Civil Rights Division: Selection of Cases and Reasons Matters Were Closed
(Letter Report, 09/27/2000, GAO/GGD-00-192).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Justice's Civil Rights Division's (CRT) selection of cases and reasons
matters were closed.

GAO noted that: (1) it reviewed case selection in CRT's Housing and
Civil Enforcement, Employment Litigation, and Voting sections; (2)
according to officials in these sections, CRT does not have written
procedures for selecting cases to pursue; (3) officials said that the
predominant criterion for selecting cases to pursue is the legal merit
of the case; (4) the section chiefs said various factors were considered
when selecting a case to pursue, including: (a) the priorities of the
Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General; (b) targeting
enforcement to affect certain types of discrimination; or (c) targeting
areas of the country with a predominance of minorities or prevalence of
discrimination; (5) to determine CRT's approach for selecting cases to
pursue, GAO reviewed 21 Employment Litigation Cases that were initiated
during fiscal year (FY) 1998; (6) GAO's review of the Employment
Litigation section case files showed that several of the discretionary
cases targeted a particular type of discrimination that involved
complaints based on sexual harassment; (7) to determine the reasons that
matters were closed, GAO reviewed the population of 54 Housing and Civil
Enforcement section closed matters and 22 Voting section closed matters
initiated in FY 1998; (8) for the Employment Litigation section, GAO
reviewed a statistically representative sample of 64 Employment
Litigation section closed matters from the population of 149 closed
employment matters in FY 1998; (9) the three sections had different
reasons for closing matters because the types of matters initiated often
differed; (10) in GAO's review of the Housing and Civil Enforcement and
Voting sections matter files, it found that most matters were closed due
to a lack of merit, the problem was resolved, or no further action was
warranted; (11) voting section officials indicated that they also closed
matters that were initiated to monitor private lawsuits and elections
because no further action was warranted; (12) for the Employment
Litigation section, most matters were initiated to review referrals from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to determine whether the
section should participate in the matter or close it by notifying the
charging party of their right to file a private lawsuit; and (13)
further, the decision to select a matter for further investigation was
based on whether it had the potential to affect a larger population,
target enforcement in a particular location, target a particular type of
discrimination, or result in a change of policies or practices that were
discriminatory.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-192
     TITLE:  Civil Rights Division: Selection of Cases and Reasons
	     Matters Were Closed
      DATE:  09/27/2000
   SUBJECT:  Civil rights law
	     Employment discrimination
	     Litigation
	     Civil rights law enforcement
	     Decision making

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

GAO/GGD-00-192

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Selection of Cases and Reasons Matters Were Closed

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on
the

Judiciary, House of Representatives

September 2000 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division
Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

B- 285057 September 27, 2000 The Honorable Charles T. Canady Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary House of
Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division (which
uses the abbreviation CRT) is the principal federal authority charged with
the responsibility of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws. The
direction of CRT enforcement efforts has been the subject of several
Subcommittee hearings. Furthermore, CRT enforcement actions have been
affected by several U. S. Supreme Court decisions rendered in the 1990s that
provided new guidelines for the enforcement of certain federal civil rights
laws and affirmative action programs. 1 In your CRT- oversight role, you
requested that we review several issues that included, among other things, 2
determining CRT's approach for selecting cases to pursue and the reasons
that matters were closed. 3 This letter provides information on these two
issues for the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and
Voting sections in CRT.

CRT was established in 1957 and is the primary institution within the
federal government responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, handicap, religion, age,
familial status, and national origin (referred to as protected classes). 4
CRT has grown in size from 15 attorneys in 1958 to 274 attorneys at the end
of fiscal year 1999. CRT's responsibilities also grew over this period. CRT

1 Adarand Constructors, Inc., v. Pena, 515 U. S. 200 (1995); Seminole Tribe
of Florida v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996); Shaw v. Reno, (Shaw I), 509 U.
S. 630 (1993), and Shaw v. Hunt,( Shaw II), 517 U. S. 899 (1996).

2 We have responded to other issues that you requested we review in two
products issued earlier this year, Information on Civil Rights Division
Operations (GAO/ GGD- 00- 58R, Feb. 17, 2000) and Civil Rights Division's FY
2000 Performance Plan Could Be Improved (GAO/ GGD- 00- 90R, Mar. 30, 2000).

3 A “matter” is defined as an activity that has been assigned an
identification number but has not resulted in the filing of a complaint,
indictment, or information. A “case” is defined as an activity
that has been assigned an identification number that has resulted in the
filing of a complaint, indictment, or information.

4 CRT uses the term “protected class” to refer to the different
groups covered in the statutes that it enforces. Background

B- 285057 Page 2 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

enforces the federal Civil Rights Acts; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965,
as amended through 1992; the Fair Housing Act (FHA) 5 ; the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA); the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); the
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act; and additional civil rights provisions contained in other
laws and regulations. These laws prohibit discrimination in education,
employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting,
and certain federally funded and conducted programs.

CRT is headed by an Assistant Attorney General who reports to the Associate
Attorney General. CRT has eight sections that have enforcement
responsibilities over particular subject areas related to prohibited
discrimination. The Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement,
and Voting sections are among the largest of these sections. These three
sections are managed by a section chief and several deputy section chiefs.
CRT's organizational chart and a brief description of the organization can
be found in appendix I.

Because CRT does not have written policies or procedures for selecting
matters that are to be pursued as cases nor written documentation of
internal processes for handling matters and cases, we interviewed the
section chiefs for the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement,
and Voting sections and asked them to describe the process to us. According
to these officials, the process, from initiating a matter to the filing of a
lawsuit, can vary among the sections. While some steps were common to all
three sections, variation occurs because of the structure of the statutes
they enforce.

The Employment Litigation section receives referrals from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Housing and Civil
Enforcement section receives referrals from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and federal bank regulatory agencies. 6 All three
sections receive allegations of discrimination from numerous other

5 The Fair Housing Act is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as
amended. Key amendments to the act were contained in the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988. 6 For the Employment Litigation section, the term
”charge” refers specifically to those allegations of
discrimination referred to them by EEOC. HUD refers allegations of
discrimination under FHA to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section. The
federal bank regulatory agencies also refer allegations of discrimination to
the Housing and Civil Enforcement section under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act. We will use the term “referral “ to refer to HUD,
regulatory agency, and EEOC referrals. The more general term
“allegation of discrimination” will be used to describe all
other instances of alleged discrimination.

B- 285057 Page 3 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

sources such as citizens, advocacy groups, private attorneys, and other
federal agencies. According to CRT, when a referral or allegation of
discrimination is received, each section will frequently initiate a matter
to review or investigate the referral or allegation.

The Employment Litigation section reviews referrals received from EEOC and
has the discretion to select which matters to pursue as investigations. If
the Employment Litigation section does not pursue the referral received from
EEOC, the section is to return the file to the agency and issue a rightto-
sue letter to the charging party or their attorney. The right- to- sue
letter informs the charging party of their right to file a private lawsuit.
In contrast, the Housing and Civil Enforcement section is required to file a
lawsuit for some HUD referrals that involve violations of the FHA, when the
complainant or respondent elects to have the case heard in federal court.
The Voting section differs from the other two sections in that it generally
does not receive referrals from other federal agencies.

The sections also undertake investigations that tend to be larger and more
complex than referrals that allege a single act of discrimination against a
person or persons. In the Employment Litigation and Housing and Civil
Enforcement sections, these investigations are referred to as “pattern
or practice,” 7 and in the Voting section, they are systemic
investigations.

We found that, in addition to initiating matters to investigate referrals or
allegations of discrimination for possible litigation, the Voting section
initiated matters to monitor private lawsuits and to observe elections.
Appendix II provides more detailed information on CRT's process for handling
matters and cases.

One of CRT's roles is to represent the United States as plaintiff in a case
whereby it brings a lawsuit against an entity for alleged discriminatory
behavior or practices. However, CRT can also represent the United States as
a defendant in certain circumstances. For example, CRT sometimes becomes
involved in cases while representing the United States as defendant because
of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs against federal agencies challenging the
enforcement of certain laws passed by Congress.

7 According to CRT, pattern or practice investigations and cases are
generally defined as attacking a systemic practice of discrimination and not
a single act against a person or persons.

B- 285057 Page 4 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

In addition, CRT also participates on behalf of the United States as an
amicus curiae or intervenor 8 in lawsuits brought by others.

We reviewed case selection in CRT's Housing and Civil Enforcement,
Employment Litigation, and Voting sections. According to officials in these
sections, CRT does not have written procedures for selecting cases to
pursue. Our review of cases found that- although cases were pursued for
legal reasons- for many cases, the sections had discretion in deciding which
cases they would pursue based on various criteria. Officials said that the
predominant criterion for selecting cases to pursue is the legal merit of
the case. Some cases we reviewed were initiated because the particular
section had been delegated responsibility for defending certain charges
brought against federal agencies. Officials said that other criteria or
factors, in addition to legal merit, were more apt to be considered when
they decided to initiate a matter for starting an investigation or
considered participating in a lawsuit as an amicus curiae or intervenor. The
section chiefs said other factors that were considered when selecting a case
to pursue included (1) the priorities of the Attorney General or the
Assistant Attorney General; (2) targeting enforcement to affect certain
types of discrimination; or (3) targeting areas of the country with a
predominance of minorities or prevalence of discrimination, among other
things.

To determine CRT's approach for selecting cases to pursue, we reviewed 44
Housing and Civil Enforcement section and 6 Voting section cases that were
initiated during fiscal year 1998. 9 For the Employment Litigation section,
we reviewed 21 cases- which included 20 cases initiated during fiscal year
1998 and the single pattern or practice case initiated in fiscal year 1999,
since no pattern or practices cases were initiated in fiscal year 1998. We
interviewed section chiefs about factors considered when they decided to
investigate the matters that became cases. In interviews with the section
chiefs, we found numerous instances where the previously mentioned factors
were considered when cases were pursued. For example, our review of the
Housing and Civil Enforcement section case files showed that the section had
initiated pattern or practice cases, which the Attorney General and
Assistant Attorney General deemed a priority for the section because of
their broad impact, according to the section chief. The section chief
indicated that, in one lending pattern or practice case,

8 A plaintiff refers to the party that initiates a lawsuit in court. A
defendant is one against whom an action is brought. An amicus curiae refers
to a person who advises a court on a matter of law in a case to which he is
not a party. To be an intervenor is to enter into a lawsuit as a third party
for the protection of an alleged interest.

9 The cases reviewed were initiated as matters in fiscal year 1998 (Oct. 1,
1997 to Sept. 30, 1998) and subsequently, a formal complaint was filed
whereby the matter became a case. Results in Brief

B- 285057 Page 5 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

the section targeted the discriminatory practices of a major lender that
served a large area with a predominantly African- American population to
send a message to other lenders in the area. Our review of the Employment
Litigation section case files showed that several of the discretionary cases
targeted a particular type of discrimination that involved complaints based
on sexual harassment. The section chief stated that these types of EEOC
referrals were often pursued as cases when they were deemed to have merit
because this type of discriminatory behavior was difficult to identify
through means other than individual EEOC referrals of harassment. Our review
of the Voting section's discretionary cases found, for example, that the
section had selected a case that involved the enforcement of voting
practices and procedures for a language minority group, which was selected,
in part, because it addressed a priority area of enforcement of the
Assistant Attorney General. In addition, officials said that this case
enabled the section to file a minoritylanguage lawsuit in a location of the
country that had been experiencing a growth in its minority population and
that had not been targeted for enforcement in the past.

To determine the reasons that matters were closed, we reviewed the
population of 54 Housing and Civil Enforcement section closed matters and 22
Voting section closed matters initiated in fiscal year 1998. For the
Employment Litigation section, we reviewed a statistically representative
sample of 64 Employment Litigation section closed matters from the
population of 149 closed employment matters initiated in fiscal year 1998.
The three sections had different reasons for closing matters because the
types of matters initiated often differed. In our review of the Housing and
Civil Enforcement and Voting sections matter files, we found that most
matters were closed due to a lack of merit, the problem was resolved, or no
further action was warranted. Voting section officials indicated that they
also closed matters that were initiated to monitor private lawsuits and
elections because no further action was warranted. For example, private
lawsuits were subsequently resolved through court actions.

For the Employment Litigation section, most matters were initiated to review
referrals from EEOC and to determine whether the section should participate
in the matter or close it by notifying the charging party of their right to
file a private lawsuit. Of the 64 closed matters, the 61 EEOC referred
matters were closed because the section determined that participation was
not justified. For some of the closed employment matters, the files cited
additional reasons for closing the matter and not selecting it for further
investigation. These included reasons such as (1) the limited scope of the
referral- whether multiple victims would be

B- 285057 Page 6 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

entitled to remedial relief- did not justify the resources necessary for
prosecution, (2) EEOC did not recommend litigation, (3) the matter was
resolved, or (4) the individual was represented by a private attorney. Seven
of the closed EEOC- referred matters were selected for further
investigation, and most of these were closed because the section determined
the facts of the matter were problematic. The Employment Litigation section
chief said that the decision to select a matter for further investigation
was based on factors such as whether the matter had the potential to affect
a larger population, target enforcement in a particular location, target a
particular type of discrimination, or result in a change of policies or
practices that were discriminatory.

On September 11, 2000, CRT officials provided oral comments whereby they
agreed with the message of this report.

Our review focused on three of the CRT sections- Employment Litigation,
Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Voting. These sections were selected
because they were among the largest of the eight sections with enforcement
responsibility in the division. Our objectives were to (1) describe the
reasons why each section selected some matters to pursue as cases filed in
court and (2) describe the reasons why each of the three sections closed
matters. Section officials said that lawsuits were filed based on their
legal merit. However, inherent in the decision to initiate a case or not
pursue a matter is the application of a variety of judgmental factors, such
as availability of resources and enforcement objectives.

To determine why some matters were closed and others were pursued as cases,
we obtained information from CRT's Case Management System (CMS). CRT
provided CMS data on matters and cases for fiscal years 1994 to 1999 as of
October 31, 1999. CRT's CMS included limited data on matters and cases
opened and closed by each section, in part, because each section used the
system somewhat differently. Therefore, we supplemented the CMS data with a
review of individual matter and case files. We reviewed matter and case
files in each of the three sections, using a structured data collection
instrument to record information such as the nature of the allegation and
the reasons for closing the matter. Some files had more information than
others, and the Employment Litigation and Housing and Civil Enforcement
sections' files often contained closing memorandums that summarized why the
matters were closed. After reviewing these files, we discussed the matters
and cases for each section with the section chief or a deputy section chief.
For many of the matters and cases, the section chief or deputy section chief
was able to provide additional information not found in the files.
Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

B- 285057 Page 7 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Using the CMS, we identified all matters that were initiated during fiscal
year 1998 in the three sections in our review and that were closed as of
October 31, 1999, with the exception of the Voting section, in which we used
matters identified as closed by the end of March 2000. We were unable to
identify closed Voting matters using the CMS because the Voting section had
not entered information on closing dates into the database. Thus, we asked
Voting section officials to identify which matters initiated in fiscal year
1998 were closed when we started our file review. We reviewed the entire
population of closed matters initiated in fiscal year 1998 for the Voting
section (22 matters) and the Housing and Civil Enforcement section (54
matters). Because of the larger number of closed employment matters
initiated in fiscal year 1998 (149 matters), we reviewed a statistically
representative sample (64 matters) from the population of closed employment
matters initiated in fiscal year 1998. Of these 64 employment matters, 61
were referred by EEOC. For 10 of these 61 referrals, we were unable to
determine the protected class and for 13 of the 61 referrals, we were unable
to identify the alleged discrimination issue because the section decided not
to pursue the referral, and the complaint file had been returned to EEOC. We
do not know whether the protected class and the alleged discrimination issue
were similar to those matters for which data were available. Thus, our
findings regarding the protected class and alleged discrimination issue were
limited to matters for which data were available.

Our case file review included all cases initiated during fiscal year 1998 in
each of the three sections plus the single employment pattern or practice
case that was initiated during fiscal year 1999. We included the additional
pattern or practice case because a CRT enforcement priority is the pursuit
of cases in which a pattern or practice of illegal behavior is alleged, and
we wished to include, if possible, such a case in our review of cases for
each section. Our case file review included both open and closed cases. We
reviewed 21 employment cases, 44 housing cases, and 6 voting cases. We
interviewed section chiefs about factors considered when they decided to
investigate the matters that became cases and factors considered when they
decided to file a lawsuit or amicus brief or intervene in a lawsuit.
Officials said that the primary factor considered in deciding to file a
lawsuit is the merit of the legal issues. They said that factors other than
legal merit were more apt to be considered when they decided to initiate an
investigation or participate in some other manner. Therefore, when we
interviewed section officials about the reasons for pursuing a case, we
discussed the factors considered when the section decided to initiate an
investigation into the initial matter that subsequently became a case.

B- 285057 Page 8 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

We performed our audit work in Washington, D. C., from November 1999 through
August 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

The Employment Litigation section enforces the provisions of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and other federal laws prohibiting
employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion,
and national origin against state and local government employers.

The section has two enforcement mechanisms. Under the statutes it enforces,
the Attorney General has authority to bring lawsuits where there is reason
to believe that a pattern or practice of discrimination exists. Generally,
these are factually and legally complex cases that seek to alter an
employment practice- such as recruitment, hiring, assignment, and
promotions- which has the purpose or effect of denying employment or
promotional opportunities to a class of individuals. Under its pattern or
practice authority, the section obtains relief in the form of injunctive
relief, systemic relief reforming unlawful employment policies and
practices, offers of employment, back pay, and other compensatory relief for
individuals who have been the victims of the unlawful employment practices.
According to CRT, these cases are frequently resolved through settlement
agreements prior to trial.

The section's second enforcement mechanism is filing lawsuits based upon
referrals from EEOC. Individuals who believe that they were unlawfully
denied an employment opportunity or otherwise discriminated against by a
state or local government employer may file charges with the EEOC. If, after
investigation, the EEOC determines that a charge has merit and efforts to
obtain voluntary compliance are unsuccessful, the EEOC may refer it to the
Employment Litigation section. The section then has authority to determine
whether to initiate litigation. If the section decides not to initiate
litigation, it issues a right- to- sue letter to the charging party. 10 A
limited number of these lawsuits are initiated each year. According to the
section chief, while the charges referred by EEOC for individuals may be
small in scope when compared with pattern or practice lawsuits that target
systemic discrimination practices, the individual cases are important. These
individual cases are important because they (1) might not be pursued without
the section's participation and (2) often address types

10 The section is required under Title VII to notify the charging party of
their right to file a private lawsuit. Employment Litigation

Section Responsibilities

B- 285057 Page 9 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

of discrimination that may not be remediable through pattern or practice
lawsuits.

The section also represents the Departments of Labor and Transportation and
other federal agencies when they are sued for what is alleged to be
overzealous enforcement of federal laws that prohibit discrimination and/ or
require affirmative action by government contractors or recipients of
federal financial assistance. In addition, the section has authority to
prosecute enforcement actions for the Department of Labor of referrals
arising under Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination in
employment by federal contractors.

The number of matters initiated by the Employment Litigation section has
increased significantly over the past 6 years. As shown in figure 1, the
number of matters increased over 250 percent from fiscal year 1994 to 1999.
Although the number of cases initiated fluctuated some from year to year,
the section initiated on average about 19 cases per year between fiscal
years 1994 and 1999. According to the section chief, the number of matters
increased significantly because EEOC streamlined its processing of referrals
and was referring more matters. Enforcement Efforts in

Fiscal Years 1994 to 1999

B- 285057 Page 10 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Source: CRT's Case Management System.

The Employment Litigation section represents other federal agencies when
they are sued for allegedly overzealous enforcement of federal laws that
prohibit discrimination or when they are challenged regarding the use of
affirmative action programs regarding government contractors or recipients
of federal financial assistance. Our analysis of the Employment Litigation
section cases showed that of 113 cases initiated in fiscal years 1994
through 1999, 67 cases, or 59 percent, involved defending other federal
agencies. According to the section chief, these types of cases increased
because of a Supreme Court decision in 1995, referred to as the Adarand
decision, 11 which affected the standard applied to federal affirmative
action programs. According to a section official, they had to

11 In Adarand Constructors Inc., v. Pena, 515 U. S. 200 (1995), the Supreme
Court ruled that federal affirmative action programs to benefit minorities
must meet the same “strict scrutiny” standard that applies to
state and local programs. To survive strict scrutiny, federal programs must
serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that
interest. Previously, the Court had subjected congressionally mandated
affirmative action to a lesser standard of review in light of Congress'
broad authority to enforce equal protection guarantees.

Figure 1: Employment Matters and Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1999

B- 285057 Page 11 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

devote considerable resources to these cases, which affected its ability to
initiate Title VII litigation.

The Employment Litigation section initiated 20 cases in fiscal year 1998 and
1 pattern or practice case in fiscal year 1999. The section brought lawsuits
alleging violations of Title VII in six cases referred by EEOC that alleged
state or local governmental entities had engaged in discriminatory
activities and intervened in two private lawsuits. These eight cases were
initiated at the discretion of the section. According to the section chief,
the predominate criteria for pursuing discretionary cases is their legal
merit.

