  In addition to corroborating the District’s LEP parent communications failures, the United States found that the District failed to hire and retain enough qualified teachers to support its program, resulting in limited instruction time for some students, and for others, no language services at all.  On September 1, 2021, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; and locate and re-offer services to EL students who were exited improperly from the District’s programs without achieving English proficiency.  The agreement also requires the District to ensure that English as a Second Language (“ESL”) classes and bilingual classes are taught by ESL-certified and bilingual-endorsed teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with LEP parents about District and school programs and activities; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL programs over time.  The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for at least three school years until the District has fully complied with its obligations. Translations of the Agreement are available in Spanish, French, Haitian Creole, and Portuguese. For more information, please see press releases available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, and French.

On September 15, 2022, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the district to resolve the Section’s investigation of the district’s English Learner (EL) programs and practices under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA).  The Section opened the investigation in 2020, after the U.S. Department of Justice received a complaint alleging that the district violated the EEOA by failing to communicate effectively with K’iche’-speaking Limited English Proficient parents and denying K’iche’-speaking EL students equal educational opportunities.

Through its investigation, the Section identified that the district: (1) failed to communicate adequately with Limited English Proficient parents, including K’iche’ speakers, about school-related programs and activities; (2) did not adequately train its faculty on providing appropriate services to its EL students, including training to address the specific needs of K’iche’ speakers to overcome language barriers; and (3) did not adequately evaluate its EL programs for effectiveness, including assessing the performance of K’iche’-speaking EL students to determine if they are overcoming language barriers.

The agreement requires, among other things, that the district implement effective measures to correctly identify the languages spoken by students and parents/guardians, so that school staff do not assume K’iche’ speakers are native Spanish speakers based on their country of origin.  The district also agreed to improve its practices and professional development to address the specific needs of EL students who speak K’iche’ so that they can access the same educational opportunities as other students in the district.  For more information on this settlement, please see this press release (in Spanish, Portuguese, and Cape Verdean Creole).

On September 28, 2012, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division entered into a settlement agreement with the Northeastern Local School District (NELSD) in Springfield, Ohio, to resolve allegations of racial harassment of African-American students in the district.

In December 2011, the Section received a complaint alleging incidents of racial harassment, including race-based death threats, directed at an African-American student enrolled at Kenton Ridge High School in NELSD. The Section's investigation of the complaint revealed that the student had been subjected to significant harassment based on race and retaliation for reporting the harassment of which the District knew or should have known. In violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District failed to investigate the alleged harassment and retaliation adequately, address it effectively, and prevent it from recurring. Because of the severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment and retaliation, the student was afraid to go to school and eventually left the district out of fear for her own safety. The investigation also revealed that other African-American students in the district had experienced racial harassment and retaliation for reporting racial harassment.

Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent racial harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment. These steps include revising policies and procedures for handling racial harassment complaints; conducting trainings for faculty, staff, students, and parents; and reporting data to the Department of Justice for three years. For more information, please see this press release.

On December 31, 2020 the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the North Gibson School Corporation in Princeton, Indiana to address and prevent the discriminatory secluding and restraining of students with disabilities. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into a complaint that the school district inappropriately secluded and restrained students with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the district’s self-contained classrooms. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will, among other things: change its policies to prohibit use of seclusion rooms; report all instances of restraint and review whether they were justified; take steps to avoid placing students with emotional and behavioral disabilities on an abbreviated school day or homebound instruction and document those steps; create and implement a procedure for handling complaints of disability discrimination; provide appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement; and appoint an Intervention Coordinator to ensure the district’s compliance with the agreement and Title II of the ADA. For more information, please see this press release.

In this matter involving the North Plainfield, New Jersey school district, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes.  The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on September 3, 2004, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on September 3, 2007.

