The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 23-24

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 23... ... 27. tioned the receipt of federal highway funds on compliance with Title VI and the waiver of sovereign immunity from claims arising under Title VI."320 In Western States Paving Co., supra, the court held that the state did not have sovereign immunity because the regulations clearly put "the state on notice -- as a recipient of federal funds -- that it faced private causes of action in the event of noncompliance."321 2. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs, however, were willing to amend their complaint, as the district court suggested, to request injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the state law.331 After the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. According to plaintiffs, there was a disparate impact on such students in violation of the implementing regulations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973332 and Section 602 of Title VI.333 Consistent with Sandoval, the court in Robinson held that a private right of action exists under Section 601 only in cases involving intentional discrimination. Read the entire page →

From page 23...

... 27. tioned the receipt of federal highway funds on compliance with Title VI and the waiver of sovereign immunity from claims arising under Title VI."320 In Western States Paving Co., supra, the court held that the state did not have sovereign immunity because the regulations clearly put "the state on notice -- as a recipient of federal funds -- that it faced private causes of action in the event of noncompliance."321 2.

Read the entire page →

From page 24...

... The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs, however, were willing to amend their complaint, as the district court suggested, to request injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the state law.331 After the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. According to plaintiffs, there was a disparate impact on such students in violation of the implementing regulations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973332 and Section 602 of Title VI.333 Consistent with Sandoval, the court in Robinson held that a private right of action exists under Section 601 only in cases involving intentional discrimination.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

intentional discrimination

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.