The section also represented federal agencies in seven cases and monitored
or provided assistance on six private lawsuits. Because the section, on
behalf of the Department of Justice, is required to represent federal
agencies when federal statutes related to employment discrimination or
affirmative action programs are challenged, the section does not have the
discretion to participate or not participate in these cases. However, we
noted that of the seven cases where the section was representing other
federal agencies, five involved lawsuits against federal agencies based on
the Adarand decision. According to the section chief, an administration
objective in these cases was to comply with the standards in the Adarand
decision while preserving the intent of such programs. These cases also
represented a body of on- going casework within the Department of Justice.

Aside from legal merit, the factors considered in selecting the eight
discretionary cases included priorities of the Attorney General or Assistant
Attorney General; the impact of the case in a type or category of
discrimination or a particular location; meeting performance goals; and the
casework of the section. Of the six discretionary cases where the section
chose to pursue litigation against a state or local entity, five were filed
on the basis of sex discrimination, and one on the basis of religious
discrimination. According to the section chief, the section was interested
in pursuing referrals by individuals that were based on sex- more
specifically sexual harassment- or religious discrimination because such
discriminatory practices are difficult to detect through pattern or practice
investigations. The section chief said that individual referrals of sexual
harassment and religious discrimination enable the section to combat these
discriminatory practices.

Three of the sex discrimination cases illustrate factors other than legal
merit that are considered when the section decides to pursue a case. In
Selection of

Employment Litigation Cases to Pursue

B- 285057 Page 12 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

one case, the section chief said that while the primary factor was the
egregiousness of the alleged sexual harassment, another factor considered
was the particular geographic location that the alleged discriminatory
behavior occurred. Specifically, the discriminatory practice complaint was
filed against a city police department in a small town, and the section
chief said that filing the lawsuit enabled the section to publicize the
issue of sexual harassment in order to deter such behavior on the part of
other small- town law enforcement agencies in the surrounding area.

A second sex discrimination case involved a correctional facility. The
section selected the case, in part, because it related to a body of casework
that the section had an interest in pursuing. According to the section
chief, the section has performed a large body of casework in assignment
practices in state departments of corrections. The case we reviewed involved
allegations that a county discriminated against guards at a correctional
facility on the basis of their sex by pursuing certain policies and
practices. The alleged practices discriminated against men and women by
assigning only men to guard male inmates and only women to guard female
inmates during trips outside of the facility. According to the allegation,
these procedures were followed regardless of whether such gender- based
assignments were reasonably necessary as bona fide occupational
qualifications.

In a third sex discrimination case, the section weighed different factors in
selecting a case that involved a lawsuit against a county and its role in
ensuring a sexual harassment- free work environment for a female aide who
was to go into a private home and provide services. According to the section
chief, the case enabled the section to meet a priority of the Assistant
Attorney General that the section initiate work in new areas apart from
police and fire departments, and the case was of particular interest because
it had the potential to establish case law. Other factors considered
included affecting a particular type of discrimination and meeting
performance goals. Specifically, the section was interested in pursuing
sexual harassment cases and investigating a certain number of EEOC referrals
that may become cases. Two of the section's annual performance goals were to
(1) perform supplemental investigation for a percentage of EEOC referrals
and (2) have a percentage of those investigations lead to lawsuits. 12

12 Civil Rights Division‘ s FY 2000 Performance Plan Could Be Improved
(GAO/ GGD- 00- 90R, Mar. 30, 2000), provided information on potential
improvements to CRT's annual performance plan.

B- 285057 Page 13 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

The section intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs in two cases to defend
the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, referred to as Seminole
Tribe 13 type cases. These particular cases drew into question the
constitutionality of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act as applied to the state
of Alabama. For example, in one of these cases, the defendant, a state
university, asserted that Congress exceeded its authority when it extended
coverage of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act to the states. Thus, the
defendant argued immunity from claims of discrimination set forth in these
statutes. The section intervened in these cases because the Attorney General
and the Assistant Attorney General have designated these types of cases a
Justicewide priority. Seminole Tribe type cases represent a body of casework
within the Division and the Department of Justice. According to the section
chief, the Attorney General convened a task force to coordinate all
Department of Justice casework related to Seminole Tribe issues.

Table 1 summarizes the factors considered by the section when weighing
whether to initiate an investigation for discretionary cases.

Case name Case type Attorney

General priority

Assistant Attorney General priority

Impact in particular location

Impact in particular type or category of discrimination Performance

goal Part of body

of casework on going Other

U. S. v. City of Winter Springs, FL

Plaintiff on behalf of U. S. in Title VII Litigation

ï¿½

U. S. v. City of Alma, GA and Bacon City, GA

Plaintiff on behalf of U. S. in Title VII Litigation

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. Columbus County, NC

Plaintiff on behalf of U. S. in Title VII Litigation

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. North Little Rock School District

Plaintiff on behalf of U. S. in Title VII Litigation

ï¿½ ï¿½

13 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996), (holding that
Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to
abrogate state's eleventh amendment sovereign immunity).

Table 1: Factors Considered by the Employment Litigation Section in
Initiating Discretionary Cases

B- 285057 Page 14 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Case name Case type Attorney

General priority

Assistant Attorney General priority

Impact in particular location

Impact in particular type or category of discrimination Performance

goal Part of body

of casework on going Other

U. S. v. Erie County, NY

Plaintiff on behalf of U. S. in Title VII Litigation

ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. and Terry Piersol v. City of Belen, NM

Plaintiff on behalf of U. S. in Title VII Litigation (pattern or practice
case)

ï¿½ According to the section chief, the primary factor for initiating the
investigation was the egregiousness of the defendant's behavior. Diane
Cummings, et al., v. University of Alabama at Birmingham

Intervenor on behalf of plaintiff

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ According to the section chief, the section has a responsibility to
defend the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Ethel Lois Larry,
Denese Pounds v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama and the
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Intervenor on behalf of plaintiff

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ According to the section chief, the section has a responsibility to
defend the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Source: Interviews with the Employment Litigation section chief.

Appendix III provides more information on the employment cases related to
the types of cases, a description of the employment cases, and their
dispositions as of April 2000.

We reviewed 64 closed matter files in the Employment Litigation section. Of
these 64 matters, 61 were EEOC referrals and 3 were referrals from another
federal agency. We found that all of the EEOC referred matters were closed
because the section concluded that participation was not justified. The
three matters referred by another federal agency were closed because no
further action was warranted.

For 20 of the EEOC referred closed matters, additional information was
available either in the file or from section officials on the reason for
closing the matter. Seven of these closed matters were selected for further
Reasons That

Employment Matters Were Closed

B- 285057 Page 15 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

investigation or research, and six of these matters were closed because the
attorney found problems with the facts of the matter. Thirteen of the EEOC
referred matters were reviewed by the section and closed for various
reasons, such as the limited scope of the referral did not justify the
resources necessary to prosecute (7 matters); EEOC did not recommend
litigation (3 matters); the matter was resolved (2 matters); or the
individual was represented by a private attorney (1 matter).

According to the section chief, when reviewing EEOC referrals, emphasis was
placed on pursuing those that could impact a particular type of
discrimination, geographic location, affect a large group of people, or
result in a change of policies or practices that were discriminatory. Thus,
most EEOC referrals were returned to EEOC with a determination that CRT
participation was not justified because they did not meet these criteria.
The section chief also said that a secondary consideration was whether the
charging party was represented by a private attorney.

Appendix IV provides information on employment matters, such as the
protected class, the type of state or local entity alleged to have
discriminated, a description of the employment closed matters, and the
reason matters were closed. The appendix also provides additional
information on the reasons the section selected the seven EEOC referred
matters for further investigation or research.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section has responsibility for enforcing
federal civil rights laws, including the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which
prohibits discrimination in all types of housing transactions; the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which prohibits discrimination in lending;
and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination
in places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and certain
places of entertainment.

The section is also responsible for enforcing several statutes that prohibit
discrimination in, among other things, programs where the operator of the
program receives federal funds. Such statutes include Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis
of race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs; and section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs.
These kinds of cases can be brought only after a referral from the agency
that administers the relevant federally funded program. According to the
Housing and Civil Enforcement section chief, these kinds of cases represent
only a small number of the section's cases. Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section Responsibilities

B- 285057 Page 16 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

The FHA applies not only to actions by direct providers of housing, such as
landlords and real estate companies but also to actions by municipalities,
banks, insurance companies, and other entities whose discriminatory
practices make housing unavailable to persons because of their race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or familial status. Those
practices include (1) directly refusing to sell, rent, or finance housing;
(2) providing false information about housing availability; (3) blockbusting
and steering; 14 (4) redlining; 15 and (5) discriminating by the use of
zoning or other land power use. In addition, regarding individuals with
disabilities, discrimination includes refusing to permit the reasonable
modification of existing premises and refusing to make reasonable
accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services. The statute also
requires that most multifamily dwellings constructed for initial occupancy
after March 1991 be accessible for persons with disabilities.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 created a new remedial structure to
enforce the FHA, which significantly strengthened the federal role in the
enforcement process by giving the Attorney General and HUD shared
enforcement responsibility. In particular, the act expanded the types of
remedies the Attorney General could obtain in lawsuits addressing
discriminatory policies or “patterns or practices” and also
created an administrative enforcement mechanism. 16 Under the amended FHA,
individuals may file discrimination complaints with HUD, which is to
investigate each complaint. If the complaint cannot be resolved in a
conciliation process, HUD is required to determine whether there is
reasonable cause to believe that the act had been violated. If HUD finds
reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, it is to issue
a charge of discrimination. An administrative trial of the charge is to
occur unless either the complaining or responding party elects to have HUD
findings of reasonable cause litigated in federal court by the Department of

14 Blockbusting refers to the practice of real estate agents inducing owners
to list property for sale or rent by telling them that persons of a
particular race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial
status are moving into the area. Steering is the practice of real estate
agents directing prospective home buyers that are interested in equivalent
properties to different areas, according to their race.

15 Redlining is the refusal of lenders to make mortgage loans in certain
geographic areas regardless of the creditworthiness of the loan applicant,
based on the racial or ethnic composition of the neighborhood.

16 Under the original FHA, Justice could obtain only injunctive relief in
cases involving a pattern or practice of discrimination or the denial of
fair housing rights to a group of persons or intervention in private suits
raising issues of general public importance. Justice did not have the
authority to bring lawsuits on behalf of individual victims of
discrimination. Similarly, HUD was authorized only to investigate and
conciliate complaints of housing discrimination and had no power to take any
enforcement action in court or before an administrative law judge.

B- 285057 Page 17 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Justice instead of through HUD administrative proceedings. As mentioned
previously, these cases are known as election cases, and the section is
required to file these cases in federal court. Because of the large number
of election cases arising under the Amendments Act, in November 1993, the
Attorney General asked the U. S. Attorneys' offices to participate in the
program to enforce the FHA by assuming responsibility for many of the HUD
election and prompt judicial action 17 cases.

In addition to election cases, the amended act requires HUD to refer to the
Attorney General pattern or practice cases as well as any cases involving
alleged discrimination in zoning and land use decisions. The section has
discretion on whether these referrals warrant filing a lawsuit.

To help enforce the FHA, the section established a fair housing testing
program in 1991. Generally, fair housing testing involves individuals who
pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate to gather information
that may indicate whether a housing provider is complying with fair housing
laws. Evidence gathered from the testing program might result in the filing
of a lawsuit.

The ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction and
applies to any extension of credit, including extensions of credit to
consumers, small businesses, corporations, partnerships, and trusts. The
section may file a lawsuit when a case is referred by 1 of the 12 federal
bank regulatory agencies- such as the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC)- or when the section independently identifies a pattern or
practice of credit discrimination.

Our analysis of CMS data indicated that the Housing and Civil Enforcement
section's volume of cases and matters has declined over the last 6 years.
Between fiscal years 1994 and 1999, the total number of matters declined
overall from 86 to 66, or 23 percent. However, in our analysis, we found
that the percentage of matters involving a pattern or practice of
discrimination increased over the past several years. For example, in fiscal
year 1994, 28 percent (24 of 86) of the matters the section initiated
involved allegations of a pattern or practice, compared with 55 percent (36
of 66) of the matters the section initiated in fiscal year

17 Under section 810 (e) of the Amendments Act, HUD may authorize a civil
action for appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending final
disposition of a complaint of housing discrimination that has been filed
with HUD. The statute provides that when such authorization is received,
Justice shall commence promptly and maintain a prompt judicial action
lawsuit. The matters considered for prompt judicial action include potential
emergency situations that require immediate action to prevent a threatened
injury during HUD's investigation and processing of a complaint. Enforcement
Efforts in

Fiscal Years 1994 to 1999

B- 285057 Page 18 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

1999. According to the section chief, the increase was due, in part, to the
U. S. Attorneys' offices assuming some of the responsibility for litigating
election cases, which permitted the section to devote more of its resources
to investigating pattern or practice matters.

Our analysis of CMS data showed an overall decline in the number of cases
initiated by the section over the past several years. Figure 2 shows that,
between fiscal years 1994 and 1999, the total number of cases initiated
declined from 166 to 25, or by nearly 85 percent. Our analysis further
showed that HUD election cases, which accounted for a majority of the cases
initiated during that period, declined from 136 in fiscal year 1994 to 18 in
fiscal year 1999. The section chief indicated that the decrease in the
number of election cases being referred by HUD could be the result, in part,
of more complaints of housing discrimination being handled by state fair
housing agencies instead of HUD, as more state fair housing laws are
determined to be substantially equivalent to federal law.

Source: CRT's Case Management System.

Figure 2: Housing and Civil Enforcement Matters and Cases Initiated for
Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1999

B- 285057 Page 19 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section initiated 44 cases in fiscal year
1998. Of those cases, 32 were HUD election cases- 4 of which included an
additional allegation of a pattern or practice of discrimination. The
remaining 12 cases included 7 pattern or practice cases, 4 cases in which
the section filed an amicus brief, and 1 case in which the section served as
intervenor on behalf of the plaintiffs. The section does not have discretion
about whether to file a lawsuit for the HUD election cases, but the section
has discretion about whether to attach a pattern or practice allegation to
the HUD referred election complaint. Furthermore, the section has the
authority and discretion to independently file pattern or practice cases and
has discretion about whether to pursue referrals other than HUD election
cases.

Regarding nondiscretionary HUD election cases- those that did not include
pattern or practice allegations as part of the complaint- the only factor
considered was the Department of Justice's legal requirement to file a
lawsuit. However, for the discretionary cases, many of which included a
pattern or practice allegation, the section considered various factors when
deciding to investigate the allegations in the case or participate as an
amicus curiae or intervenor.

Aside from the legal merits of the case, the factors considered in selecting
the discretionary pattern or practice cases included the priorities of the
Administration, Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General; the impact
of the case in a type or category of discrimination or a particular
location; and the casework of the section. According to the section chief,
the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General generally consider
pattern or practice cases a section priority because of their broad impact.
Of the 16 discretionary cases shown in table 2, 11 cases are pattern or
practice cases- 4 election cases in which the section included a pattern or
practice allegation, 2 lending cases, 3 testing cases, and 2 general pattern
or practice cases. The remaining 5 discretionary cases involved the
section's participation in cases as an amicus curiae or intervenor.

The section chief indicated that both of the lending cases in the 44 cases
that we reviewed were considered section priorities of the Attorney General
and Assistant Attorney General and that several other factors were
considered in selecting the cases, such as the type of discrimination and
the location in which the discrimination occurred. For example, one lending
case involved discrimination by the largest bank in a particular southern
state that served a very large area with a predominantly AfricanAmerican
population. The section chief indicated that by targeting the discriminatory
practices of a leading lender, the section attempts to make Selection of
Housing

and Civil Enforcement Cases to Pursue

B- 285057 Page 20 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

significant impact and send a broad message to other lenders, particularly
in areas where discrimination appears to be pervasive. The section chief
also indicated that lending cases are considered part of a body of ongoing
casework. Furthermore, she said that the Department of Justice's views about
what conduct violates fair lending laws, as expressed in complaints and
consent decrees, have established benchmarks and standards of conduct within
the lending industry, although most of the lending cases have resulted in
settlements and have not gone through litigation.

The section chief indicated that, of the 44 cases we reviewed, the three
testing cases were also section priorities of the Attorney General and
Assistant Attorney General. For the most part, these cases allow the section
to identify potential patterns or practices of housing discrimination that
may go undetected. In one of the three testing cases, the section chief
indicated that the impact of the case in the particular type or category of
discrimination and the particular location in which the discrimination
occurred were considerations in pursuing the case. Specifically, the case
alleged that the owner of numerous rental units in a particular southern
state and his former rental agents had discriminated on the basis of race by
giving false information about apartment availability to African- American
testers and applicants. The section chief noted that, as a result of the
testing efforts, individuals in that area began to come forward with
allegations of discrimination that may otherwise not have been brought
forward.

In the two general pattern or practice cases that involved sexual
harassment, the section considered the impact in a type or category of
discrimination. According to the section chief, these cases alleged sexual
harassment, an egregious form of housing discrimination. In both of these
cases, the defendants were managers and owners of numerous rental properties
that subjected female tenants to housing discrimination on the basis of sex
in the form of sexual harassment. According to the section chief, the
section tries to target these cases to give women an opportunity-
particularly those in subsidized housing who have few alternative housing
options and may not want to jeopardize their living arrangements- to come
forward with complaints of discrimination.

The section chief indicated that, in the 44 cases reviewed, all the pattern
or practice cases that involved discrimination based on race and national
origin were considered priorities of the Administration, the Attorney
General, and the Assistant Attorney General. As shown in table 2, these
cases- which included various election and all testing and lending cases-
accounted for the majority of pattern or practice cases that we reviewed.

B- 285057 Page 21 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

In several of those cases, the section considered the location in which the
alleged discrimination occurred. For example, one case involved allegations
of housing discrimination in a relatively rural western section of the
country that had a large number of Hispanic immigrants. Specifically, the
owners and operators of a mobile- home park had discriminated on the basis
of national origin by refusing to rent mobilehome space to Hispanic
individuals. They also discriminated by refusing to allow Caucasian
individuals to sell their mobile- home units to Hispanic individuals.
According to the section chief, mobile- home parks can be the only source of
housing for some people in rural areas, and pursuing these cases and others
like them enables the section to be responsive to individuals that may have
few housing options.

In addition to selecting pattern or practice cases, the decision to
participate in cases as an amicus curiae or intervenor were based on several
factors, including (1) the priorities of the Administration, Attorney
General and Assistant Attorney General; (2) the impact of the case in a
particular type of discrimination; and (3) the section's ongoing casework in
the particular area. Three of the four amicus curiae cases and the one
intervenor case were considered part of a body of ongoing casework. For
example, according to the section chief, the section has filed amicus briefs
in various cases to argue for a broad- standing analysis under Title VI. One
amicus curiae case that we reviewed involved race discrimination in police
profiling. Specifically, the plaintiffs in this case claimed that they were
being stopped, searched, and detained by state police troopers along a major
interstate because of their race and/ or national origin, rather than on the
basis of legitimate law enforcement reasons. The section's brief urged the
court to find that there was a private right of action to enforce Title VI
and that the plaintiffs had the right to assert such a claim.

Two other cases that involved the section's participation as an amicus
curiae involved housing discrimination based on handicap. According to the
section chief, the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General consider
accessibility cases a section priority. One case, for example, involved the
applicability of the FHA requirements for accessible design. This case was
filed against the builders of a condominium, alleging that the builder had
designed and constructed the ground floor units in 10 of the buildings in a
way that made them inaccessible to people with disabilities. This particular
case was also part of a body of the section's ongoing casework.

In the one case where the section intervened, the section participated as an
intervenor on behalf of the plaintiffs to defend the constitutionality of a

B- 285057 Page 22 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

federal statute. This case was considered part of the section's ongoing
casework. As mentioned previously, these types of cases, referred to as
Seminole Tribe cases, are generally priorities of the Attorney General and
Assistant Attorney General; and in this particular case, the Administration.
In this case, the section had intervened to defend the constitutionality of
parts of Title VI, which the defendants were challenging. Specifically, the
plaintiffs in the case had filed a lawsuit to prevent the construction of a
highway and tunnel through their neighborhood that would require the
condemnation of several homes and allegedly cause flooding, noise and
traffic problems, creating a disparate impact on their predominantly
African- American community. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit on
the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity or, in the alternative, asked the
court to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction in favor of state
eminent domain proceedings.

Table 2 shows the factors that the section considered for the pattern or
practice, amicus curiae, and intervenor cases that the Housing and Civil
Enforcement section initiated in fiscal year 1998.

Case name Case type Administration

or presidential initiative or

priority Attorney

General priority

Assistant Attorney

General priority

Impact in a type or category of discrimination

Impact in a particular

location Part of a

body of ongoing casework

U. S. v. Charles Harlan, et al. Pattern or practice/ election ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. Duane B. Hagadone and Fran I. Goff

Pattern or practice/ election

ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. Choice Property Consultants, Inc., et al.

Pattern or practice/ election

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. Richmond 10- 72 Ltd., et al. Pattern or

practice/ election

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. A. Waddell Nejam, et al. Pattern or practice/ testing

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. Garden Homes Management Corp., et al.