On December 20, 2022, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Okaloosa County School District in Fort Walton Beach, Florida to address the discriminatory use of seclusion and restraint against students with disabilities and the district’s responses to allegations of physical and verbal abuse. The agreement followed an investigation conducted under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on allegations that the school district engaged in improper seclusion and restraint practices and failed to appropriately respond to known physical and verbal abuse of students. Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: continue to prohibit the use of seclusion; limit its use of restraint; clarify and improve crisis response team procedures and post-restraint procedures; report all instances of restraint and evaluate if they were justified and complied with district policy; reform district complaint procedures and improve internal district investigations into allegations of employee abuse or improper use of restraint or seclusion; develop and deliver appropriate trainings for personnel who restrain students and personnel who review restraint reports; and deliver appropriate training and resources to help schools implement the agreement. For more information, please see this letter and press release.

In this matter involving Old Dominion University (ODU) in Norfolk, Virginia, the Section conducted an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The Section received a complaint alleging that ODU discriminated and retaliated against a graduate student based on her disability and her related request for acknowledgement of her right to reasonable modifications of policy.  The Section found that, in a series of retaliatory acts, ODU terminated the student’s relationship with her professor-advisor and his research lab, withdrew her from a professional conference where she was scheduled to present, and forced her to change her graduate course of study.  On February 3, 2021, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with ODU to ensure that the University provides reasonable modifications of policy for students with disabilities.  The agreement requires that ODU develop and disseminate a retaliation policy; train staff and faculty on the requirements of the ADA and Section 504; and provide compliance reports to DOJ.  In addition, under the agreement ODU will pay the complainant $40,000 in compensatory damages. For more information, please see this press release.

This religious discrimination case arose after the principal of an elementary school in New Jersey prohibited an eight-year-old girl from singing a Christian song in a voluntary after-school talent show. On May 20, 2005, the student’s parents filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the school violated her constitutional rights by censoring her speech. The school defended the censorship by asserting that (1) the song had an overtly religious and proselytizing message and (2) permitting the song would have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

On June 19, 2006, the Section filed an amicus brief in support of the student’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the school engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by censoring her performance based solely on the religious perspective of her song. The brief also contended that the school’s Establishment Clause justification was unavailing because the song clearly represented the student’s expression, not the school’s.

On December 11, 2006, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment. In its opinion, the court held that the school’s censorship of “Awesome God” constituted unlawful viewpoint discrimination because the song conformed to the talent show guidelines and the school permitted other acts with religious and “proselytizing” content. The court found that the school did not have “a legitimate pedagogical concern in distancing itself from proselytizing religious speech.” The court further ruled that the school’s Establishment Clause concerns could not justify censoring the plaintiff’s song because the performances in the talent show did not represent school-sponsored speech.

On April 12, 2011, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reached a resolution agreement with the Owatonna Public School District ("District") in Owatonna, Minnesota, to resolve a complaint regarding the student-on-student harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students based on their race and national-origin.

The complaint arose from a November 2009 fight between several white and Somali-American students at Owatonna High School and alleged severe and pervasive harassment. Following DOJ's and OCR's investigation, the Section and OCR worked with the school district to resolve the complaint. The departments gathered evidence indicating that the district meted out disproportionate discipline for the students involved in the November 2009 incident and that the district's policies, procedures and trainings were not adequately addressing harassment against Somali-American students.

The District took affirmative steps to address the harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students, and voluntarily entered into the resolution agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the District will take all reasonable steps to ensure that all students enrolled in the district are not subject to harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and to respond promptly and appropriately to all reports of harassment. To that end, the District has agreed to improve its policies and procedures concerning harassment and discipline as necessary to make them effectively protect students from racial or national origin-based harassment. For more information, please see this press release.

This case involves religious harassment by students against a Jewish public school teacher in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Mr. Owen, a veteran teacher of more than 30 years, filed his lawsuit in federal district court in March 2000 after an investigation by the Detroit office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that his complaint had merit. The United States intervened in October 2000, alleging that the L'Anse Area Schools subjected Mr. Owen to religious harassment while he was employed by the school district. The United States alleged that Mr. Owen had been the target of numerous incidents of anti-Semitic harassment by his students, including the drawing and etching of swastikas and hate messages such as "Die Jews," "Kill Owen," "KKK," and "White Power" in and around his classroom on multiple occasions and the placement of a hangman's noose on his classroom door. The United States alleged that the school district failed to take effective measures to remedy the harassment and to keep it from recurring despite Mr. Owen's repeated complaints. Further, the United States alleged that as a result of the harassment, Mr. Owen was forced to take an extended medical leave and ultimately retire from the school district.

