The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 25-27

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 25... ... whether the entity's obligations are binding upon the state.354 As for municipal transit agencies and § 1983 actions, in Monell v. New York355 the Court held that municipal corporations are persons that are amenable to suit under § 1983. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... To establish liability under disparate impact, the investigating agency must first ascertain whether the recipient utilized a facially neutral practice that had a disproportionate impact on a group protected by Title VI. If the evidence establishes a prima facie case, the investigating agency must then determine whether the recipient can articulate a substantial legitimate justification for the challenged practice. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... D Transit Agencies' Responses to Title VI Complaints With respect to complaints processed at the FTA, transit providers have responded in a variety of ways to Title VI complaints.376 Some of the approaches are relevant to complaints alleging disparate impact caused by reductions in transit service and/or increases in fares.377 First, some transit providers have focused on the complaint's failure to show or allege any specific discriminatory intent or effect, the complaint's failure to identify any discrimination, the absence of proof of any alleged disparity, and/or the complaint's failure to show a causal connection.378 Second, if needed, transit providers have explained the basis for the agency's decision, the adequacy of existing service or of new service, and the provision, where applicable, of alternative service.379 Third, other transit providers have emphasized that a decision was made after appropriate deliberations and study, that various options were considered, and/or that there were public hearings and public participation prior to a decision and as part of the decision-making process.380 Fourth, some transit providers have used statistics and demographic information to rebut allegations of disparate impact.381 Fifth, some transit providers have explained the sources of the transit provider's funding, any statutory requirements or restrictions that may affect the transit provider's funding, and why there is a lack of funding, 376 Id. Read the entire page →

From page 25...

... whether the entity's obligations are binding upon the state.354 As for municipal transit agencies and § 1983 actions, in Monell v. New York355 the Court held that municipal corporations are persons that are amenable to suit under § 1983.

Read the entire page →

From page 26...

... To establish liability under disparate impact, the investigating agency must first ascertain whether the recipient utilized a facially neutral practice that had a disproportionate impact on a group protected by Title VI. If the evidence establishes a prima facie case, the investigating agency must then determine whether the recipient can articulate a substantial legitimate justification for the challenged practice.

Read the entire page →

From page 27...

... D Transit Agencies' Responses to Title VI Complaints With respect to complaints processed at the FTA, transit providers have responded in a variety of ways to Title VI complaints.376 Some of the approaches are relevant to complaints alleging disparate impact caused by reductions in transit service and/or increases in fares.377 First, some transit providers have focused on the complaint's failure to show or allege any specific discriminatory intent or effect, the complaint's failure to identify any discrimination, the absence of proof of any alleged disparity, and/or the complaint's failure to show a causal connection.378 Second, if needed, transit providers have explained the basis for the agency's decision, the adequacy of existing service or of new service, and the provision, where applicable, of alternative service.379 Third, other transit providers have emphasized that a decision was made after appropriate deliberations and study, that various options were considered, and/or that there were public hearings and public participation prior to a decision and as part of the decision-making process.380 Fourth, some transit providers have used statistics and demographic information to rebut allegations of disparate impact.381 Fifth, some transit providers have explained the sources of the transit provider's funding, any statutory requirements or restrictions that may affect the transit provider's funding, and why there is a lack of funding, 376 Id.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

prima facie

intentional discrimination

discriminatory intent

environmental justice

transportation plan

judicial review

← 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.