Pattern or practice/ testing

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. Henry K. Vernon, et al. Pattern or practice/ testing

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. L. T. Jackson; and L. T. Jackson Trust

Pattern or practice ï¿½

Table 2: Factors Considered by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section in
Initiating Discretionary Cases

B- 285057 Page 23 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Case name Case type Administration

or presidential initiative or

priority Attorney

General priority

Assistant Attorney

General priority

Impact in a type or category of discrimination

Impact in a particular

location Part of a

body of ongoing casework

U. S. v. Lyle Kreuger a Pattern or practice ï¿½

U. S. v. Associates National Bank Pattern or practice/ lending

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

U. S. v. Deposit Guaranty Bank NationalPattern or

practice/ lending

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

Maryland State Conference of National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) Branches, et al. v. Maryland State Police, et al.

Amicus curiae ï¿½

National Fair Housing Alliance Inc., v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et
al.

Amicus curiae ï¿½ ï¿½

Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc., et al. v. Rommel Builders, Inc.

Amicus curiae ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

Project Life, Inc., et al. v. Parris Glendening, et al.

Amicus curiae ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

Lillian E. Bryant, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation, et al.

Intervenor on behalf of plaintiff

ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½

a This case also included an enforcement of conciliation. Source: Interviews
with the Housing and Civil Enforcement section chief.

Appendix V provides information on the Housing and Civil Enforcement section
cases, such as the origin, legal role of the section, the protected class, a
description of these cases, and their disposition as of May 2000.

Our analysis of the 54 Housing and Civil Enforcement section closed matter
files showed that the section did not pursue specific matters for a variety
of reasons. Half of the matters (27 of 54) were closed due to a lack of
merit, while the remainder were closed because (1) the parties settled, (2)
no further action was warranted, (3) the referral was returned to the
referring agency for administrative resolution, or (4) for various other
reasons, such as the complainant withdrew the complaint.

The 27 matters that the section did not pursue due to a lack of merit
originated from various sources, such as citizens, the section's testing
program, and a U. S. Attorney's office. For example, in one of these
matters, the section investigated a complaint received from a citizen that
alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination based on familial status.
Specifically, a couple alleged that a condominium association had asked
Reasons That Housing

and Civil Enforcement Matters Were Closed

B- 285057 Page 24 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

them to sign a pledge that they would not have children as a condition of
approval of their rental application. The Housing and Civil Enforcement
section determined that no one else had been asked to sign a similar pledge
and there did not appear to be any danger of a repetition. The section also
determined that at least one other family with children lived in the
complex.

In 8 of the 54 closed matters, the section did not pursue an investigation
because it was able to resolve the matter out of court. For example, two HUD
election matters that alleged rental discrimination on the basis of familial
status resulted in presuit out- of- court settlements.

Seven of the closed matters, which alleged discrimination in lending, were
returned to the referring federal bank regulatory agency for administrative
resolution. In some of these matters, the lending institution had taken
action to remedy the alleged discrimination. For example, one matter
involved a referral from OCC alleging that a particular bank had engaged in
a pattern or practice of lending discrimination through some of its
policies. Specifically, the referral alleged that the bank administered a
policy that required college freshman (except for adults returning to school
to further their education), who applied for credit under the bank's student
creditcard program, to have parental cosigners prior to obtaining a credit
card. The bank took steps to remove the requirement of a cosigner from its
credit- card practice and the matter was returned to OCC for administrative
resolution.

In six of the closed matters, the section concluded that further action was
not warranted. For example, one matter concerned allegations that a bar/
lounge had denied service to a group of individuals on the basis of their
race. The issue became moot when the establishment under investigation went
out of business.

The remaining six matters were closed for various other reasons, such as the
complaint was withdrawn, the complainant decided to file a classaction
lawsuit, or the section lacked the resources to pursue the particular
matter.

Appendix VI provides information on the Housing and Civil Enforcement
section closed matters, such as origin, protected class, a description of
the closed matters, and the reason the matters were closed.

B- 285057 Page 25 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

The Voting section is charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal
voting rights statutes. The most important of the laws enforced by the
section include the following:

ï¿½ section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA),

ï¿½ section 203 and 4( f)( 4) of the VRA,

ï¿½ section 6 of the VRA,

ï¿½ section 2 of the VRA,

ï¿½ National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and

ï¿½ Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). Section 5 is
a provision of the VRA that requires state and local governments in certain
parts of the country to get federal approval - known as
“preclearance”- before implementing changes in their voting
procedures, which includes anything from moving a polling place to changing
district lines in the county. 18 To receive preclearance under section 5, a
covered jurisdiction must obtain an administrative finding by the Attorney
General or a judgment by the U. S. District Court for the District of
Columbia that a jurisdiction has met the burden of demonstrating that the
Voting change( s) does not have the intent nor the effect of worsening the
position of minority voters.

Section 203 and 4( f)( 4) are the language minority provisions of the VRA.
These provisions require certain covered jurisdictions to provide bilingual
written materials and other assistance for elections.

Section 6 provides the Attorney General the authority to assign federal
voting examiners to a county. Federal voting examiners prepare and maintain
lists of persons eligible to vote in federal, state, and local elections .
Section 8 allows the Attorney General to request that federal observers be
sent to any jurisdiction where a federal voting examiner has been assigned.
Federal observers monitor election- day practices in response to concerns
about racial discrimination in the voting process and to provide information
about compliance with bilingual election procedures.

Section 2 is a nationwide prohibition against certain voting practices and
procedures, including redistricting plans and at- large election systems,
poll- worker hiring, and voter registration procedures that discriminate on

18 The detailed list of “covered jurisdictions” is printed in
the Code of Federal Regulations in the appendix to 28 C. F. R. part 51.
These are the Department of Justice section 5 guidelines that explain how
the section 5 review process works. Voting Section

Responsibilities

B- 285057 Page 26 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
Section 2 prohibits not only election- related practices and procedures that
are intended to be racially discriminatory but also those that are shown to
have a racially discriminatory impact. The Department of Justice through the
Voting section- as well as affected private citizens- may bring lawsuits to
obtain court- ordered remedies for violations of section 2.

The NVRA facilitates voter registration for federal elections by allowing
voters to register by mail, when obtaining driver's licenses, or when
obtaining services from various government agencies; and it permits voter
purges- removal of voters names from the voting registery- only under very
controlled conditions. NVRA also helps ensure that eligible voters are not
removed from the voting rolls and that people who move in the same
registrar's district retain their eligibility to vote, even if they have not
reregistered at their new location.

UOCAVA requires that the states and territories allow military personnel and
citizens overseas to register and cast absentee votes in elections for
federal offices. The Department of Defense (DOD) receives complaints and
refers them to the Voting section. According to Voting section officials,
DOD is not required to refer complaints to the section, but if it is unable
to resolve complaints on its own, then DOD forwards the complaint to the
Voting section for action. The Voting section is not required to investigate
or file a lawsuit, but section officials said that they usually pursue these
complaints.

To carry out its mission, the section (1) brings lawsuits against states,
counties, cities, and other jurisdictions to remedy denials and abridgments
of the right to vote; (2) defends lawsuits that the VRA authorizes to be
brought against the Attorney General; (3) participates, where appropriate,
in cases involving issues raised by the U. S. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno
covering racial gerrymandering (e. g. that race was the sole factor in
drawing the district lines) of election districts; (4) reviews changes in
voting laws and procedures administratively under section 5 of the VRA; and
(5) monitors election day activities through the assignment of federal
observers under section 8 of the VRA.

The Voting section initiated fewer than 100 matters and cases per year from
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1999. As can be seen in figure 3, the
number of matters initiated dropped between fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and
increased thereafter. According to a Voting section official, the number of
matters initiated over the course of these fiscal years varied, Enforcement
Efforts in

Fiscal Years 1994 to 1999

B- 285057 Page 27 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

depending on the amount of federal observer exercises the section conducted
in any given year.

Source: CRT's Case Management System and Voting section officials.

The number of cases initiated was higher in fiscal years 1994 through 1996
than in fiscal years 1997 through 1999. According to Voting section
officials, the section had more cases in fiscal years 1994 through 1996
because it was involved in many cases related to the 1993 Supreme Court
decision in Shaw v. Reno, either as a party in the lawsuit or an amicus
curiae participant. The decision in that case and related cases created a
complex legal, political, and policysetting standard for legislative
redistricting plans. According to section officials, they have participated
as amicus curiae or intervenor in most Shaw- type cases. Officials said that
their objective is to help shape the body of case law to ensure a proper
balance between the requirements of the VRA and the constitutional standard
set forth in the Shaw decision. The section official stated that these types
of cases are large, complex, resource- intensive cases, and they can
continue for years- from the initial liability findings through the appeals
process and remedy stages. The official further stated that the

Figure 3: Voting Section Matters and Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1999

B- 285057 Page 28 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

section dedicated a significant portion of its resources to these types of
cases from 1994 to 1998.

During that same period, according to the same section official, the section
had a significant new enforcement obligation to defend the constitutionality
of the NVRA. The section official said that from December 1994 to June 1995,
the section handled seven NVRA cases against states. Another major case was
filed in June 1996. The official also noted that several of these cases
extended over many years before final resolution and that two major cases
were still open at the time of our review.

According to the same section official, by the latter part of the 1990s,
most of the NVRA cases had been resolved, the larger Shaw- type cases had
begun to wind down; and the section was then able to focus more of its
resources on section 2 and language minority group issues. According to the
official, the number of matters and cases began to rise in the last couple
of years, as resources were redirected.

The section was also involved in several cases representing the United
States as defendant where a state was seeking a declaratory judgment action,
19 in response to a Department of Justice section 5 objection to a voting
change submitted for preclearance.

The Voting section initiated six cases in fiscal year 1998. All of these
cases were initiated at the discretion of the section. Three of these cases
were Shaw- type cases; two cases involved enforcement of UOCAVA; and one
case involved enforcement of provisions of the VRA related to vote dilution,
voter assistance, and minority language assistance. The factors considered
when the Voting section decided to investigate a matter or participate in a
particular case were based on the type of issues.

Section officials said that, during the 1994 to 1998 time frame in
particular, the section monitored Shaw- type cases to decide whether to
participate as an amicus curiae or intervenor. The section participated as
an amicus curiae in the three Shaw- type cases in our review. The Attorney
General and the Assistant Attorney General have indicated to section
officials that they expect the Department of Justice to participate in these
cases to help frame the legal issues for the body of casework that is
developing in this

19 A state may institute an action in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that the voting change
does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. Selection of Voting

Cases to Pursue

B- 285057 Page 29 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

area. According to section officials, the decision to participate as amicus
curiae or intervenor depends on the extent to which they believe that they
can add value to the issues. If the section believes they can sufficiently
contribute to the development of the evidentiary record, they may
participate as an intervenor whereby they are a party to the case. If they
do not believe they can contribute to the record, they may decide to file an
amicus brief to present the government's position. According to a section
official, the section has evaluated all cases that challenged congressional
redistricting plans made after the Shaw decision, and the section has
participated as an amicus curiae or intervenor in most.

The two UOCAVA cases were initiated because the section routinely
investigates these types of complaints when DOD refers them. In these types
of cases, the section officials said that they check to see whether ballots
were mailed in time to be returned and counted. If they found that not
enough time had been allowed, they prepared a complaint. According to
section officials, they usually resolved these cases with settlement
agreements. A section official said that the section also usually filed the
complaint and the settlement agreement with the court at the same time.
According to section officials, the Administration and DOD consider
enforcement of UOCAVA a priority because of their commitment to protecting
the voting rights of military personnel overseas.

The last case in our population was one brought against the city of
Lawrence, Massachusetts. In this case, the government brought a lawsuit
under section 2 and section 203 of the VRA that alleged the defendant (1)
failed to provide assistance in the Spanish language, (2) failed to appoint
and assign Hispanic individuals on the same basis as whites to serve as poll
workers, (3) denied Hispanic citizens an equal opportunity to participate in
the electoral process, (4) diluted the voting strength of Hispanic citizens
in its method of electing the city council, and (5) diluted the voting
strength of Hispanic citizens in its method of electing the school
committee. This case originated from citizen complaints. According to
section officials, they investigate all complaints from citizens. In this
particular case, the magnitude of the complainants and the number of issues,
led the section to pursue a broad investigation. Other factors that were
considered when the section decided to initiate this case included
priorities of the Assistant Attorney General, impact in a particular
location, impact on a particular type of discrimination, and part of a body
of ongoing casework. According to voting section chief, the Assistant
Attorney General set a priority for the section to protect against voting
practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group. They said that remedying

B- 285057 Page 30 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

insufficient bilingual election procedures on behalf of language minority
groups has been an area of emphasis for the section for several years. Also,
section officials said that in this case, they considered the potential for
having an impact in a particular location of the country where they had not
had a presence before. Officials said that Massachusetts was an area of the
country that the section had not focused on in the past because, prior to
the 1980s, the state did not have a large minority language population.
However, officials said that areas in New England, such as Lawrence, have
experienced a growth in their Hispanic populations in recent years, and the
section is interested in ensuring enforcement of the VRA in these geographic
areas.

Table 3 shows the factors the Voting section considered when they decided to
investigate a matter that led to a case or participate in a case as an
amicus curiae for the six cases initiated during fiscal year 1998.

B- 285057 Page 31 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Case name Case type Administration

or presidential initiative priority

Attorney General priority

Assistant Attorney General priority

Impact in particular location

Impact particular type or category of discrimination

Part of a body of casework on going Other

Charles Stovall, et al., v. City of Cocoa, et al.

Shaw ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

Thomas S. Fouts, et al., v. Sandra Mortham et al., and Florida State
Conference Black Business Association, et al.

Shaw ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

Martin Cromartie, et al., v. James B. Hunt, Jr. Governor of North Carolina,
et al.

Shaw ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ Section involved in case from origin when Shaw
lawsuit initially brought against AG Reno U. S. v. the Board of Elections in
the City of New York

UOCAVA ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ DOD priority U. S. v State of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State
Election Board; and Lance D. Ward, as Secretary of the Oklahoma State
Election Board

UOCAVA ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ DOD priority U. S. v City of Lawrence, Massachusetts

Language minority

group

ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

Source: Interviews with Voting section officials.

Appendix VII provides information on the voting cases, such as origin, legal
role of the section, protected class, a description of the cases, and their
disposition as of May 2000.

Our analysis of the 22 closed Voting section matters found that the majority
of matters that we reviewed were closed because the section determined that
the complaint lacked merit or that no further action was warranted. The
Voting section initiated matters that reflected three roles on the part of
the section- investigative, monitoring of private lawsuits, and monitoring
of elections.

Table 2: Factors Considered by the Voting Section in Initiating
Discretionary Cases

Reasons That Voting Section Matters Were Closed

B- 285057 Page 32 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Eight of the 10 closed matters that were investigative matters were closed
due to lack of merit. For example, in one closed matter the section
investigated purge procedures that appeared to be inconsistent with the
voter cancellation requirements set forth in the NVRA. A county clerk had
purged about 30,000 voters from the county's voter registration list. The
Voting section investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence that
electors were harmed by the process to justify filing a lawsuit or
continuing the investigation. Two investigative matters were closed because
concerns raised were resolved through corrective actions. For example, the
Voting section initiated a preelection investigation in response to concerns
about election- day poll workers in a county. At issue was the racial
balance of poll worker appointments. The Director of the Board of Elections
agreed with the concerns raised and took corrective action.

Nine of the section's closed matters were related to monitoring private
lawsuits. Six of these matters were closed because the lawsuit was resolved
through court actions or the lawsuit was dismissed so no further action was
warranted. For example, the section monitored a lawsuit that challenged the
congressional redistricting in a particular state. The redistricting plan
was established in 1992 by a three- judge court order and had been in use
since then. In August 1997, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit
challenging the majority black district in the court- ordered plan, alleging
racial gerrymandering. The Voting section was considering whether to
intervene on behalf of the defendant (state) or file an amicus brief. The
District Court dismissed the case recognizing the inherent impracticability
of attempting to modify the congressional districting plan through
litigation prior to the 2000 Census. According to section officials, all
parties recognized that the 2000 Census redistricting plans should address
the need to comply with the laws. The remaining three matters were also
closed because no further action was warranted (i. e., the Voting section
determined that the lawsuit did not warrant its participation or further
action).

Three of the section's closed matters were related to its responsibilities
for monitoring elections. These three matters were closed because no further
action was warranted. For example, one matter was closed because the
election was cancelled.

Appendix VIII provides information on the voting closed matters such as the
origin, type of matter, protected class, a description of each closed
matter, and the reason for closing each matter.

B- 285057 Page 33 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

On September 11, 2000, we obtained oral comments on a draft of this report
from the Civil Rights Division's Chief of Staff and the Counsel to the
Assistant Attorney General. These officials agreed with the message and
suggested some technical corrections, which we have incorporated, where
appropriate.

As arranged with the Subcommittee, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 15 days after the date of this letter. We will then send copies
to Representative Melvin L. Watt, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
the Constitution; and Senator John Ashcroft, Chairman and Senator Russell D.
Feingold, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Federalism and Property Rights. We will also send copies to the Honorable
Janet Reno, Attorney General; and to Mr. Bill Lann Lee, the Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. We will also make copies available
to others on request.

Please contact Mr. William Jenkins or me on 512- 8777 if you or your staff
have any questions about this report. Other contributors are acknowledged in
appendix IX.

Sincerely yours, Laurie E. Ekstrand Issue Area Director

Administration of Justice Issues Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

Page 34 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Contents 1 Letter 38 Appendix I The Civil Rights Division Structure

40 Appendix II CRT's Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

46 Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

55 Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

67 Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Contents Page 35 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

90 Appendix VII Information on Voting Section Cases

105 Appendix VIII Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

111 117 Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Table 1: Factors Considered by the Employment Litigation Section in
Initiating Discretionary Cases

13 Table 2: Factors Considered by the Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section in Initiating Discretionary Cases 22

Table 2: Factors Considered by the Voting Section in Initiating
Discretionary Cases

31 Table III. 1: Information on the Employment Litigation

Section's Discretionary Cases 46

Table IV. 1: Information on Employment Litigation Section's Matters
Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as of October 31, 1999

56 Table IV. 2: Description of Closed Matters and the

Reasons That Matters Were Closed 59 Tables

Table IV. 3: Factors Considered by the Employment Litigation Section When
Selecting Matters for Investigation That Were Not Pursued as Cases.

66

Contents Page 36 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters

Table V. 1: Characteristics of Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases

67 Table VI. 1: Information on Matters Initiated During Fiscal

Year 1998 That Were Closed as of October 31, 1999 91

Table VI. 2: Description of Closed Matters and the Reasons That Matters Were
Closed

94 Table VII. 1: Information on the Voting Section's

Discretionary Cases 106

Table VIII. 1: Information on Voting Section's Matters Initiated During
Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as of March 2000

111 Table VIII. 2: Matters and the Reason the Matter Was

Closed 113

Figure 1: Employment Matters and Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1999

10 Figure 2: Housing and Civil Enforcement Matters and

Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1999 18

Figure 3: Voting Section Matters and Cases Initiated for Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1999

27 Figure I. 1: CRT's organizational chart, as of July 2000 39 Figure II. 1:
General Internal Process Followed When a

Section Received a Referral or Allegation of Discrimination or Initiated an
Investigation

44 45 Figures

Contents Page 37 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection
and Closed Matters Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act CMS Case Management System CRT Civil
Rights Division DOD Department of Defense DOL Department of Labor DOT
Department of Transportation ECOA Equal Credit Opportunity Act EEOC Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FDIC
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation FHA Fair Housing Act FHCO Fair Housing
Council of Oregon HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development NAACP
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NFHA Northwest
Fair Housing Alliance NSF National Science Foundation NVRA National Voter
Registration Act OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OTS Office of
Thrift Supervision UOCAVA Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act VRA Voting Rights Act

Appendix I The Civil Rights Division Structure

Page 38 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The Civil Rights Division (CRT) is headed by an Assistant Attorney General.
He is assisted by three Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. The Office of
the Assistant Attorney General establishes policy and provides executive
direction and control over litigative enforcement and administrative
management activities in the Division. 1 CRT has 11 sections- 10 program-
related sections and an Administrative Management section. Eight of the 10
program sections have enforcement responsibilities over particular subject
areas that include criminal, voting, employment, education, housing,
disability rights, and conditions in institutional confinement. Of the
remaining two sections, one is responsible for coordinating federal
agencies' civil rights enforcement efforts, and the other handles appellate
matters and provides legal guidance. Each of the enforcement sections, with
the exception of the Office of Special Counsel, is headed by a section chief
and has several deputy section chiefs. 2 CRT's litigation work is national
in scope. CRT has no regional offices. Figure I. 1 shows CRT's
organizational chart, as of July 2000.

1 Our report, Civil Rights Division: Policies and Procedures for
Establishing Litigation Priorities, Tracking and Managing Casework, and
Disseminating Litigation Results (GAO/ GGD- 00- 58R, Feb. 17, 2000)
describes CRT's policymaking role.

2 The head of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration- Related Unfair
Employment Practices is appointed by the President of the United States, and
the appointee has the title of Special Counsel.

Appendix I The Civil Rights Division Structure

Page 39 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Source: Civil Rights Division.