Following discovery and an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment by the school district, the parties entered mediation, reaching a settlement agreement in March 2002. Under the agreement, which the district court approved on April 11, 2002, Mr. Owen was paid $265,000. The agreement also required the school district to review and revise its policies; train its employees to recognize, investigate and address harassment and discrimination; and educate its students about the inappropriateness of harassment and discrimination. In addition, the agreement required the district’s faculty and staff to report actual or suspected incidents of harassment or discrimination to appropriate school officials. The Justice Department monitored the school district's compliance with the settlement agreement for three years, and the case was dismissed on December 15, 2005.

In September and November 2011, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice notified the School District of Palm Beach County that it had received complaints regarding the District's enrollment and registration practices, as well as its practices of administering school discipline. The Division then conducted an investigation, including reviewing documents and data; conducting a site visit that included tours of schools and interviews with Principals, Area Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, District Office staff, the School District of Palm Beach County Police Department, and the Superintendent; meeting with community members and local stakeholders; and reviewing and providing comments regarding the District's enrollment and discipline policies. The United States conducted its investigation with the full cooperation of the District.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a settlement agreement signed by the Parties on February 26, 2013. Under the settlement agreement, the district will enroll all area students regardless of background and will provide translation and interpretation services throughout the registration process. The district will also limit the use of disciplinary measures that remove students from the classroom and implement behavior management and discipline practices that support and protect students. Among other things, the agreement requires that ELL students and parents who are limited English proficient receive translation and interpretation services throughout the enrollment and discipline processes; expands the use of language-accessible positive behavior interventions and supports ("PBIS"); places limits on the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; establishes clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; requires school law enforcement officers to communicate with students in a language the student understands, including by securing an interpreter when appropriate; requires providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and requires expanding data-driven monitoring and accountability systems. On July 25, 2016, the parties agreed to an eighteen month extension of the Agreement. 

On March 5, 2024, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Pasco County School District in Pasco County, Florida to resolve the department’s investigation into alleged discrimination against students with disabilities in school discipline, threat assessment practices and referrals of students to law enforcement. The agreement followed an investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The investigation found that the district routinely suspended students or called police for disability-related behavior that could have been addressed through proper support and de-escalation. The investigation also found problems with how the district conducted threat assessments (a process to identify, evaluate and respond to potential school security concerns). When these assessments involved students with disabilities, the district systematically failed to consider the relationship between a student’s disability and their behavior, and whether appropriate support for the student would address the behavior that prompted the assessment. Instead, the district often unnecessarily referred students to law enforcement to be arrested or to start the process for an involuntary admission into a mental health facility under Florida’s Baker Act. 

Under the settlement agreement, the school district will take proactive steps to ensure that its practices do not discriminate against students with disabilities. The district will, among other steps: ensure that personnel accurately assess disability-related behaviors, identify appropriate interventions, and monitor their implementation; hire a consultant who will assist in updating policies and practices; update its student code of conduct, threat assessment process, and law enforcement referral process to ensure that the district is adequately considering disability-related behaviors; improve data collection and analysis and regularly evaluate data to ensure students with disabilities do not face discrimination as a result of the district’s discipline, threat assessment and law enforcement referral practices. The Section will monitor the district’s implementation of the agreement and will also continue to monitor and enforce an ongoing desegregation order that covers the district.

For more information, please see this letter, press release (español), and summary of the settlement agreement.

In this matter involving sex discrimination, several high school girls and their representatives filed a complaint alleging that the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the SDHSAA discriminated against female athletes by requiring girls to play certain sports (basketball and volleyball) in disadvantageous seasons. Playing in disadvantageous seasons can result in substantial harms that deny female high school athletes equal athletic opportunities, including, among others, the ability to participate in interstate competition and club competition, the opportunity to be recruited for collegiate-level sports programs, and the opportunity to have the same number of games and practices as similarly-situated boys' sports teams.