Figure I. 1: CRT's organizational chart, as of July 2000

Appendix II CRT's Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 40 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

We found that the Civil Rights Division (CRT) did not have written policies
or procedures that explained their internal processes for handling matters
and cases. Therefore, we asked CRT officials in the three sections we
reviewed to describe their processes for us. According to these officials,
their processes, from initiating a matter to filing a lawsuit, can vary
among the sections. While some steps were common to all three sections,
variation usually occurred because of the structure of the statutes they
enforce.

For example, the Housing and Civil Enforcement section receives some Fair
Housing Act (FHA) referrals from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) 1 for which Justice is required to file a lawsuit.
Managers in the section review these referrals to determine whether they
should be handled in the section or referred to a U. S.

Attorney's office for handling. In contrast, when the Employment Litigation
section receives a referral from EEOC, it has the discretion either to (1)
close the matter with a right- to- sue letter, 2 after reviewing the charge
or (2) consider it for possible litigation. If the section elects to
consider the charge further, it is to (1) conduct a supplemental
investigation and (2) based on the results of that investigation, either
close the matter and issue a right- to- sue letter or recommend that a
lawsuit be filed.

In addition to referrals, the sections undertake investigations that tend to
be larger and more complex than referrals that allege a single act of
discrimination against a person or persons. In the Employment Litigation
section and Housing and Civil Enforcement section these investigations are
referred to as “pattern or practice,” and in the Voting section
they are called “systemic” investigations.

The Voting section is different from the other two sections in that it
generally does not receive referrals from other federal agencies. However,

1 HUD refers allegations of discrimination under FHA to the Housing and
Civil Enforcement section. The federal bank regulatory agencies also refer
allegations of discrimination to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section
under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. For the Employment Litigation
section, the term ”charge” refers specifically to those
allegations of discrimination referred to them by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We will use the term “referral “
to refer to HUD, regulatory agency, and EEOC referrals. The more general
term “allegation of discrimination” will be used to describe all
other instances of alleged discrimination.

2 The Employment Litigation section is legally required to notify the
charging party when it is not going to pursue a charge so that the charging
party can pursue private litigation. This notification is made by means of a
letter from the Assistant Attorney General to the charging party or his/ her
attorney and is referred to as a right- to- sue letter.

Appendix II CRT's Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 41 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

like the other two sections it has authority to initiate its own litigation.
According to the section chief, while the section does not have pattern or
practice authority like the other two sections, cases initiated by the
Voting section typically address systemic problems in the method of election
of a given jurisdiction or other discriminatory voting practices. According
to CRT, such systemic cases are very similar in scope and complexity to
pattern or practice discrimination cases of the Employment Litigation and
the Housing and Civil Enforcement sections.

The process for initiating the pattern or practice cases by the Employment
Litigation section and Housing and Civil Enforcement section and the
systemic cases brought by the Voting section is different from that for
referred cases. The sections all have authority to initiate their own
investigations, regarding this kind of case. While many of these
investigations are the result of allegations from citizens and civil rights
and community organizations to the sections, such allegations are not
necessary to initiate an investigation. For example, investigations may be
and are initiated as a result of section survey and outreach work,
information from newspaper articles, U. S. Attorneys' offices, and other
similar sources of information about discrimination. Before filing such
pattern or practice and systemic cases, approval of the Assistant Attorney
General is required; and for certain statutory claims (public
accommodations), approval by the Attorney General is required.

The sections may also follow a different process, depending on their role in
the case (i. e., representing the United States as plaintiff, defendant,
plaintiff- intervenor, defendant- intervenor, or amicus curiae.) For
example, when the Employment Litigation section defends a federal agency in
a lawsuit brought against the federal government, it would not prepare a
memorandum recommending a lawsuit, as it would do when it is the plaintiff.

When the sections initiate a matter to investigate or review a referred
charge and pursue the matter as a case (e. g., file a lawsuit), the sections
generally have the same internal process. The Employment Litigation section
receives charges of discrimination from individuals in the form of a
referral from EEOC. The section chief, a deputy section chief, or a trial
attorney may review the referrals, but the decision to investigate a
referred matter is generally made by the section chief. In most instances,
EEOC referrals are reviewed initially by a deputy section chief. The deputy
section chief brings to the attention of the section chief referrals that
have potential for litigation, including all referrals on which EEOC has

Appendix II CRT's Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 42 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

recommended pursuing a lawsuit. If the section chief concurs that the
referred matter has potential, it is assigned to a trial attorney.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section receives a number of referrals
from HUD. Some of the HUD referrals of alleged FHA violations are required
to be filed in district court and can be filed either by the Housing and
Civil Enforcement section or a U. S. Attorney's office. These
nondiscretionary referrals are called “election cases” because
either the complaining party or the respondent has elected to have the case
heard in federal court, rather than through a HUD administrative hearing
process.

According to section officials, the sections also receive allegations of
discrimination from numerous sources, such as citizens, private attorneys,
Members of Congress, media, advocacy groups, and federal agencies. These
allegations may involve individual instances of discrimination or a pattern
or practice of discrimination. In each section, an attorney manager or
section chief is responsible for reviewing all allegations of discrimination
and deciding whether further investigation is warranted.

In each section, if a decision is made to investigate a referral or
allegation of discrimination, the section chief assigns a trial attorney,
who conducts an investigation. When the investigation is completed, the
trial attorney makes a recommendation to the section chief on whether the
section should file a lawsuit, close the matter, or participate in some
other manner. However, the section chief is responsible for making the final
decision about closing a matter, recommending a lawsuit, or other
participation to the Assistant Attorney General.

If a referral or allegation of discrimination is not pursued, all
appropriate parties are notified, and the matter is closed. As mentioned
previously, the Employment Litigation section is required to notify the
charging parties of their right to file a lawsuit if the section does not
intend to pursue the EEOC referral. The practice in the section is to
prepare a right- to- sue letter in these instances. The section is also
responsible for notifying the employer when the investigation has been
closed.

In all three sections, if a decision is made to pursue a matter and file a
formal complaint to initiate a lawsuit, then the trial attorney is to
prepare a justification package. The contents of this package vary by
section but always include (1) a justification memorandum that presents the
facts of the case and the legal argument for filing a lawsuit, (2) the
proposed formal complaint of a violation of discrimination laws to be filed
with the court, and (3) a cover memorandum from the section chief through
the

Appendix II CRT's Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 43 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Deputy Assistant Attorney General to the Assistant Attorney General. An
attorney manager and the section chief are responsible for reviewing and
approving the justification package. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for CRT reviews and approves the justification package, which is then
forwarded to the Assistant Attorney General for final review and approval.
The justification package also is to be sent to the U. S. Attorney's office
for the district where the lawsuit is to be filed for review and
concurrence.

If the justification package is not approved, the trial attorney generally
prepares a closing memorandum and notifies the charging party, when
appropriate, that the Department of Justice is not filing a lawsuit. The
matter is then closed. According to CRT officials, the justification package
is rarely disapproved. If the justification package is approved, CRT is to
notify the defendant by letter of the Department of Justice's intent to file
a lawsuit. After the defendant has been notified, the trial attorney and the
defendant often have presuit settlement discussions. 3

If a presuit settlement is reached, a settlement document stating the
agreements reached is prepared and signed by all parties. The settlement
document is almost always filed with the federal district court along with
the complaint. The sections may monitor the settlement agreement for
compliance where appropriate.

If the presuit settlement discussions do not result in a settlement, the
complaint is to be filed in federal district court and the parties are to
engage in litigation conducted pursuant to the federal rules of civil
procedure and evidence. Filing a complaint and the beginning of legal
proceedings do not preclude the trial attorney and defendant from continuing
negotiations and reaching a settlement. According to section officials,
defendants often settle prior to, or during, a trial. If a trial is held,
the plaintiff or defendant can appeal the decision. If the decision is
appealed, the section works closely with the Appellate section of CRT, which
assumes responsibility for the appeal stage of the case.

Figure II. 1 shows the general internal process from the time when a
referral or allegation of discrimination is received or an investigation is
initiated, at the discretion of a section, to the closing of the matter or
the case.

3 Settlement negotiations can occur at any time during the process.
Negotiations held prior to the filing of a formal complaint to initiate the
lawsuit are referred to as presuit settlement discussions.

Appendix II CRT's Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 44 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Figure II. 1: General Internal Process Followed When a Section Received a
Referral or Allegation of Discrimination or Initiated an Investigation

Appendix II CRT's Internal Process for Handling Matters and Cases

Page 45 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Source: GAO developed based on discussions with CRT officials.

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 46 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This appendix provides general information and a brief description of the 21
Employment Litigation section cases and their disposition, as of April 2000.
In 8 of the 21 cases, the section had the discretion to decide whether to
participate in the case. Table III. 1 provides information on the eight
discretionary cases, including the case type, government role, protected
class, defendant type, and discriminatory issue. Six of the 8 cases were
EEOC referrals related to the Employment Litigation section's enforcement of
provisions of Title VII against state or local government entities, and the
remaining two involved the section intervening on behalf of plaintiffs in
Seminole Tribe type private lawsuits. 1 The section also initiated 13 other
cases that involved participating in cases as a defendant or involved the
section monitoring private lawsuits but not actually participating in the
lawsuits. More information is provided on all 21 cases in the description of
cases that follows.

Case name Case type Government role Protected class Defendant type

accused of discrimination Discriminatory

issues

U. S. v. City of Winter Springs, Florida

Individual Plaintiff Religion City fire department Discharge U. S., Pamela
Starling, Gail Berry, Jackie Embry, and Janice Waters v. City of Alma,
Georgia and Bacon County Georgia

Individual Plaintiff Sex City and county fire departments

Hiring U. S. v. Columbus County, North Carolina

Individual Plaintiff Sex County agency Sexual harassment Retaliation

U. S. v. North Little Rock School District

Individual Plaintiff Sex School district Sexual harassment Retaliation

1 In general, the Seminole Tribe type cases involve litigation whereby the
plaintiffs are charging a defendant state entity with discrimination, and
the state entity argues that it is not covered by the particular federal law
because it violates state's rights under the Eleventh Amendment. According
to the section chief, the section participates in these cases because it has
a responsibility to defend the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Table III. 1: Information on the Employment Litigation Section's
Discretionary Cases

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 47 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Case name Case type Government role Protected class Defendant type

accused of discrimination

Discriminatory issues

U. S. v. Erie County, New York

Individual Plaintiff Sex County agency Assignment U. S. and Terry Piersol v.
City of Belen, New Mexico

Individual Pattern or practice

Plaintiff Sex City police Sexual harassment Retaliation Discharge Diane
Cummings, et al., v. University of Alabama at Birmingham

Intervenor on behalf of plaintiff

Plaintiff- intervenor a State agency Seminole Tribe type case

Ethel Lois Larry, Denese Pounds v. Board of Trustees of the University of
Alabama and the University of Alabama at Birmingham

Intervenor on behalf of plaintiff

Intervenor a State agency Seminole Tribe type case

a Not applicable. Source: Employment Litigation section case files and
interviews with the section chief.

The following paragraphs provide brief descriptions of the 21 cases that the
Employment Litigation section initiated during fiscal year 1998 and the one
pattern or practice case initiated during fiscal year 1999 and their
disposition, as of April 2000. The first eight descriptions involve the
discretionary cases initiated by the section. The remaining 13 cases involve
those where the section was either representing other federal agencies as a
defendant or monitoring a private lawsuit. Some of the cases were closed,
and others were open. The open cases included (1) those where the section
was involved in litigation and (2) those where the case had been resolved
and the section was monitoring compliance with a settlement agreement or
court order. The section may monitor compliance for several years, as
specified in the settlement agreement or court order.

The section filed a lawsuit against the City of Winter Springs, Florida,
alleging that its fire department discriminated against an individual by (1)
failing and refusing to provide reasonable accommodation to the person
regarding religious observances, practices, and/ or beliefs and (2)
discharging or constructively discharging the person from employment, as a
probationary firefighter because of his religion.

Disposition: Open.

(1.) U. S. v. City of Winter Springs, Florida

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 48 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This case is in litigation. The discovery phase was expected to end in
August 2000 and the trial was to begin in 2001.

The section filed a lawsuit against the City of Alma, Georgia and Bacon
County, Georgia, alleging discrimination against several women on the basis
of their sex by failing or refusing to hire them as full- time firefighter/
emergency medical technicians or full- time firefighter/ paramedics in the
Alma- Bacon County Fire and Emergency Medical Service, an entity jointly
operated by the city and county.

Disposition: Open.

A settlement agreement has been filed, and the section is monitoring
compliance.

The section filed a lawsuit against Columbus County, North Carolina, which
alleged the County had, through its Department of Aging, discriminated
against a woman on the basis of her sex by subjecting her to a sexually
hostile work environment. The lawsuit also alleged retaliation against her
for failing or refusing to assign her work because of her opposition to the
unwelcomed sexual conduct and for failing or refusing to take appropriate
action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment. A settlement
agreement was filed with the court in March 1999.

Disposition: Open.

The section is monitoring compliance with the settlement agreement. The
section filed a lawsuit against the school district alleging that it
discriminated against a woman, on the basis of her sex, by subjecting her to
a sexually hostile work environment and failing or refusing to take
appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
The lawsuit also alleged that the school district had retaliated against the
woman by increasing her workload, supervising her work more closely, and
transferring her to a less desirable position after she made an internal
complaint alleging sexual harassment.

Disposition: Open.

The litigation is in the discovery phase, and the trial is scheduled for
later this year. (2.) U. S. v. City of Alma,

Georgia and Bacon County, Georgia

(3.) U. S. v. Columbus County, North Carolina

(4.) U. S. v. North Little Rock School District

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 49 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The section filed a lawsuit against Erie County's Correctional Facility,
alleging that the county discriminated against guards at a correctional
facility, on the basis of their sex, by pursuing certain policies and
practices. These policies and practices assigned only men to guard male
inmates and only women to guard female inmates during trips outside the
facility, regardless of whether such gender- based assignments were
reasonably necessary as bona fide occupational qualifications. EEOC
investigated the charge and found reasonable cause to believe that the
guards had been discriminated against based on their sex. A settlement
agreement was filed with the court in April 1999.

Disposition: Open.

The section is monitoring the settlement agreement. The section filed a
lawsuit against the City of Belen, New Mexico, alleging that its city police
department (1) discriminated against women, on the basis of their sex, by
engaging in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment and (2) discriminated
against a female supervisor, on the basis of sex, and retaliated against her
for assisting subordinates who had been sexually harassed. The original
charge in this case, which was referred by EEOC, involved the supervisor who
had been the subject of the retaliatory behavior. According to the section
chief, after investigating, the section found widespread sexual harassment,
so it included a pattern and practice allegation in its complaint.
Subsequently, the section received an individual EEOC referral that alleged
sexual harassment. As a result, the section amended the complaint for the
lawsuit to include the individual sexual harassment complaints in order to
seek compensatory relief for the individuals subjected to the sexual
harassment.

Disposition: Open.

The section was intervenor in this case. The section intervened because the
constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting the public interest had been
drawn into question. More specifically, the section intervened to defend the
constitutionality of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
and the Equal Pay Act, as amended. The plaintiffs in this private suit
alleged that the University of Alabama at Birmingham had discriminated
against them on the basis of their sex. Relying on Seminole Tribe of Florida
v. Florida, the University of Alabama argued that it was immune from the
plaintiffs' disparate impact claims under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act
claims. The University argued that Congress did not constitutionally
abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from (5.) U. S. v. Erie
County,

New York (6.) U. S. and Terry Piersol v. City of Belen, New Mexico

7. (7.) Diane Cummings, et al., v. University of Alabama at Birmingham

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 50 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

such claims when it extended the coverage of each of the statutes to the
states.

Disposition: Closed.

This case was dismissed and settled out of court. The section was an
intervenor in this case. This case is similar to the previous case,
Cummings, et al., v. University of Alabama at Birmingham. The section
intervened because the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting the
public interest had been drawn into question based on the Seminole Tribe
decision.

Disposition: Open.

The case is on appeal. The section was the lead defense attorney for the
Navy. This was an Adarand type case. 2 The plaintiff brought suit against
the Navy because of the Navy's plans to set aside a government contract at
the Naval Surface Warfare Center for a sole- source award to a small
business concern, owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals, as defined under section 8( a) of the Small
Business Act. 3 The plaintiff protested that, as the incumbent contractor on
the predecessor government contract, the company was not afforded an
opportunity to compete for the contract. The plaintiff contended that the
“set- aside” was in violation of the equal protection clause of
the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and in further violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act. The issue in the complaint became moot when
the contractor who received the 8( a) contract award was disqualified and
the contract was rebid without the 8( a) requirement.

2 In Adarand Constructors Inc., v. Pena, 515 U. S. 200 (1995), the Supreme
Court ruled that federal affirmative action programs to benefit minorities
must meet the same “strict scrutiny” standard that applies to
state and local programs. To survive strict scrutiny, federal programs must
serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that
interest. Previously, the Court had subjected congressionally mandated
affirmative action to a lesser standard of review in light of Congress'
broad authority to enforce equal protection guarantees.

3 According to the complaint, an 8( a) contractor is a “small business
concern owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals” “Socially disadvantaged” individuals, in
turn, are defined as individuals who ” have been subjected to racial
or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as members of
a group, without regard to their individual qualities.” Certain groups
are presumed to be socially disadvantaged, including: Black, Hispanic, Asian
Pacific, Subcontinent Asian, and Native Americans. (8.) Ethel Lois Larry,

Denese Pounds v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama and the
University of Alabama at Birmingham

(9.) Synetics Corporation v. Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare
Center

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 51 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

The district court dismissed the complaint. The section was defense attorney
for the U. S. DOT. This is an Adarand type case. In October 1997, the
plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Albuquerque, U. S. DOT, and New
Mexico State Highway, Transportation Department in the U. S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants'
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goals of 13 percent or any goal higher
than 0 percent on a particular project denies plaintiffs their rights to
equal protection, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was settled out of court, and the defendants agreed to readvertise
the contract without the goals.

The section was the defense attorney for NSF with assistance from the
Education section on this case. This is an Adarand type case that involves
the constitutionality of a minority fellowship program authorized by
Congress and administered by the NSF.

Disposition: Closed.

In June 1998, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
rendered an order that dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The section is defense attorney for the U. S. DOT. This is an Adarand type
case that involves the constitutionality of the Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program.

Disposition: Open

The section is actively litigating this case as defense attorney for DOD.
This is an Adarand type case. The plaintiff challenged DOD's Price Credit
Program, which was suspended by an act of Congress for 1 year. The defensive
issues for this case related to a challenge to the constitutionality of
affirmative action programs in relation to a statutory federal procurement
program designed to assist small businesses owned by disadvantaged
individuals.

Disposition: Open.

(10.) Highway Supply Company, Bixby Electric, Inc., Salls Brothers
Construction, Inc., and RMCI, Inc., v. City of Albuquerque, U. S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), and New Mexico State Highway, Transportation
Department

(11.) Travis Kidd v. National Science Foundation (NSF), et al.

(12.) Kline v. Department of Transportation of Maryland and U. S. DOT

(13.) Royal Lubricants, Inc., v. Department of Defense (DOD)

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 52 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The section is negotiating with the plaintiff. The section was the defense
attorney for DOL. The section referred to this case as an Executive Order
type case. The plaintiff in this case brought suit in December 1997 in the
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to challenge the
final decision and order of the Administrative Review Board of DOL. The
issue concerned whether Trinity Industries was subject to compliance reviews
by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) under
Executive Order 11246, as amended. Trinity maintained that its Asheville
facility was not subject to OFCCP jurisdiction because of its complete
distinction from any other of Trinity's facilities, which had federal
contracts. Trinity sought a waiver from OFCCP review. DOL's Review Board did
not grant Trinity's request for a waiver because under the Executive Order,
waivers are to be given explicitly, and that did not happen in this case.

Disposition: Closed.

The District Court's judgment in July 1998 affirmed the decision of the DOL
Review Board.

The section was defense attorney for the U. S. DOT. This is an Executive
Order 11246 and affirmative action Adarand type case. The plaintiff in this
case filed suit against the state of Washington's Department of
Transportation alleging that regulations adopted by the Federal Highway
Administration were unconstitutional. These regulations (1) required state
agencies receiving federal funds to adopt, establish, and enforce
affirmative action program; (2) required hiring and utilization goals; and
(3) required the use of race and sex based preferences. Specifically, the
plaintiff alleged that the regulations, policies, and practices, which
required the use of race and sex as a factor in the performance of
contracts, were violations of the due process and equal protection
components of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution.

Disposition: Closed

This case was settled out of court. (14.) Trinity Industries, Inc.,

v. Department of Labor (DOL)

(15.) Superior Paving Company, Inc., v. Washington State Department of
Transportation, U. S. DOT, and the Administrator of Federal Highway
Administration

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 53 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The section monitored the case and provided advice to the Civil Division as
appropriate. This case was the responsibility of the Department of Justice's
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch. This case was another Adarand type
case that involved a challenge to HHS' affirmative action program for
scholarships.

Disposition: Closed.

The court dismissed the case, finding there was no cause of action. The
section monitored this case and coordinated with the Department of Justice's
Civil Division. The Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch was monitoring
this case that was handled by a U. S. Attorneys office. This is an Adarand
type case that involved a challenge to the standards for applying
affirmative action programs that benefit minorities. The plaintiff in this
case challenged whether it was appropriate for DOD to pay for federal
employees to attend a Blacks in Government conference. The plaintiff also
challenged other unnamed affirmative action programs on the basis that they
discriminated against white males.

Disposition: Closed.

The district court dismissed the case. The section monitored and provided
advice to the state of Utah. This is an Adarand type case in which the
Employment Litigation section did not have a formal role because the U. S.
DOT was not named as a defendant in the case. The plaintiff in this case
challenged, in the state court, Utah's implementation of the federal
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.

Disposition: Closed

The state court dismissed the case. This case is similar to the previous
case, in that the section monitored a case in state court where the
plaintiff challenged the state's implementation of DOT's Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise Program. The section is monitoring the case to determine
whether the case will be moved to federal court.

Disposition: Open.

(16.) Frank Paul Lukacs v. Health and Human Services (HHS)

(17.) Shine v. DOD (18.) Associated Builders and Contractors v. Utah Transit
Authority

(19.) Carlton Construction Company v. West Virginia, Department of
Transportation

Appendix III Information on Employment Litigation Section Cases

Page 54 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

If the case is moved to federal court, the section would consider whether to
intervene.

The section monitored this case and provided advice to the State of Vermont.
In July 1998, the plaintiff filed suit against the University of Vermont in
the U. S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The plaintiff alleged
that the defendant's affirmative action program violated the Equal
Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution. The plaintiff applied for a position at the University of
Vermont and State Agricultural College. The person selected for the
position, an Asian woman, was hired pursuant to the University's affirmative
action program, which encouraged race- conscious selection of faculty
members. DOL contacted the Employment Litigation section and asked them to
monitor this case because of concerns that Executive Order 11246
requirements might become an issue in the case.

Disposition: Closed.

The executive order was never raised in litigation, and no federal programs
were challenged in the case.

The section monitored this case to determine whether a federal issue needed
to be addressed. This is an Adarand type case that was brought to the
section's attention by DOT. The plaintiff challenged Dade County's
Affirmative Action Contracting Program. The plaintiff filed in federal
district court, but the complaint was made only against Metropolitan Dade
County.

Disposition: Closed.

No federal programs were challenged in this case. (20.) Beth Walter Hondale
v.

University of Vermont and State Agricultural College

(21.) Engineering Contractor Association of South Florida, Inc., et al v.
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, et al.

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 55 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This appendix provides general information on the statistically
representative sample of 64 closed matters from a population of 149 closed
matters that we reviewed. Specifically, the appendix provides a description
of each matter and the reason the matter was closed. Of the 64 closed
matters, 61 were referred by EEOC, and the remaining 3 were referred by
another federal agency, regarding bid protests. The majority of the EEOC
discrimination allegations were against state and city agencies. For
example, 15 matters alleged discrimination against states, and 27 matters
alleged discrimination against city entities such as police and fire
departments. We found that 43 of the 61 referred matters alleged
discrimination on the basis of race and/ or sex, 4 alleged religious
discrimination, and 4 alleged discrimination on the basis of national
origin. We were unable to determine the protected class for 10 matters. 1
The employment discrimination issues varied for EEOC referrals. For example,
we found that 10 matters related to harassment, 10 related to promotion, 7
involved issues concerning discharge, and 7 involved hiring issues. We were
unable to determine the discriminatory issue for 13 matters because the
files had been returned to EEOC. Matters often included more than one issue.

Table IV. 1 provides general information for each closed matter on the
matter issue, protected class, and the government entity alleged to have
engaged in discriminatory behavior. The 61 matters referred by EEOC are
listed first.

1 The information was unavailable because the section returned the complaint
file to EEOC when it decided not to pursue the matter.

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 56 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Matter issue Protected class Government entity alleged to

have engaged in discrimination behavior

1 Hiring Sex County agency 2 Promotion

Assignment Retaliation

Race Multistate entity (multijurisdiction) 3 Retaliation

Equal pay Race

Sex County sheriff department

and county agency 4 Promotion

Retaliation Race

Sex City fire department

5 Racial harassment Race City agency (public golf course) 6 Sexual
harassment Sex City agency 7 Race

Retaliation Race

Sex State agency

8 Promotion Terms and conditions

Race Sex

City agency and county agency 9 Unable to determine Unable to determine
County agency 10 Discharge Sex State agency 11 Unable to determine Unable to
determine County agency 12 Sexual harassment Sex City police department 13
Discipline

Harassment Promotion Terms and conditions Retaliation

National origin County agency 14 Hiring Race City agency 15 References
unfavorable

Retaliation Sex City agency

16 Discharge Race State agency 17 Harassment

Terms and conditions Retaliation

Race State agency 18 Unable to determine Unable to determine State agency 19
Unable to determine Unable to determine County agency 20 Discipline

Reasonable accommodation Religion

National origin State agency

21 Harassment Retaliation

Sex Race

School board 22 Sexual harassment

Harassment Retaliation

Sex Race

City police department 23 Retaliation National origin State agency

Table IV. 1: Information on Employment Litigation Section's Matters
Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as of October 31, 1999

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 57 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Matter issue Protected class Government entity alleged to

have engaged in discrimination behavior

24 Discharge Religion State agency 25 Promotion Race State agency 26
Promotion Race State agency 27 Unable to determine National origin School
board 28 Harassment

Intimidation Terms and conditions

Race State agency 29 Reasonable accommodation

Disability Sex State agency

30 Sex discrimination Unable to determine State agency 31 Constructive
discharge

Harassment Race City agency

32 Demotion Harassment Retaliation

Race Sex

City agency 33 Promotion

Terms and conditions Sex County sheriff

34 Discipline Harassment Retirement involuntary Training Retaliation

Race City agency 35 Discipline

Retaliation Race City fire department

36 Sexual harassment Retaliation

Sex City agency 37 Hiring

Terms and conditions Sex

Race Age

County agency 38 Sexual harassment

Retaliation Sex County agency

39 Unable to determine Unable to determine School district 40 Discharge
Religion State agency 41 Constructive discharge

Sexual harassment Sex School board

42 Promotion Training

Race City police department 43 Assignment Race

Sex City police department

44 Harassment Race City agency 45 Unable to determine Unable to determine
City police 46 Sexual harassment

Terms and conditions Sex State agency

47 Unable to determine Unable to determine City police department

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 58 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Matter issue Protected class Government entity alleged to

have engaged in discrimination behavior

48 Hiring Sex City police department 49 Unable to determine Unable to
determine County agency 50 Promotion Sex City police department 51 Promotion

Retaliation Race

Sex City police department

52 Hiring Religion City agency 53 Hiring Age

Disability City agency

54 Constructive discharge Discharge Harassment Sexual harassment Terms and
conditions

Sex City agency 55 Discharge Sex City agency 56 Hiring Race City agency 57
Unable to determine Sex City police department 58 Unable to determine Sex
School district 59 Racial harassment Race County agency 60 Unable to
determine Race City fire department 61 Unable to determine Unable to
determine County agency 62 Bid protest Not applicable Air Force 63 Bid
protest Not applicable Air Force 64 Bid protest Not applicable Air Force

Source: Employment Litigation section closed matter files and interviews
with the section chief.

Table IV. 2 provides a brief description for each of the 64 closed matters
that were initiated during fiscal year 1998 and provides information on the
reasons that matters were closed. 2 We found that all 61 matters referred by
EEOC were closed because the section concluded that participation was not
justified. Three matters referred by another federal agency were closed
because no further action was warranted. The order of the matters in Table
IV. 2 is presented in the same order as Table IV. 1.

Additional information was available for 20 of the closed EEOC referred
matters, regarding the reason the matter was closed. Seven of these closed
matters were selected for further investigation or research but were not
pursued as cases. Most of these were closed because the attorney's
investigation found that the facts of the matter were problematic. Thirteen
of the closed EEOC referred matters that were reviewed included

2 We were unable to obtain a description for 38 closed matters because the
files had been returned to EEOC.

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 59 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

additional reasons, such as the size and/ or limited impact of the referred
matter did not justify the resources necessary to prosecute, the individual
was represented by a private attorney, the matter was resolved, or EEOC did
not recommend litigation.

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons
cited

1 The section investigated an allegation that a county board had treated the
complainant, a female, differently from male candidates in past instances
where the county manager's recommendations to the Board was endorsed by the
board. The complainant had applied for a management job. She was one of two
final candidates for the job. The city manager recommended her to the county
board, which rejected her for the position.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation was that the
section attorney identified problems with the facts and recommended that a
right- to- sue letter be issued to the complainant. Section attorney noted
that the complainant had a private attorney who was able to pursue the
claim.

2 The section investigated allegations of two separate EEOC referrals that a
multistate transit authority discriminated against the complainants, two
AfricanAmerican males, on the basis of race while working at one of the
entity's facilities. EEOC identified that the complainants had been
retaliated against after its investigation.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation was that the
section attorney identified problems with the facts and recommended that a
right- to- sue letter be issued to the complainants. Section attorney noted
that the complainants had a private attorney who was able to pursue their
claim.

3 The section investigated an allegation that a county sheriff department
and a county agency discriminated against the complainant, a female, on the
basis of her race, AfricanAmerican. The complainant alleged that she was
denied equal pay and was discharged in retaliation for filing a complaint
with EEOC.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation was that the
section attorney identified problems with the facts and recommended that a
right- to- sue letter be issued to the complainant.

Table IV. 2: Description of Closed Matters and the Reasons That Matters Were
Closed

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 60 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons
cited

4 a Participation not justified. Size and/ or limited impact would not
justify the resources necessary to prosecute. 5 The section investigated an

allegation that a city agency denied the complainant, an African- American,
a full- time job as a ground maintenance worker and subjected the
complainant, a temporary employee, to racial harassment.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation was that the
section attorney identified problems with the facts and recommended that a
right- to- sue letter be issued to the complainant.

6 The section investigated an allegation that a city housing authority
agency subjected the complainant, a male, to sexual harassment while working
for the city agency. According to the complainant, he suffered retaliatory
discharge from his position because he accused his supervisor with sexual
harassment.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation was that the
section attorney identified problems with the facts and recommended that a
right- to- sue letter be issued to the complainant.

7 The section reviewed an allegation that a state veterans home
discriminated against the complainant, an African- America female, on the
basis of race and sex when she was denied a newly created position.

Participation not justified. b

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 61 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons
cited

8 The section reviewed an allegation that a city agency and county personnel
office discriminated against the complainant, a female, on the basis of sex
when she was passed over for a promotion. She also alleged that she was
discriminated against on the basis of race in regard to reimbursement for
wages and expenses during the period of time when she temporarily acted as
the Clerk for the City. EEOC's preliminary review did not find sufficient
evidence of discrimination to support a finding of sex discrimination.
However, the EEOC referred to the section for review of the complainant's
allegation that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race in
regard to reimbursement for wages and expenses.

Participation not justified. Size and/ or limited impact would not justify
the resources necessary to prosecute.

9 a Participation not justified. b 10 a Participation not justified. b 11 a
Participation not justified. b 12 a Participation not justified. b 13 a
Participation not justified. b 14 a Participation not justified. b 15 a
Participation not justified. b 16 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state commission retaliated against the complainant, an
Asian, for filing a complaint with EEOC. The complainant alleged that her
position was abolished in retaliation.

Participation not justified. Size and/ or limited impact would not justify
the resources necessary to prosecute.

17 a Participation not justified. b 18 a Participation not justified. b 19 a
Participation not justified. b 20 a Participation not justified. b 21 a
Participation not justified. b

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 62 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons
cited

22 The section reviewed an allegation of retaliation by a city police
department. The female complainant alleged that her employer retaliated
against her because she filed a sexual harassment complaint with EEOC.

Participation not justified. The complainant was represented by counsel.
There were no unique issues.

23 The section reviewed the complainant's allegation that he had been denied
a tenure position at a state university because he had filed a national
origin discrimination complaint against a former employer.

Participation not justified. b 24 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state correction agency refused to provide religious
accommodation for the complainant. The complainant, a NativeAmerican, was
disciplined and then discharged for failing to comply with the state agency
policy regarding hair length.

Participation not justified. The complainant filed a union grievance and the
matter was settled with the employer.

25 The section reviewed allegations from five AfricanAmerican complainants
that a particular state liquor control agency failed to promote them.

Participation not justified. b 26 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state correctional institution failed to promote the
complainant, who was white, on the basis of race. Some of the evidence
indicated that race was a factor in the selection process because the state
agency's decisions considered its affirmative action goals.

Participation not justified. EEOC did not recommend litigation.

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 63 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons
cited

27 The section reviewed an allegation that a school board discriminated
against a female complainant on the basis of her national origin.

Participation not justified. b 28 a Participation not justified. b 29 a
Participation not justified. b 30 a Participation not justified. b 31 a
Participation not justified. b 32 a Participation not justified. b 33 a
Participation not justified. b 34 a Participation not justified. b 35 a
Participation not justified. b 36 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city aviation department subjected the complainant, a
female, to sexual harassment by a coworker. The complainant also alleged
that retaliation by the coworker created a hostile work environment.

Participation not justified. The city agency concluded that the complainant
was sexually harassed and then discharged the harasser.

37 a Participation not justified. b 38 a Participation not justified. b 39 a
Participation not justified. b 40 The section reviewed an

allegation that a state health agency discriminated against the complainant,
a female, on the basis of her religion.

Participation not justified. b 41 a Participation not justified. b 42 a
Participation not justified. b 43 The section investigated an

allegation that a city police department denied the complainant, a white
female, a lateral transfer to a position due to her race and sex.

Participation not justified. The result of the investigation was that the
section attorney noted no back- pay relief was available and the likelihood
of a repetition of the alleged discrimination was remote and recommended
that a right- tosue letter be issued to the complainant. 44 a Participation
not justified. b 45 a Participation not justified. b 46 a Participation not
justified. b 47 a Participation not justified. b

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 64 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons
cited

48 The section considered investigating an allegation that a city police
department engaged in discriminatory employment practices on the basis of
sex by refusing to hire the complainant for the position of police officer.

Participation not justified. After researching the matter, the section
attorney identified problems with the facts and recommended that a right-
tosue letter be issued to the complainant. 49 a Participation not justified.
b 50 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city police department denied the complainant, a female, a
promotion because of her sex.

Participation not justified. b 51 The section reviewed an

allegation that a city police department denied complainants, two white
males, promotions because of their race and sex.

Participation not justified. EEOC did not recommend litigation.

52 The section reviewed an allegation that a city college would not hire the
complainant as a tutor because the complainant did not provide a social
security number.

Participation not justified. EEOC did not recommend litigation.

53 a Participation not justified. Size and/ or limited impact would not
justify the resources necessary to prosecute. 54 a Participation not
justified. Size and/ or limited impact

would not justify the resources necessary to prosecute. 55 a Participation
not justified. Size and/ or limited impact

would not justify the resources necessary to prosecute. 56 a Participation
not justified. Size and/ or limited impact

would not justify the resources necessary to prosecutes. 57 The section
reviewed an

allegation against a city police department. The section attorney made some
telephone calls and closed the matter.

Participation not justified b 58 a Participation not justified. b

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 65 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter Reason matter closed Additional reasons
cited

59 The section reviewed an allegation that a county nursing agency subjected
the complainant, a female AfricanAmerican, to racial harassment by another
county employee.

Participation not justified. b 60 a Participation not justified. b 61 a
Participation not justified. b 62 The section monitored a bid

protest against a federal agency, regarding the awarding of a federal
procurement contract. The bid protest challenged the awarding of the
contract based on federal affirmative action objectives.

No further action was warranted.

The contractor did not file a lawsuit against the U. S. government.

63 The section monitored a bid protest against a federal agency, regarding
the awarding of a federal procurement contract. The bid protest challenged
the awarding of the contract based on federal affirmative action objectives.

No further action was warranted.

The contractor did not file a lawsuit against the U. S. government.

64 The section monitored a bid protest against a federal agency, regarding
the awarding of a federal procurement contract. The bid protest challenged
the awarding of the contract based on federal affirmative action objectives.

No further action was warranted. The contractor did not file a lawsuit
against the U. S. government.

a CRT's file did not contain a description of the matter. b No additional
reasons cited.

Source: Employment Litigation section closed matter files and interviews
with the section chief.

As mentioned previously, the Employment litigation section selected seven
EEOC referred matters for further investigation or research. Although these
matters were not pursued as cases, they were selected for consideration as
potential cases for litigation. Therefore, to provide information regarding
the section's reasons for initiating these

Appendix IV Information on Employment Litigation Section Closed Matters

Page 66 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

investigations, we asked the section chief to indicate the factors
considered when these seven matters were selected for further consideration.
As shown in table IV. 3, EEOC recommended that Justice consider the matter
for litigation in five of the seven matters. In six of the seven matters, a
factor considered, in part, was the particular type or category of
discrimination, such as those related to sex discrimination or assignment
practices. Two of the matters were selected, in part, because they involved
priorities set in 1995 by the prior Assistant Attorney General, which
continue to be priorities under the current Assistant Attorney General. For
example, one matter involved an allegation that a county board had
discriminated against a female applicant for a management position based on
her sex. According to the section chief, the issues in this matter addressed
a priority to identify illegal discrimination against minorities and women
in mid- and upper- level positions. The other matter considered a priority
involved an allegation that a multistate transit authority discriminated
against two African- American males on the basis of race. According to the
section chief, this matter addressed a priority to identify patterns or
practices of illegal discrimination against minorities and women in
government facilities or agencies that deal with the public, such as public
utilities and mass transit systems. Table IV. 3 summarizes the factors
considered by the section when it decided to investigate seven matters
referred by EEOC.

Matter Number Matter issue Protected

class Assistant Attorney

General priority Impact in a

particular type or category of discrimination

Impact in a particular location

EEOC recommended Justice consider the matter for litigation

Part of body of casework on going

1 Hiring Sex ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

2 Promotion Assignment Retaliation

Race ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

3 Retaliation Equal pay

Race Sex ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

5 Racial harassment Race ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

6 Sexual harassment Sex ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

43 Assignment Race Sex ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

48 Hiring Sex ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½

Source: Interviews with the Employment Litigation section chief.

Table IV. 3: Factors Considered by the Employment Litigation Section When
Selecting Matters for Investigation That Were Not Pursued as Cases.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 67 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This appendix provides general information on the 44 Housing and Civil
Enforcement section cases that were initiated in fiscal year 1998.
Specifically, table V. 1 contains information on the characteristics of
these cases, including the origin or source, the section's role in the case,
whether the U. S. Attorney's office handled the case, the protected class,
type, and the subject matter covered in the case. Following table V. 1 is a
narrative that provides a descriptive summary of the facts of each case
along with the case disposition.

Case name Origin Government role U. S. Attorney's

office handle case Protected class Case type Subject matter

U. S. v. Burnette Company, Inc.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Discriminatory advertising or statements U. S. v. Beacon Woods East
Homeowners' Association, Inc.

HUD Plaintiff No Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable accommodations

U. S. v. Zachary Cowan and Carla Sydnor

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements Discrimination in terms and conditions U. S. v. Marvin A. Gardner
HUD Plaintiff No Familial

status Election Discriminatory advertising or statements U. S. v. Metroplex,
Inc., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable
accommodations

U. S. v. Dave Landis and Annuities, Land, Patents, and Securities
Corporation

HUD Plaintiff Yes National origin Election Discriminatory advertising or

statements Discrimination in sale Discrimination in lending

U. S. v. Danny LeBlanc

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Rent discrimination U. S. v. Dennis C.
Pospisil, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes National origin Race

Election Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation

U. S. v. New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority

HUD Plaintiff No Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable accommodations

U. S. v. Cove Realty, Inc., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination by an entity engaged
in real estate transactions

Table V. 1: Characteristics of Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 68 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Case name Origin Government role U. S. Attorney's

office handle case Protected class Case type Subject matter

U. S. v. Evergreen Park Condominium I Board of Managers

HUD Plaintiff Yes Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable
accommodations Refusal to make reasonable modifications a

U. S. v. Walt Whitman Brokers Ltd., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements

U. S. v. Freeport Housing Authority

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Discrimination in terms and conditions

U. S. v. James Ziebold HUD Plaintiff Yes National

origin Race

Election Discriminatory advertising or statements Intimidation/ coercion/
retaliation U. S. v. Michael Hall, et al. HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status Election Discrimination in terms and conditions U. S. v. Walter
Hartinger and Friederike Hartinger

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Rent discrimination Discriminatory
advertising or statements Discrimination in terms and conditions
Interference/ coercion/ retaliation U. S. v. Alexander C. Waterhouse, Jr.,
et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Rent discrimination Discrimination in terms and conditions

U. S. v. Conifer 307 Oregon, Ltd ., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination in terms
and conditions U. S. v. Rembold Trusts, Inc., and Billie Ivory

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements
Discrimination in terms and conditions Discriminatory representations in
availability Discrimination by an entity engaged in real estate transactions
U. S. v. Henry B. Lamb HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial

status Election Rent discrimination Discrimination in terms and conditions
Discriminatory representations in availability

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 69 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Case name Origin Government role U. S. Attorney's

office handle case Protected class Case type Subject matter

U. S. v. Craig A. and Mary Ann Ciarlone, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Discrimination in terms and conditions
Discriminatory representations in availability Discrimination in sale U. S.
v. Kenneth Billington and Sandra Hagen

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements
Discrimination in terms and conditions U. S. v. Housing Authority of the
City of Pasco and Franklin County, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Worked jointly with the U. S. Attorney

Handicap Election Refusal to make reasonable accommodations Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA U. S. v. Coldwell Banker
Corrado Realty, Inc., and Guy Corrado

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination in terms and
conditions U. S. v. John Hobbs, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Race Election Rent discrimination Discriminatory
advertising or statements Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation U. S. v.
Leslie J. Waltke, et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status

Election Rent discrimination Discrimination in terms and conditions U. S. v.
Oakdale Estates, Inc., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status Election Rent discrimination

Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination in terms and
conditions U. S. v. Betty Egner

HUD Plaintiff No Handicap Race

Election Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements
Discrimination in terms and conditions Discriminatory representations in
availability Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation U. S. v. Charles Harlan, et
al.