On October 17, 2000, the Department was granted leave to intervene in the lawsuit as a plaintiff-party in support of the high school girls. Subsequently, the SDHSAA moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether the association was subject to Title IX and whether it is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before any further briefing was completed, however, the parties agreed to engage in mediation and ultimately reached a settlement. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court entered a Consent Order on December 5, 2000, requiring the SDHSAA to schedule girls' high school volleyball during the traditional fall season and girls' high school basketball during the traditional winter season beginning with the 2002-03 school year. The SDHSAA submitted a detailed plan which was subsequently agreed to by the plaintiff-parties and approved by the Court.

In June of 2002 and shortly before the season switch was to take place, a group of parents and students filed a separate lawsuit in state court that was removed to federal court, Hoffman v. South Dakota High Sch. Activities Ass'n, C.A. No. 02-4127 (D. S.D.), seeking to challenge the Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case, or in the alternative, to delay the season switch for four more years. The Hoffman plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the season switch immediately. The Department moved to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant to uphold the prior Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case and the district court granted the Department's motion to intervene. The Department also filed a motion to dismiss the Hoffman lawsuit on procedural grounds that the district court held in abeyance until after the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Hoffman case at which the Department presented evidence. Shortly thereafter, the district court issued an opinion denying the Hoffman plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 22, 2003, the district court granted the Department's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Hoffman lawsuit with prejudice.

In this matter involving the Plainfield, New Jersey School District, the Section reviewed whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and services to English Language Learners (ELLs), as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on June 30, 2003, entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure that it complies with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on June 30, 2006.

In April 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York alleging, inter alia, that the Indian River Central School District, its Board of Education, and eight of its employees violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. On June 11, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX claims. On August 13, 2010, the United States filed a motion seeking leave to participate as amicus curiae in order to provide the court with the proper legal standards governing harassment on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The United States argues in its amicus brief that harassment based on sex stereotyping is a legally cognizable claim under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause; that sexual orientation harassment does not preclude a harassment claim based on non-conformity to sex stereotypes; and that a hostile environment claim in primary and secondary schools can span classes, grades, and schools.

In this matter involving the Prince William County School District, the Section conducted a compliance review to determine whether the district was providing appropriate instruction and other services to English Language Learner ("ELL") students as required by the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On September 5, 2013, the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps the district will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement requires the district to: provide all ELL students with adequate English Language Development and sheltered content instruction by qualified ELL teachers; ensure that ELL teachers and administrators receive appropriate training; monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its ELL programs; modify its enrollment and registration practices to ensure that students have access to educational programs regardless of race, national origin, or immigration status; provide ELL students and Limited English Proficient parents meaningful access to district and school-level information, such as discipline and special education forms and meetings; and take measures to ensure discipline is administered in a nondiscriminatory way, such as instituting cultural responsiveness training for teachers. The district-wide review and agreement grew out of an investigation of a complaint regarding the Fred Lynn Middle School. That investigation resulted in a 2010 agreement requiring remedial measures at that school, which was later amended by a 2011 agreement. This school and all others in the district are now subject to the 2013 agreement, which requires the district to report to the Section on the agreement's implementation through 2016.

In this matter involving the Providence Public Schools (“the District”) and the Rhode Island Department of Education (“RIDE”), the Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island examined whether the District was identifying and serving its approximately 8,000 English Learner (“EL”) students as required by Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”).  On August 9, 2018, the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to address the noncompliant conditions identified by the United States and to ensure the District’s compliance with Section 1703(f) of the EEOA.  Among other things, the agreement requires the District to: identify and place EL students appropriately when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English; ensure that the English as a Second Language (“ESL”) components of its EL program are taught by ESL-certified teachers; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the District’s EL programs; ensure meaningful communication with Limited English Proficient parents about District and school programs and activities; provide equal opportunities for EL students to participate in specialized programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.  On November 1, 2019, RIDE took control over the District, and on December 19, 2019, the parties agreed that the 2018 EL agreement would be binding upon both the District and RIDE.  On September 29, 2021, the parties executed a letter agreement, which modifies and extends the 2018 EL settlement agreement through at least the 2022-2023 school year.

2021 Letter Agreement: English | Español (Spanish) | العربية (Arabic) | ខ្មែរ (Khmer) | Kiswahili (Swahili)