HUD Plaintiff No National origin

Pattern or practice/ election

Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination
in terms and conditions Discriminatory representations in availability
Discrimination in sale

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 70 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Case name Origin Government role U. S. Attorney's

office handle case Protected class Case type Subject matter

U. S. v. Duane B. Hagadone and Fran I. Goff

HUD Plaintiff No Familial status

Pattern or practice/ election

Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination
in terms and conditions U. S. v. Choice Property Consultants, Inc., et al.

HUD Plaintiff Yes Familial status National origin Race

Pattern or practice/ election

Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination
in terms and conditions Discriminatory representations in availability U. S.
v. Richmond 10- 72 Ltd., et al.

HUD Plaintiff No Race Pattern or practice/ election

Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination
in terms and conditions Discriminatory representations in availability U. S.
v. A. Waddell Nejam, et al.

Testing Plaintiff No Race Pattern or practice/ testing

Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements Discriminatory
representations in availability U. S. v. Garden Homes Management Corp., et
al.

Testing Plaintiff No Race Pattern or practice/ testing

Rent discrimination Discriminatory representations in availability

U. S. v. Henry K. Vernon, et al.

Testing Plaintiff No Familial status Race

Pattern or practice/ testing

Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination
in terms and conditions Discriminatory representations in availability U. S.
v. L. T. Jackson; and L. T. Jackson Trust

Public housing authority

Plaintiff No Sex Pattern or practice

Rent discrimination Discriminatory advertising or statements Discrimination
in terms and conditions Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation Sexual
harassment U. S. v. Lyle Krueger

HUD Plaintiff No Sex Pattern or practice Enforcement of conciliation

Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation Sexual harassment

U. S. v. Associates National Bank

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

Plaintiff No National origin

Pattern or practice/ lending

Discrimination in terms and conditions Pricing/ underwriting

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 71 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Case name Origin Government role U. S. Attorney's

office handle case Protected class Case type Subject matter

U. S. v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank

OCC Plaintiff No Race Pattern or practice/ lending

Pricing/ underwriting Discrimination by an entity engaged in real estate
transactions Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al., v.
Maryland State Police, et al.

Private attorney

Amicus No Race Amicus curiae Racial discrimination in police profiling

National Fair Housing Alliance Inc., et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, et al.

Fair housing group Amicus No Race Amicus curiae Discrimination in terms and

conditions Pricing/ underwriting in insurance

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., et al. v. Rommel Builders, Inc.

Fair housing group Amicus No Handicap Amicus curiae Discrimination in
accessibility –

multifamily housing Project Life, Inc., et al. v. Parris Glendening, et al.

U. S. Attorney Amicus No Handicap Amicus curiae Refusal to make reasonable
accommodations Applicability of ADA and FHA

Lillian E. Bryant, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation, et al.

District court Plaintiff/ intervenor

No Race Intervenor Environmental justice Constitutionality of Title VI

a According to Justice, this refers to allowing an individual to make
physical modifications to the premises. Source: Review of Housing and Civil
Enforcement section case files and interviews with section officials.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 72 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The following section provides descriptions of cases that the Housing and
Civil Enforcement section initiated in fiscal year 1998 and their
dispositions.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her minor child- tenants of a
53- unit apartment complex, who had filed a complaint with HUD- against the
owner of the complex, a construction company, and several other individuals
associated with the leasing, management, or operation of garden apartments.
The complaint in this case alleged that the defendants discriminated on the
basis of familial status by enforcing written rules, by verbal and written
notice, that unreasonably restricted the activities of resident children.
Specifically, the woman had asked the resident manager of the complex if she
could hold a birthday party for her son at the pool on a particular
afternoon at a specific time. The manager told her that, based on pool use
restrictions imposed by the complex, she would not be able to hold her son's
birthday party on the particular afternoon that she had requested.

Disposition: Closed.

The parties reached an out of court settlement. This case was filed on
behalf of a husband and wife couple who had filed a complaint with HUD
alleging housing discrimination by the home- owners association that had
jurisdiction over the subdivision in which they owned their single- family
home. The complaint in this case alleged that the husband, confined to a
wheelchair with a severe disability, needed constant access to bathing
facilities so that he could cleanse and keep his body sterile. The complaint
alleged that the association had discriminated against the couple, on the
basis of handicap, by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation from a
subdivision deed that prohibited their parking a mobile home- equipped with
water and bathing facilities- at their residence.

Disposition: Open.

This case was filed on behalf of a couple and their two minor children,
renters of mobile- home space at a recreational vehicle park, who had filed
a complaint with HUD. The complaint alleged that the defendants, an owner
and manager of a recreational vehicle park, had discriminated against the
couple and their children on the basis of familial status. Specifically, the
owner had served them with a 30- day notice to remove their mobile home from
the subject property or he would begin eviction (1.) U. S. v. Burnette

Company, Inc. (2.) U. S. v. Beacon Woods East Homeowners' Association, Inc.

(3.) U. S. v. Zachary Cowan and Carla Sydnor

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 73 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

proceedings against them, because of his policy of limiting occupancy to two
persons in front row mobile home space in the recreational vehicle park.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a settlement decree filed with the court
whereby, the defendant was ordered to pay the complainants $6,665.

This case was filed on behalf of the Idaho Fair Housing Council, a nonprofit
organization, which had filed a complaint with HUD alleging that the owner
of an apartment property injured the organization by engaging in unlawful
discrimination, on the basis of familial status, in the rental of property.
Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that the defendant, the
owner of a four- unit building, included the words “no children”
in an advertisement for a vacancy in his building and made a statement to
two testers (that the Idaho Fair Housing Council instructed to telephone)
that occupancy by children was prohibited or restricted.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that required future
compliance with the FHA, including advertising in compliance with the act,
imposing recordkeeping, and attending training.

This case was filed on behalf of a mother and her disabled son who had filed
a complaint with HUD against the defendants- the management agents and owner
of the subject apartments, the on- site manager, and the owners of
corporations that acted as managing agents for the complex. The complaint
alleged that the defendants discriminated against the woman and her son, on
the basis of the son's handicap, when they welded shut the gate to which the
mother had been given a key to accommodate her son's disability and allow
him access to the nearest exit from his apartment to the school bus. With
the gate welded, the son had to use an exit at the other side of the complex
and be wheeled a distance of more than two blocks to the school bus. The
complaint further alleged that snow was not shoveled along the path of
travel required after the gate had been welded and the mother had requested
an alternative apartment.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a defendant's offer of judgment whereby the
defendants agreed to pay the complainants $45,000. (4.) U. S. v. Marvin A.

Gardner (5.) U. S. v. Metroplex, Inc., et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 74 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This case was filed on behalf of a husband and wife Italian- American couple
who had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination, on the basis of
national origin, when the defendants refused to sell or to negotiate for the
sale of a particular property. Specifically, the couple alleged that the
corporation that held redemption rights to the subject property
discriminated against them, when the couple attempted to make a written
offer on the property through their real estate agent. The defendant, in
faxing back the complainants written offer on the property, wrote on the
back of the offer that the complainants were "WOPS" and that they should go
to another neighborhood to steal property.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that required the defendants
to pay $5,000 to the complainants in punitive damages, or to pay $20,000 in
civil penalties.

This case was filed on behalf of an African- American male and Louisiana
Acorn Fair Housing- a private nonprofit fair housing organization- against
the defendant, an owner of several apartment units. Specifically, the man
had filed an earlier complaint with HUD that alleged that the defendant
discriminated against him, on the basis of race or color, by refusing to
rent to him a one- bedroom studio apartment. The individual consulted with
Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing, which conducted testing that confirmed the
individual's complaint.

Disposition: Open on appeal.

The case resulted in a favorable jury decision that awarded Louisiana Acorn
Fair Housing compensatory damages of $1,076, and attorney's fees, and
punitive damages to the plaintiff- intervenor in the amount of $10,000. The
case also resulted in a favorable court- ordered decision that included
injunctive relief.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her three minor children who
had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination in housing, on the
basis of race, color, or national origin. The complaint alleged that the
defendants and other individuals burned a cross on the lawn of the woman's
residence and slashed two tires on her vehicle.

Disposition: Open.

(6.) U. S. v. Dave Landis and Annuities, Land, Patents, and Securities
Corporation

(7.) U. S. v. Danny LeBlanc (8.) U. S. v. Dennis C. Pospisil, et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 75 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This case was filed on behalf of a woman with multiple serious illnesses-
including AIDS, Hepatitis C, and liver disease- that severely restricted her
ability to walk without assistance and conduct daily activities. The woman
had filed a complaint with HUD that alleged that the defendant, the New
Hampshire Housing Finance Authority, 1 had discriminated against her by
improperly refusing to make a reasonable accommodation in its administration
of its section 8 program. Specifically, it had refused her request to use
her housing voucher to subsidize an apartment in Massachusetts rather than
New Hampshire. She had requested the accommodation to eliminate the hardship
she would face if she were forced to live a substantial distance away from
her medical specialist and other supports on which she relied.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that provided for injunctive
relief and compensatory relief for the complainant in the amount of $45,000.
The order further required the defendant to impose recordkeeping and
reporting and to inform all employees, agents, and representatives involved
in administering its fair housing programs about the prohibitions on
discrimination imposed by the FHA.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman, her two minor children, and two
other adults, who filed complaints with HUD alleging discrimination on the
part of a licensed real estate brokerage firm and the receptionist and real
estate agent employed there. The complaint alleged that the defendants
discriminated against the complainants on the basis of familial status.
Specifically, the complainants had responded to an advertisement placed by
the firm for a five- room apartment. She spoke with the firm's agent, who
told her that the owner of the property did not want to rent to anyone with
children. The complaint also indicated testing by the particular county's
housing services, which revealed discrimination on the basis of familial
status.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that required the defendant
to impose recordkeeping and reporting and attend fair housing training with
the employees. The decree further required the defendants to pay $10,000 in
damages to the complainants.

1 The New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority is a state entity that assists
in the development and/ or operation of low- income housing, including the
administration of section 8 programs. (9.) U. S. v. New Hampshire

Housing Finance Authority (10.) U. S. v. Cove Realty, Inc., et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 76 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This case was filed on behalf of a couple and their minor son who had filed
a complaint with HUD alleging violations of the FHA, based on the son's
disability. The complaint in this case alleged that a home- owners
association and its managing agent had denied the couple's request to make
structural modifications to their condominium unit, deemed necessary as a
result of the son's mobility impairment. In particular, the complainants
alleged that the defendants had denied their request to install, at their
expense, a motorized elevator or wheelchair lift outside their condominium
unit.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, providing for injunctive
relief only and requiring the defendant to allow and accommodate the
construction of an elevator in the complainants' condominium.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her minor son, who had filed a
complaint with HUD alleging housing discrimination, on the basis of familial
status. Specifically, it was alleged that the woman inquired about rental
apartments from a sales agent with a licensed real estate brokerage firm.
For about 4 months, she was repeatedly told that no children were allowed.
When she claimed she had no children, she was finally shown an advertised
apartment.

Disposition: Open.

The case was resolved through a partial consent order that required the
defendant to impose recordkeeping and reporting and attend fair housing
training with the employees. The decree further required the defendants to
pay $1,000 in damages to the complainants.

This case was filed on behalf of a foster mother who had filed a complaint
with HUD alleging housing discrimination, on the basis of familial status.
Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that a public housing
authority and its former director threatened to evict her if she did not
move into a smaller apartment, despite her custody of three minor foster
children. According to the defendant's occupancy guidelines, a threebedroom
apartment should be occupied by four to six people.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that required the defendants
to discontinue or withdraw the eviction notice and to (11.) U. S. v.
Evergreen Park

Condominium I Board of Managers

(12.) U. S. v. Walt Whitman Brokers Ltd., et al.

(13.) U. S. v. Freeport Housing Authority

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 77 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

implement nondiscriminatory rental policies. The order further required the
defendants to pay $7,500 in damages to the complainant.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman, a co- owner of property containing
three rental apartments, who had filed a complaint with HUD that alleged
that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of race and
national origin. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant had
made threatening telephone calls to the complainant's rental home stating
that if she rented to African- American or Hispanic applicants, her home
would be blown up. A police department investigation revealed the
defendant's identity.

Disposition: Closed.

The case resulted in a favorable court- ordered decision that provided for
injunctive relief and $2,500 in compensatory damages.

This case was filed on behalf of six families, alleging discrimination in
the operation of a mobile- home park. Specifically, the complaint alleged
that the defendants enacted, published, implemented, and enforced policies,
rules, and regulations, regarding the mobile home park, which were designed
to (1) discourage families with children from residing in the park; (2)
discriminate against families with children in the park; and/ or (3)
unreasonably restrict the terms, conditions, and privileges of use of the
park for tenants with children. Additionally, complaints were filed with HUD
by five of the six families on whose behalf the case was brought, alleging
that the defendants retaliated against them for filing a fair housing
complaint or asserting their fair housing rights.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order providing for injunctive and
monetary relief.

This case was filed on behalf of a Caucasian woman, her son, and her
African- American boyfriend. She had filed a complaint with HUD alleging
that the owners of an apartment complex, in which the complainant resided
with her son, discriminated against her, on the basis of race because of her
association with an African- American. Specifically, the complaint in this
case alleged that the respondents discriminated against them by harassing
the woman and her family and by issuing her an eviction notice because of
her association with him. (14.) U. S. v. James Ziebold

(15.) U. S. v. Michael Hall, et al.

(16.) U. S. v. Walter Hartinger and Friederike Hartinger

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 78 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, which provided for $15,000 in
monetary relief for the complainants, as well as injunctive relief. The
order further required the defendant to impose recordkeeping and reporting
and attend fair housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of a couple and their minor children, who had
filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination, on the basis of familial
status by the owner, officers, and resident managers of a recreational
vehicle park. Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that when the
complainants moved into the recreational vehicle park, the defendants
discriminated against them by adopting and implementing a policy of imposing
different rental charges, based on the number of occupants in the household.
By enforcing this policy against the complainants, the defendants made the
property unavailable to the complainants on the basis of familial status.

Disposition: Open.

This case was filed on behalf of a couple, and their two children, who had
filed a complaint with HUD against the defendants- an owner and resident
managers of an apartment complex in which they resided. Specifically, the
complainants alleged that the defendants had discriminated against them on
the basis of familial status by not allowing their children into the
recreation room of the complex.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved by a consent order for monetary payment for the
complainants in the amount of $4,700, plus injunctive relief. The order
further required the defendants and their employees to attend fair housing
training.

This case was filed on behalf of the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO),
a nonprofit organization established for the purpose of furthering the goal
of equal housing opportunity, in part through counseling, testing, and other
enforcement efforts. FHCO had filed a complaint with HUD against an owner
and site manager of 30 condominium units alleging that the organization's
testing efforts had revealed that the defendants had discriminated against
families with children, regarding the sale and availability of the
condominium units. (17.) U. S. v. Alexander C.

Waterhouse, Jr., et al. (18.) U. S. v. Conifer 307 Oregon, Ltd., et al.

(19.) U. S. v. Rembold Trusts, Inc. and Billie Ivory

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 79 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants were
ordered to pay the complainants $6,000, in addition to injunctive relief.
The order further required the defendants and their employees to attend fair
housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of FHCO. Specifically, FHCO had filed a
complaint with HUD that alleged that, through its testing efforts, FHCO had
determined that the defendant, owner and manager of real estate, had
discriminated against families with children in the rental of property.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants were
ordered to pay the complainants $6,000, in addition to injunctive relief.
The order further required the defendant to impose recordkeeping and
reporting and to attend fair housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of an African- American couple and their two
children who had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination on the
basis of race and color. Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged
that the defendants- owners of real estate property, including a
singlefamily home- a real estate agent, and a real estate agent company, had
listed the owner's home for sale. The complaint further alleged that, after
the complainants showed interest in the property, the defendants abruptly
removed the property from the market and misrepresented to the complainants
that the property was no longer for sale, when in fact it was for sale.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that required the owners of
the property to enter into an agreement with the complainants for the sale
of the subject property and pay $3,500 to the complainants. In addition, the
order contained standard injunctive relief provisions and required the real
estate agent and company to waive all commissions on the sale of the
property and attend fair housing training.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her three minor children who
had filed a complaint with HUD that alleged discrimination, on the basis of
familial status. Specifically, the complaint in this case alleged that (20.)
U. S. v. Henry B. Lamb

(21.) U. S. v. Craig A. and Mary Ann Ciarlone, et al.

(22.) U. S. v. Kenneth Billington and Sandra Hagen

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 80 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

the defendants, property owners, refused to rent the property to the
complainant because she had three children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order requiring, among other things,
the defendants to pay the complainants $1,000.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman who had filed a complaint with HUD
that alleged discrimination, on the basis of her disability. Specifically,
the complaint alleged that the woman had a physical impairment that severely
limited her ability to walk and required the use of a wheelchair to assist
with her mobility. She resided in a public housing complex and had requested
a reserved parking space to use in the parking lot in close proximity to her
apartment to accommodate her physical impairment. The complaint further
alleged that the defendants- the housing authority that owned and operated
the complex, its executive director, and the chairperson of its Board of
Commissioners- discriminated against her, on the basis of her handicap by
not meeting her request and thus, failing or refusing to make a reasonable
accommodation in their rules, policies, practices, or services.

Disposition: Closed.

The case resulted in a consent order that provided for injunctive relief, by
providing the complainant with a parking space designated as reserved for
her dwelling, in close proximity to her apartment. The order also required
the defendants to pay the complainant $2,000. The order further required the
defendant to impose recordkeeping and reporting.

This case was filed against a realty company and its owner that provided
management services, including rental advertising for residential single and
multiple family rental properties, in Spokane, WA. A complaint had been
filed with HUD by the Northwest Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA)- a private fair
housing organization that receives and investigates complaints of unlawful
housing discrimination and conducts periodic reviews of rental policies in a
particular area to measure compliance with federal, state, and local law.
NFHA's review of the company's rental policies and practices revealed that
it had engaged in discriminatory action, regarding families with children,
by openly advertising and marketing to prospective renters that the
dwellings contained in certain multifamily apartment buildings were not
available, or were available on different terms and conditions, to families
with children. (23.) U. S. v. Housing

Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin County, et al.

(24.) U. S. v. Coldwell Banker Corrado Realty, Inc. and Guy Corrado

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 81 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants were
ordered to pay the complainants $1,500.

This case was filed on behalf of an African- American couple and their three
children, who had filed a complaint with HUD that alleged discrimination, on
the basis of race. Specifically, it was alleged that the defendants,
neighbors of the complainants, had discriminated against them by seeking to
interfere with, intimidate, or impede their choice of residence on account
of race.

Disposition: Closed.

The case resulted in a favorable court- ordered decision and a favorable
jury decision whereby the jury found for the complainants and awarded them
$10,000 in damages.

This case was filed on behalf of a mother and her three minor children, who
had filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of
familial status by the defendants, who owned and managed a rental property.
Specifically, the woman was seeking a three- bedroom apartment that was
advertised in a newspaper. When she called to inquire about the rental, one
of the defendants told her that the owner did not want children in the
building. Subsequently, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council
conducted housing tests for the same rental and was told that the owner did
not want children. In an amended complaint, the government alleged that the
defendants discriminated against the complainant and her children by
refusing to negotiate with her over the rental of an apartment because of
her familial status and by making statements that indicated a preference,
limitation, and discrimination on the basis of familial status.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendants were
ordered to pay the sum of $1,500 to the complainant. Injunctive relief was
also provided, and the defendants were ordered to impose recordkeeping and
reporting and training to any individuals involved in the leasing of any of
the units owned or operated by the defendants.

This case was filed on behalf of a woman and her minor children and the
owner of a mobile- home dealership. Specifically, the owner of the
dealership had filed a complaint with HUD, which alleged that the owners
(25.) U. S. v. John Hobbs, et

al. (26.) U. S. v. Leslie J. Waltke, et al.

(27.) U. S. v. Oakdale Estates, Inc., et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 82 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

and operators of a mobile home park had discriminated against the woman, her
children, and fiancï¿½ on the basis of familial status when they refused to
rent or to negotiate the rental of a lot because of children. The dealership
lost the sale for the mobile home that would have been placed on the lot but
for the discrimination.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that provided for injunctive
relief and monetary relief in the amount of $7,000 payable to the woman and
$1,000 to the owner of the mobile home dealership. The order further
required the defendants to impose recordkeeping and reporting. At the
request of the United States, copies of records and reports are to be made
available to the United States for monitoring.

This case was filed on behalf of the Arkansas Fair Housing Council- a
nonprofit housing group- and a Caucasian HIV- positive male and an African-
American male who had filed a claim with HUD against an apartment complex
owner. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the owner discriminated
against the two male individuals when she refused to rent or make
unavailable to them a dwelling because of their race, color, or handicap.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order that provided for injunctive
and monetary relief. The order also required the defendant to advertise in
compliance with the FHA, to impose fair housing rental policies, and to
attend fair housing training and provide training to her employees.

This case was filed on behalf of several individuals of Mexican and Anglo
national origin against owners of a mobile- home park. Specifically, those
individuals had filed complaints with HUD alleging that the owners
discriminated against them, on the basis of national origin, by refusing to
allow them to rent a mobile- home space or sell a mobile home in the park to
persons of Mexican national origin. After HUD referred the matter, the
Housing and Civil Enforcement section added a charge that the defendants had
engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by (1) refusing to allow
a Caucasian resident at the park to sell his unit to Hispanic persons, (2)
telling a manufactured home sales agent that she could not sell the unit to
Hispanic individuals, and (3) making derogatory statements about Hispanic
individuals to several persons. (28.) U. S. v. Betty Egner

(29.) U. S. v. Charles Harlan, et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 83 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree that included a total of
$92,500 in monetary relief--$ 75,000 collectively for the complainants, a
$10,000 civil penalty, and $7, 500 in attorney's fees for the
plaintiffintervenor-- fair housing training for the defendants, and
reporting and monitoring requirements for the period of the decree.

This case was filed on behalf of two families and the Idaho Fair Housing
Council, who filed a complaint with HUD that alleged discrimination, on the
basis of familial status, against the owner and resident manager of a 256-
unit apartment building. The Housing and Civil Enforcement section also
included a charge that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice
of discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants
imposed a standard that limited occupancy of two- bedroom apartments to two
persons as well as rules and regulations that unreasonably restricted the
use of facilities by children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, which required a total
payment of $105,000. The order also required that the defendants attend and
provide to their employees fair housing training, impose tenant rules and
regulations and undertake marketing measures consistent with fair housing,
and comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

This case was filed on behalf of the Housing Discrimination Project, a
private nonprofit corporation that promotes fair housing practices. The
corporation had filed a complaint with HUD against a private rental agency
and its president, alleging that they limited prospective applicants based
on the race, national origin, and familial status preferences of a landlord.
The Housing and Civil Enforcement section also added a charge that the
defendants' conduct was a pattern or practice of housing discrimination,
such as their use of coded vacancy reports provided to their employees to
reflect those landlords that would not rent to African- Americans,
Hispanics, or to families with children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree in which the defendants
agreed to provide fair housing training to their employees and agents,
undertake affirmative marketing and other affirmative measures, and comply
with recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In addition, the (30.) U. S.
v. Duane B.

Hagadone and Fran I. Goff (31.) U. S. v. Choice Property Consultants, Inc.,
et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 84 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Housing Discrimination Project received $30,000 in compensatory damages.

This case was filed on behalf of a private nonprofit fair housing
organization, Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Richmond, Inc., and two
individuals who had filed a complaint with HUD against the owners and
managers of an apartment complex in Richmond, VA. Specifically, the
complaint alleged that those individuals had discriminated on the basis of
race by refusing to rent to African- Americans. Based on further
investigation, the section added a pattern or practice charge of racial
discrimination to the complaint.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree whereby the defendants agreed
to develop a fair housing policy, require their employees to attend fair
housing training, and hire an independent consulting firm to conduct self-
testing of the complex over the next 3 years. The agreement also required
the defendants to pay $480,000 in damages and civil penalties.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Housing and Civil
Enforcement section's testing program. The complaint alleged that the owner
of numerous rental units in Jackson, MS, and his former rental agents had
discriminated on the basis of race. Specifically, the complaint alleged that
the defendant and his agents gave false information about apartment
availability to African- American testers and applicants.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent decree, which provided a total of
$200,000 in monetary relief, including a $5,000 civil penalty. The decree
also required that (1) the owner's employees undergo fair housing training,
(2) the owner maintain detailed records of apartment availability and make
the information available to all prospects, and (3) notify the public of his
nondiscriminatory policy.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Housing and Civil
Enforcement section's testing program. The complaint alleged that the
defendants- owners and managers of three apartment complexes- discriminated
on the basis of race. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the
defendants discouraged African- American testers from renting units and told
them that there was a long waiting list for apartments, while Caucasian
testers were encouraged to rent units. In addition, the (32.) U. S. v.
Richmond 10- 72

Ltd., et al. (33.) U. S. v. A. Waddell Nejam, et al.

(34.) U. S. v. Garden Homes Management Corp., et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 85 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

complaint alleged that African- American testers were falsely told that
apartments were unavailable, while white testers were told of, and shown,
available apartments.

Disposition: Open.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Housing and Civil
Enforcement section's testing program that revealed that the defendants, the
owner and manager of an apartment of complex, engaged in a pattern or
practice of discrimination based on race and familial status. Specifically,
the complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated against African-
Americans and families with children.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, which provided for $75,000 in
monetary relief, including $25,000 in civil penalties against the owner of
the complex and $1,000 in civil penalties against the manager. The order
also required the owner to attend and send his employees to fair housing
training, implement and advertise nondiscriminatory rental policies, pay for
self- testing over the next several years, and impose recordkeeping and
reporting.

The complaint in this case alleged that the defendant, the owner and manager
of numerous identified rental properties, had engaged in a pattern or
practice of discrimination based on sex. Specifically, the defendant had
subjected numerous female tenants (and, on some occasions, their minor
daughters), and prospective female tenants to severe, pervasive, and
unwelcome verbal and physical sexual advances. Further, the defendant had
explicitly based the terms, conditions, and privileges of the women's
tenancy on the granting of sexual favors.

Disposition: Open.

This case started several years ago with one individual who had filed a
complaint with HUD. In 1995, an administrative law judge held that the
defendant had sexually harassed a former tenant, and ordered him to pay
$32,000 in damages and civil penalties. In 1998, the section filed a
complaint that alleged that the defendant had breached a HUD- approved
conciliation agreement that had resolved a claim of sexual and racial
harassment filed by a second tenant. The section later amended the complaint
to include allegations that the defendant engaged in a pattern or practice
of sexual harassment against other female tenants. (35.) U. S. v. Henry K.

Vernon, et al. (36.) U. S. v. L. T. Jackson; and L. T. Jackson Trust

(37.) U. S. v. Lyle Krueger

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 86 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a consent order, whereby the defendant was
prohibited from managing any residential property for a period of 6 years.
In addition, the defendant was required to pay the $32,000 judgment, plus
applicable interest, due to the initial Administrative Law Judge proceeding,
the $2,000 plus interest, under the conciliation agreement, and $2,000 to a
third victim.

This case was filed against Associates National Bank, a major issuer of VISA
and MasterCard bankcards, claiming that the bank violated the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act by discriminating, on the basis of national origin, against
Hispanic individuals. Specifically, the complaint alleged that individuals
applying for a certain MasterCard through the bank's Spanishlanguage
application were processed through a separate approval system, which used a
credit- scoring system that required higher passing scores than those
required for English- language applicants. Consequently, some Spanish-
language applicants were denied credit on a discriminatory basis. The
complaint further alleged that approved Spanish- language applicants were
given lower- credit line assignments than English- language applicants and
that they were offered different credit services than those offered to other
customers.

Disposition: Open.

The complaint in this case alleged that Deposit Guaranty National Bank had
discriminated, on the basis of race, against African- American loan
applicants in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana through the use of
subjective underwriting practices. The complaint further alleged those
African- American applicants for home- improvement loans whose applications
were credit scored were at least three times as likely to be rejected than
similarly situated white applicants.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through a settlement agreement approved by the court,
whereby those applicants whose applications for homeimprovement loans were
evaluated under the bank's flawed underwriting system are to share in a $3
million fund. Among other things, the agreement also provides that (1) loan
applications are to be underwritten using uniform and centralized policies
and procedures, (2) applications initially denied are to receive a second
level of review by senior underwriting officials, (3) decisions to override
the result indicated by a (38.) U. S. v. Associates

National Bank (39.) U. S. v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 87 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

credit score can only be made by a small number of bank officials, and (4)
reviews and analyses of all underwriting decisions are to be conducted to
ensure consistency with fair lending requirements.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section's participation in this case was
limited to the filing of an amicus brief on certain Title VI (of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964) issues- whether there can be implied a private right of
action to sue under Title VI regulations alleging discriminatory effect and
whether the plaintiffs have standing to do so. The plaintiffs in this case
were the Maryland State Conference of NAACP branches and various minorities
who had residence in the United States and were from other countries. In the
part of their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they were
stopped, searched, and detained by state police troopers along a major
interstate in Maryland because of their race and/ or national origin, rather
than on the basis of legitimate law enforcement reasons. Further, the
plaintiffs alleged that such stops were pursuant to a policy and practice of
stopping and searching African- American and other minority motorists along
the interstate. The section, as amicus curiae, urged the court to find that
there was a private right of action to enforce Title VI regulations
establishing an “effects standard” and that the plaintiffs had
standing to assert such a claim.

Disposition: Closed.

The court found for the plaintiffs on the issue of standing and the parties
reached an out- of- court settlement.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section's involvement in this case was
limited to the filing of an amicus brief. NFHA had alleged that the
defendants, insurers doing business in Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and the
District of Columbia, had discriminated in the provision of home- owners
insurance on the basis of race in violation of the FHA. The defendants moved
to dismiss on three grounds: (1) that the FHA did not apply to the sale of
home- owners insurance; (2) that, if applicable, those claims were barred by
the McCarran Ferguson Act (15 U. S. C. 1011 et seq); and (3) that the
doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" required that the plaintiffs' challenge
to the defendants' practices be brought before the state insurance
regulators, rather than in a private action. The brief addressed those
issues and concluded that none had merit.

Disposition: Closed.

The case was resolved through an out- of- court settlement. (40.) Maryland
State

Conference of NAACP Branches, et al., v. Maryland State Police, et al.

(41.) National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 88 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section's role in this case involved
filing two amicus briefs, regarding the applicability of the requirements of
the FHA related to accessible design. Specifically, the plaintiffs,
Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., and one individual brought this action
against the builders of a condominium alleging that the builder had designed
and constructed the ground floor units in 10 of the buildings in a way that
made them inaccessible to persons with disabilities. In its first brief, the
section set forth the standard for determining whether the defendants had
violated the accessibility provisions of the FHA. In its second brief, the
section presented the court with its views on what equitable remedies were
appropriate in a case in which the defendants were found liable for
violating the accessibility provisions of the FHA.

Disposition: Open.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section's role in this case involved the
filing of an amicus brief. The plaintiffs in this case sought injunctive and
monetary damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), FHA, and
the Maryland Discrimination in Housing Act, based on the defendants' denial
of a long- term berth in the state of Maryland's port for the decommissioned
hospital ship upon which the plaintiffs intended to operate a short- term
residential, educational, and training program for recovering substance
abusers. The defendants had maintained, inter alia, that neither the ADA nor
the FHA were applicable to the facts as alleged by the plaintiffs.

Disposition: Open.

The Housing and Civil Enforcement section's participation in this case was
that of intervenor on behalf of the plaintiffs. Specifically, the plaintiffs
in this case filed this action to prevent the construction of a highway
through their neighborhood, which would require the condemnation of several
homes and would allegedly cause flooding, noise, and traffic problems. The
plaintiffs claimed that the construction of the highway would have a
disparate impact on their predominantly African- American community in
violation of Department of Transportation regulations promulgated pursuant
to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants moved to dismiss
on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity or, in the alternative, had
asked the court to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction in favor of
state eminent domain proceedings. The section intervened to defend the
constitutionality of the Eleventh Amendment immunity abrogating provision of
Title VI, which the defendants were challenging. (42.) Neighborhoods, Inc.,

et al. v. Rommel Builders, Inc.

(43.) Project Life, Inc., et al. v. Parris Glendening, et al.

(44.) Lillian E. Bryant, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation,
et al.

Appendix V Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Cases

Page 89 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

The court entered an order upholding the constitutionality of the statute.
The parties reached a settlement agreement.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 90 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This appendix provides general information on the 54 Housing and Civil
Enforcement section closed matters that we reviewed. Table VI. 1 contains
information on the characteristics of those matters, including the origin or
source, the protected class, the type, and the subject covered. Table VI. 2
provides a description of each matter along with the corresponding reason
for its closing.

As shown in table VI. 1, our review of the 54 Housing and Civil Enforcement
section closed matters revealed that they included a wide range of
allegations of fair lending and housing discrimination. Matters involving
pattern or practice allegations of discrimination accounted for 30 of the 54
matters. Of those 30 matters,

ï¿½ four involved allegations of discrimination in places of public
accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and certain places of
entertainment;

ï¿½ eleven involved allegations of lending discrimination, such as redlining
and pricing or underwriting;

ï¿½ eight involved general pattern or practice allegations of housing
discrimination, such as rental and sales discrimination;

ï¿½ three involved allegations of rental discrimination developed through the
section's testing program; and

ï¿½ four involved allegations of discrimination in zoning and group homes. The
remaining 24 closed matters, which did not include pattern or practice
allegations, consisted of 12 matters that alleged zoning discrimination and
12 that alleged various other types of housing discrimination.

Our review also showed that these matters originated from a variety of
sources, such as citizens, housing groups, federal agencies, private
attorneys, the section's fair housing testing program, and other sections of
the Civil Rights Division. Nearly all matters that alleged a pattern or
practice of lending discrimination were referred by federal bank regulatory
agencies, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the
Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), while the remaining matters in the
population originated from several sources.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 91 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The majority of zoning matters alleged discrimination, on the basis of
handicap, while most of the remaining matters involved allegations of
discrimination based on race. In addition, the matters involved a wide range
of issues related to fair housing and lending discrimination, such as rental
and sales discrimination; discrimination in group homes; discrimination in
lending; and discrimination through intimidation, coercion, and retaliation.

Matter number Origin Protected class Type Subject matter

1 Citizen Race Title II Pattern or practice

Discrimination in public accommodations – gas station 2 Federal Bureau
of

Investigation (FBI) Race Title II

Pattern or practice Discrimination in public accommodations –

lodging 3 Nonprofit group Race Title II

Pattern or practice Discrimination in public accommodations – swim
club 4 Citizen Race Title II

Pattern or practice Discrimination in public accommodations –

lodging 5 Citizen Race Pattern or practice/ lending Redlining 6 Office of
the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

Familial status Pattern or practice/ lending Pricing/ underwriting 7 Federal
Reserve Marital status Pattern or practice/ lending Discrimination in terms
and conditions

Discounting child support income for purposes of credit 8 OCC National
origin

Race Pattern or practice/ lending Underwriting

9 Federal Reserve National origin Race

Pattern or practice/ lending Redlining 10 Citizen Race Pattern or practice/
lending

Pattern or practice/ mortgage Redlining in home mortgage and business
lending 11 Office of the Attorney

General, State of Maryland

Race Pattern or practice/ lending Redlining 12 Office of Thrift

Supervision (OTS) National origin Race Pattern or practice/ lending Overage
pricing a 13 OCC Age Pattern or practice/ lending Underwriting 14 Federal
Deposit

Insurance (FDIC) National origin

CorporationRace Pattern or practice/ lending Overage pricing

15 OCC Age Pattern or practice/ lending Underwriting 16 Fair housing group
Race Pattern or practice/ testing Rent discrimination 17 Testing program
Handicap Pattern or practice/ testing Rent discrimination 18 Testing program
Handicap Pattern or practice/ testing Discriminatory advertising or
statements 19 Private attorney Handicap Pattern or practice Refusal to make
reasonable

accommodations Zoning 20 Fair housing group Race Pattern or practice Zoning

Table VI. 1: Information on Matters Initiated During Fiscal Year 1998 That
Were Closed as of October 31, 1999

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 92 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Origin Protected class Type Subject matter

21 Private attorney Handicap Prompt judicial action Pattern or practice

Group home 22 Private attorney Handicap Pattern or practice Zoning

Group home 23 Citizen Race Pattern or practice Rent discrimination 24 U. S.
Attorney's office Family status Pattern or Practice Rent discrimination 25
Disability Rights

section forwarded a request from a private attorney

Handicap Pattern or practice Rent discrimination 26 Citizen Family status
Pattern or practice Rent discrimination 27 Citizen Race Pattern or practice
Discrimination in sale 28 Employment Litigation

section Race Pattern or practice Intimidation/ coercion/ retaliation

29 Criminal section Race Pattern or practice Intimidation/ coercion/
retaliation 30 Private attorney Race Pattern or practice Rent discrimination
31 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Group home 32 HUD Handicap Zoning referral
Zoning

Group home 33 HUD National origin Zoning referral Zoning 34 HUD Handicap
Zoning referral Zoning

Group home 35 HUD Familial status

Handicap National origin Race

Zoning referral Zoning 36 HUD Race

Sex Zoning referral Zoning

37 HUD Race Zoning referral Zoning 38 HUD Familial status Zoning referral
Housing for older persons

Zoning 39 HUD Handicap Zoning referral Zoning 40 HUD Handicap Zoning
referral Zoning

Group home 41 HUD National origin Zoning referral Zoning 42 HUD Handicap
Zoning referral Zoning

Group home 43 Citizen Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations
–

lodging 44 Newspaper Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations
–

bar lounge 45 Citizen Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations
–

restaurant/ pool hall 46 Citizen Race Title II Discrimination in public
accommodations –

restaurant 47 Citizen

FBI Race Title II Discrimination in public accommodations –

bar 48 Private attorney Handicap Request by plaintiffs for the

government to participate as an amicus curiae

Group home

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 93 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Origin Protected class Type Subject matter

49 U. S. Attorney's office Sex Quiet title b Provisions in an individual
will 50 HUD Family status

Religion Election Discrimination in terms and conditions

51 HUD Familial status Election Rent discrimination Occupancy standard 52
HUD Familial status

National origin Prompt judicial action Discrimination in sale

53 U. S. Attorney's office Section initiated

Handicap Investigation Accessible new construction 54 Section initiated

investigation National origin Race Investigative task force to

identify pattern or practices in lending

Business lending a An overage refers to an extra amount charged to a
borrower as a means of increasing compensation to brokers and loan officers.
b Generally, a quiet title action is a remedy available for a person to
clear title to real property against

any kind of interest or adverse claim. Source: Review of Housing and Civil
Enforcement section closed matter files and interviews with section
officials.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 94 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Table VI. 2 below provides a description of each matter along with the
corresponding reason for its closing.

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

1 This matter arose from a citizen complaint that a gas station had
discriminated against African- American customers by requiring them to pay
first and then pump gas while allowing Caucasian customers to pump gas
before paying.

Other- The Housing and Civil Enforcement section concluded that their active
involvement in the case was not necessary because the complainant was being
represented by an attorney who had filed a class- action suit. 2 An African-
American couple had filed a complaint with the

FBI alleging that they had been quoted a lower hotel rate over the
telephone, but when they arrived, the owners of the particular inn attempted
to increase the rate. The owners explained that their daughter had
erroneously quoted a lower rate to the couple that did not apply during the
July 4th weekend.

Lacked merit- The FBI completed an investigation and determined that there
was no evidence of discrimination.

3 A human rights organization requested an investigation into the apparent
discriminatory conduct of a swim club. Specifically, two African- American
boys were denied admission to the swimming pool and a television crew
captured the discriminatory conduct of the staff on tape. When the two boys
offered to pay the standard $3.00 admission fee, they were informed that
they would not be admitted unless they purchased a $200 club membership.
Minutes later, the television crew filmed a young Caucasian male- a
nonmember of the pool- entering the pool after paying a $3. 00 fee.

No further action was warranted. Upon its investigation, the Housing and
Civil Enforcement section learned that because of financial problems, the
pool management planned to close pool operations at the end of the summer
season. The section attorney concluded that further investigation or action
related to the allegations in all likelihood would not be fruitful.

4 The FBI investigated possible racial discrimination at a motel. An inn had
allegedly discriminated against two Caucasians by refusing to rent them a
room because of their association with an African- American church.

Lacked merit- The FBI investigation did not develop evidence of
discrimination.

5 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section received allegations that two
lending companies treated certain heavily minority- populated areas
differently than other areas of a particular locale, including employing
different appraisal practices and policies for properties within those
areas. Additionally, data submitted pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act suggested that the lenders might have been employing different marketing
practices in those same minority areas. CRT initiated an investigation.

Lacked merit. 6 OCC wrote to document the substance of its telephonic

referral of violations by a bank. The legal violations stemmed from the
adoption and apparent application of discriminatory mobile- home appraisal
guidelines that were in effect at the bank. Specifically, the complaint
alleged that the bank had discriminated against families with children by
adopting and endorsing a policy that treated family mobile- home parks as
inferior to, and less valuable than, adult- only mobile- home parks. OCC
found three instances where individuals were harassed.

The matter was returned to OCC for administrative resolution and corrective
action was taken.

Table VI. 2: Description of Closed Matters and the Reasons That Matters Were
Closed

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 95 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

7 The Federal Reserve conducted a regular full- scope examination of a bank
to determine its level of compliance with consumer credit, civil rights, and
consumer laws and regulations. The examiners reviewed the bank's written
loan policies and procedures and conducted interviews with bank staff to
determine the bank's articulated lending standards and evaluation practices.
The review found evidence that the bank had engaged in a practice of
routinely discounting the child support income of creditcard applicants. The
Federal Reserve found four instances where individuals were harassed.

The matter was returned to the Federal Reserve for administrative
resolution.

8 OCC referred materials to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section that
supported its belief that a bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination against persons of non- Asian race and/ or national origin in
extending credit for residential mortgages. The referral had come to OCC's
attention following a targeted fair lending examination of the bank. OCC
conducted comparative file reviews and performed statistical modeling based
on data derived from the bank's credit files. OCC's analysis showed 25
potential victims, involving 29 instances of discrimination.

The matter was returned to OCC for administrative resolution.

9 The Federal Reserve referred this matter to the Housing and Civil
Enforcement section, indicating that it had reason to believe that a
mortgage company had engaged in a pattern or practice of lending violations.
Specifically, during a compliance examination, it determined that the
company adhered to guidelines issued by a correspondent lending institution
that excluded the offering of certain loans secured by residential
properties in certain geographic areas in a particular state. Since the
excluded areas contained a disproportionately high percentage of the state's
minority population, the Federal Reserve believed that the exclusion of
these areas resulted in a pattern or practice of treating applicants within
the excluded areas differently from those outside those areas on the basis
of race and national origin.

Lacked merit- The Housing and Civil Enforcement section noted in its file
that information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
indicated that no loans were actually denied as a result and that the
company made the loans through other correspondent banks.

10 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section received a complaint that a
one- branch bank was redlining a predominantly African- American area of a
particular city in both its home mortgage and business lending activities.
However, neither a former bank official nor an AfricanAmerican contractor
who had unsuccessfully sought a construction loan from the bank could
provide any direct evidence of unlawful lending practices.

Lacked merit- The Housing and Civil Enforcement section's investigation,
together with OTS's examination of the bank's lending practices- a process
in which they shared with that agency all they had- failed to produce
sufficient evidence of racially discriminatory practices to warrant the
initiation of litigation.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 96 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

11 A state Attorney General requested that the Housing and Civil Enforcement
section review information obtained by its office, regarding allegations
that a corporation had engaged in a pattern or practice of redlining college
students from preapproved solicitations at predominantly African- American
colleges.

Lacked merit- Evidence submitted to the section for review did not support
redlining allegations. It appeared that the company was not involved in the
selection process and had merely purchased a student list culled by a vendor
list. The section attorney's files further indicated that if evidence was
found that the company was responsible for the racial composition of the
student list, it would consider reopening the matter for further
investigation. 12 OTS submitted this referral, concerned that a savings

bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of
race and national origin through its policy of charging overages or granting
shortages and overages to individual loan customers. Specifically, the
savings bank's own review of shortages and overages by the borrower's race
found a disproportionate number of overages charged to minority borrowers
and a disproportionate number of shortages granted to Caucasian applicants.
The review also found that the average overage charged to African- American
borrowers was higher than that charged to Caucasian borrowers. In response,
the bank changed its policy. In response to OTS's concerns over the bank's
policy, the bank made further changes to its policy. OTS analyzed the bank's
data on overages and found that their policy- a race conscious overage
policy- appeared to have been a well intentioned, but misguided, remedy for
perceived discrimination.

The matter was returned to OTS for administrative resolution. The bank
subsequently stopped its policy after OTS asked them to do so.

13 OCC wrote to document an understanding reached between the Housing and
Civil Enforcement section attorney and OCC attorneys over two pattern and
practice violations that had occurred at a bank and its subsidiary. Both
instances involved age discrimination against elderly account holders and
credit seekers. OCC wrote to obtain the Housing and Civil Enforcement
section's consent for OCC to handle the matter independently.

The matter was returned to OCC for administrative resolution.

14 The FDIC referred this matter, citing disparate treatment in the area of
overages. The loans in question were all made through a savings bank's
wholly owned mortgage lending facility. FDIC used documentation from the
state banking department in finalizing its examination report. Specifically,
an analysis of a population of residential loans, excluding home improvement
loans, was performed. The analysis revealed that when overages were imposed,
minority applicants were charged more frequently and at higher rates of
overages than nonminority applicants.

The matter was returned to FDIC for administrative resolution. A settlement
was reached between the bank and the state banking department providing for
compensation to minorities who paid higher overages.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 97 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

15 During an examination, OCC determined that a particular bank had a policy
of requiring college freshmen (except for adults returning to school to
further their education), who apply for credit under the bank's student
credit- card program, to have parental cosigners prior to obtaining a credit
card. After the matter was brought to the attention of the bank's board of
directors, the bank conducted a review and determined that a total of 91
freshman accounts had been approved and required a cosigner. However, no
applicant had been denied credit as a result of the bank's policy. It
appeared that the bank had treated those applicants less favorably than
others because of their age.

The bank had taken steps to remove the requirement of a cosigner from its
credit- card practice and the matter was returned to OCC for administrative
resolution.

16 A private fair housing organization conducted a number of tests of rental
properties operated by a particular company and sent the results of the
tests to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section for review.

Lacked merit- After reviewing the information, the section decided there was
insufficient information to support a pattern or practice claim.

17 The Housing and Civil Enforcement testing program conducted two tests at
a nursing home regarding the treatment of prospective patients/ residents
with asymptomatic HIV. These patients were seeking shortterm nursing home
care for injuries or illnesses unrelated to their HIV status.

Lacked merit- The tests were inconclusive of discrimination.

18 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section reviewed a report from its
testing program of tests performed at a nursing facility. The test summary
discussed the actions of the admissions director, regarding her meetings
with a tester posing as AIDS/ HIV- positive and a tester posing as non-
AIDS/ HIV- positive.

Lacked merit- The tests were inconclusive. 19 The plaintiffs in this matter
brought a civil action to enjoin

the defendant's refusal to allow an assisted living facility for mentally
retarded adults in an area on the same terms and conditions as other
assisted facility living housing occupied by nonmentally disabled or
nonhandicapped persons. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's denial
of a special exception permit for an assisted living facility in a
multifamily hotel zone where assisted living facility use is specifically
allowed with a permit constituted discrimination and violated the FHA.

Settled- The plaintiff was issued the permit for an assisted living
facility.

20 This investigation was prompted by a complaint from a fair housing group
alleging that a particular community's plan to demolish a residential hotel
as a part of a Tax Increment Finance a redevelopment plan was a form of
racial discrimination.

Lacked merit- The investigation disclosed no evidence of discriminatory
impact. The section also concluded that even if the action had a
discriminatory impact, no evidence was found that the community's inclusion
of the hotel site for demolition in the redevelopment plan was in any way a
pretext for unlawful discrimination.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 98 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

21 A nonprivate organization that provides services to developmentally and/
or physically or mentally handicapped individuals of all ages sought prompt
judicial action and injunctive relief against the city for prohibiting the
construction of a group home for six mentally ill disabled adults, on the
basis of an illegal “dispersion ordinance.” The ordinance
mandated that a home for disabled residents could only be located in a
neighborhood that had the least number of previously approved and currently
operating residential facilities. The matter was investigated by the U. S.
Attorney's office as a possible prompt judicial action or pattern or
practice matter.

Settled- As a result of discussions between the city attorney, the attorney
for the provider, and the Assistant U. S. Attorney, the matter was resolved
without litigation.

22 This matter involved an appeal of the decision of a township zoning board
that denied the petitioner's request for a permitted use, special exception
use, or variance to operate a group home on the subject premises. The
petitioner appealed the decision to the court of common pleas, which held
that the petitioner had failed to meet all the criteria of the township
zoning ordinance and concluded that the petitioner had not produced
sufficient evidence to indicate that the proposed use was similar to a
permitted use or qualified for a variance. The court also found that the
ordinance was valid under federal law and had not discriminated against the
handicapped or discriminated on the basis of familial status.

Lacked merit- The facts failed to show that the complainants were members of
a class protected by the FHA.

23 The complainant alleged that African- Americans with section 8 vouchers b
had to wait far longer and jump through more procedural hoops to gain
entrance into an apartment complex than similarly situated Caucasians. Over
several telephone calls, the Housing and Civil Enforcement section attorney
asked the complainant if she could identify similarly situated Caucasians
persons who got into the complex with less waiting. The complainant could
not identify any such persons and repeatedly told the attorney that she
would get back to him with information. She did not provide the information.

Lacked merit- The section was unable to substantiate the complaint.

24 The complainant, a 29- year old male, had applied as a prospective renter
with a trailer- park association. Because there was no one in the
complainant's household who was age 55 or older, and because he was under 45
years, his occupancy did not meet the requirements of the association's
policy, as set forth in the provisions of a prior consent order.
Specifically, in a different case involving the association and the issue of
familial discrimination in housing, the judge signed a consent decree that
included a provision permitting the association to hold itself out as
“housing for older persons” if it met the requirements of the
FHA. The order stated that at least one person in each household must be 55
years or older. This provision also included a requirement that no one in
the household be less than 45 years old.

Lacked merit- The section had insufficient information to warrant taking
further action.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 99 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

25 A man and his social worker met with an assisted living facility's owner/
administrator to apply for housing. Upon seeing him, the owner questioned
the complainant about having AIDS. When the complainant admitted that he was
HIV- positive, the owner denied his admission to the home stating that her
basis for the decision was an unavailability of trained staff who could care
for an HIV resident. The man claimed a violation of his rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the AIDS Omnibus Act, the Rehabilitation
Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

Lacked merit- The investigation did not substantiate allegations.

26 A condominium association had asked a couple to sign a pledge that they
would not have children as a condition of approval of their rental
application.

Lacked merit- No evidence found to support pattern or practice of family
status discrimination. After investigating, the Housing and Civil
Enforcement section found that there was no indication that anyone else had
been asked to sign a similar pledge, and there did not appear to be any
danger of a repetition. At least one family with children lived in the
complex. 27 The complainant, an African- American woman with

children, alleged discrimination against a particular housing authority.
Specifically, the woman claimed that after she was accepted into the
authority's lottery for moderate/ low income home purchases and although she
drew an appropriate number from the lottery that qualified her to purchase a
home, she had not been contacted by the developer.

Lacked merit- A fair housing agency within the state investigated the
complaint and determined that the claims were without merit. The complainant
then began working with the housing authority through the same lottery
process to purchase a home.

28 This matter was referred by the Employment Litigation section, which had
sued a particular city over its police hiring procedures. Specifically, an
African- American police officer hired pursuant to the consent decree in
that case had alleged that the building contractor he had hired to build his
house told him that city officials had pressured the contractor to avoid
doing business with him. This allegation came amidst a dispute over whether
he would be forced to move his family into an apartment within the city
limits, pending completion of the house due to a city rule requiring police
officers to reside within the city 15 months after being hired.

Lacked merit- The section found no evidence to support a pattern or practice
of housing discrimination.

29 A woman alleged that because she was African- American, a man and/ or his
then minor sons had vandalized her house, after they sold it to her.

Lacked merit -An FBI investigation had not produced sufficient information
to connect the individuals to the vandalism and further investigation was
not warranted. 30 Sixteen private lawsuits were filed against a real estate

company alleging various types of discrimination, such as steering and
refusal to rent.

Settled -Preliminary investigation revealed that the underlying private
claims against the company had been settled.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 100 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

31 This zoning matter involved a complaint of housing discrimination filed
with HUD by owners and operators of a group home for 12 developmentally
disabled adults. They alleged the city had used a city- zoning ordinance to
discriminate against residents of the group home. They filed their complaint
after a code inspector contacted them and told them that they needed a
conditional use permit to operate the home (which had been operating for
several years) and that they would be unable to obtain one because the home
was located in an area that had a zoning classification which did not permit
that type of use.

No further action was warranted. After contacting both the complainant and
the City Attorney's Office, the Housing and Civil Enforcement section
learned that the city had not taken enforcement action against the group
home and had no plans to do so. The complainant told the section attorney
that since his contact with the code inspector and filing of the HUD
complaint, he had not heard anything more about the matter.

32 This matter involved a city's closing of three group homes for recovering
substance abusers for fire and safety reasons, allegedly in violation of the
disability provisions of the FHA. The alleged discrimination occurred when
the city issued the complainant “Notices of Code Violations” for
operating rooming houses without permits in singlefamily zoned districts and
for fire safety and building code violations. The city ordered the
complainant to remove residents from the premises and return the houses to
their intended use as single- family dwellings. The complainant filed a
complaint with HUD.

Lacked merit -After a review of the files and communication with the
complainant, the section concluded that this matter was not appropriate for
further action by Justice.

33 This HUD zoning referral concerned allegations of discrimination against
persons of Hispanic origin. The complainants alleged that the city required
them to satisfy certain conditions before issuing a housing permit that it
had not imposed on other similarly situated non- Hispanic whites.

Lacked merit -Further investigation revealed that the allegation could not
be substantiated.

34 HUD referred this matter as a zoning and land use case. The complaint
alleged that a particular city had discriminated against the complainants by
refusing to allow them to operate group homes in the city. The complainants
in state court litigated the issues raised in the HUD complaint. The state
court granted the complainants' motion for summary judgment and held that
the local zoning ordinance did not prohibit the operation of the group homes
in this case.

Settled -The complainants entered into a settlement agreement with the city.
The attorney spoke with the counsel for the complainants, who informed CRT
that he expected the two group homes to be operating within 1 to 2 months.

35 The complainant filed a complaint with HUD alleging that a particular
city had violated the FHA, on the basis of race (African- American),
national origin (Hispanic), familial status, and handicap, by refusing to
rezone an area of property owned by the complainant from industrial use to
multifamily residential use.

Settled- The complainant and the city entered into a settlement agreement in
voluntary resolution. CRT assisted as mediator in the resolution.

36 The complainant, an African- American female, alleged that a particular
county and several of its officials had discriminated against her, on the
basis of race and sex, through its denial of several applications she made
regarding property she owned.

Lacked merit -According to section officials, allegations involving race or
sex would have been difficult to prove.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 101 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

37 A husband and wife filed a complaint with HUD alleging that, because of
their race, a city had discriminated against them in the administration of
its permit and building code enforcement powers in connection with the
couple's attempts to rehabilitate two small apartment buildings they owned
in a redevelopment area. The HUD investigative file indicated that the city
had been enforcing its codes against all landlords in the affected area-
both African- American and Caucasian- citing landlords of both races for
code violations and taking by eminent domain the buildings of both African-
American and Caucasian landlords that were not being rehabilitated.

Lacked merit- The evidence in the HUD file provided little support for the
complainants' allegations. In addition, this referral reached CRT only
several weeks before expiration of the 18- month statute of limitations,
effectively precluding further investigation by CRT.

38 This matter involved the complainant's desire to use a land parcel to
build a mobile home park that would be open to all ages. Initially, the city
restricted use of the parcel to housing for those over 50 years of age.
Because this violated the FHA, the city later raised its age restriction to
55 and older. Before the city had raised the age restriction, the
complainant sued the city in state court, subsequently lost, and failed to
file a timely appeal. The complainant then turned to HUD, and HUD referred
the case to the Housing and Civil Enforcement section.

Other- Based on the attorney's review, any legal action CRT might have taken
would have been limited to injunctive relief and the section would not have
been able to obtain damages if it filed suit. The city had already changed
the age restriction, so a lawsuit would not have accomplished much.

39 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section was asked to participate as an
amicus curiae in this zoning case. The complainant, a developer, alleged
that the respondent had refused to grant reasonable accommodations to its
zoning regulations after such had been requested, thus prohibiting the
development of an assisted living facility for the disabled elderly. The
complainant also alleged that the respondent granted a use variance to a
development for able- bodied seniors in the same zone and 500 feet from the
complainant's proposed development.

Lacked merit- After a review of their pleadings, CRT decided that
participation would not be appropriate.

40 This HUD zoning referral alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap.
Specifically, the complainants, a youth services group and its executive
director, alleged that a city had discriminated, on the basis of handicap,
when it refused to approve a group home for mentally disabled minors.

Other- The section attorney concluded that it would be difficult to prove
that the boys qualified as handicapped, that intentional discrimination took
place based on handicap, and that the city had denied a reasonable
accommodation.

41 This matter was an early referral from HUD in connection with a zoning/
land use complaint alleging that a county had discriminated, on the basis of
national origin, by denying use permits and/ or requests for rezoning to
place additional residential units on vacant land currently zoned for
commercial use. The Housing and Civil Enforcement section reviewed the HUD
file and requested that HUD further investigate a number of issues. In its
last conversation with HUD, the Housing and Civil Enforcement attorney was
informed that HUD had not yet made a final determination, with respect to
the complaint (and a second one making the same allegations) and the
specific issues the section attorney had raised.

No further action was warranted. HUD did not make a formal referral.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 102 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

42 This was a HUD zoning referral filed by a complainant who applied for
permission to construct an “accessory dwelling unit” in which
the family would live while the complainant operated his residence as a
group home. The city delayed permission for a few months, but eventually
granted it.

No further action was warranted. All that was at issue in this action was
damages and there were no important legal issues to be resolved.

43 This matter was referred by a Caucasian woman who alleged that she and
her fiancï¿½, an African- American man, were refused a hotel room at a motel
because they were an interracial couple.

Lacked merit- The FBI conducted a test of the hotel, using an interracial
couple, which did not reveal racial discrimination. Insufficient evidence
existed to pursue a case. Also, the complainants filed a private suit in
federal court. 44 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section received

information alleging that a bar lounge had denied service to a group of
people because the group had included two African- Americans. The incident
was publicized in a local newspaper. The section requested that the FBI
conduct an investigation into the matter. The FBI determined that the bar
had stopped doing business and was for sale.

No further action was warranted. The issue became moot when the
establishment under investigation went out of business.

45 This matter concerned an incident in which the proprietor of a
restaurant/ pool hall refused to serve two young African- American boys.
When the mother of the two boys demanded an explanation, the proprietor
explained that she had mistakenly thought the boys were the same ones who
had previously entered the restaurant/ pool hall and cursed at her.

Lacked merit- A subsequent FBI investigation revealed that while the
restaurant/ pool hall served a primarily Caucasian clientele, it also had
African- American patrons. Further, the investigation did not reveal any
known incidents in which African- Americans had been denied service.

46 This matter concerned a citizen complaint about an incident in a
particular town. The complainants, a Caucasian couple and their adopted 4-
year- old AfricanAmerican son, visited the town as tourists. Upon entering
the town, the husband and son visited some of the stores while the wife
spoke to the mayor's wife. During their conversation, the wife mentioned
that her son was African- American. In response, the mayor's wife said that
the son could not eat in any of the restaurants. Shortly thereafter, the
complainants left town. At no point were the complainants ever denied
service at the town's restaurants.

Lacked merit- Subsequent calls by the attorney to the civil rights entities
and public interest organizations in the area revealed no prior known
incidences of discrimination.

47 This matter involved a display outside a bar that appeared to depict the
lynching of an African- American male. Members of the local NAACP were
“appalled and offended” by the display and requested corrective
action. After the FBI conducted an investigation, the bar management made
assurances that the display was not meant to depict an African- American
being lynched.

No further action was warranted. The bar management agreed to alter the
appearance of the display. The FBI then submitted photographs to the section
to substantiate the changes.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 103 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

48 The plaintiffs requested the Housing and Civil Enforcement section's
participation as an amicus curiae in support of their motion for summary
adjudication on the validity of an apartment complex's tenancy requirements.
Specifically, an elderly couple, residents of a housing complex, had filed
suit against the complex alleging that its practice of inquiring into the
details of an applicant's disability and ability to live independently
violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and HUD regulations.

Lacked merit- The facts of the case were insufficient to support such a
brief.

49 The U. S. Attorney's office asked the Housing and Civil Enforcement
section for advice regarding a case it was handling. Specifically, the U. S.
was the defendant in an action to quiet title to a piece of real property
that had been left by will to a lodge to be used exclusively for
“Masonic” purposes. The U. S. was the residuary legatee under
the will and had a right of reentry if the lodge used the property in
violation of the will. The Masons wanted to build a retirement home on the
property and proposed a settlement of the action that would have given them
a preference for the units in order to meet the requirement that the
property be used exclusively for Masonic purposes. The U. S. Attorney's
office was concerned that this preference might violate the FHA. Before the
section reached a conclusion, the U. S. Attorney's office concluded that a
retirement home that did not have a preference for Masons would still fit
within the provisions of the will.

Settled- They settled the case with the entry of an agreed judgment mooting
any fair housing problems that may have resulted from a preference for
Masons.

50 A woman had filed a complaint with HUD alleging that a particular
apartment complex and its management company discriminated against her and
her family, by making exceptions in enforcing rules against families with
children, who were Jehovah's Witnesses. The complaint also alleged that the
curfew imposed limited her and her children's enjoyment of their dwelling
and that such policies had an adverse impact on families with children.

Settled- The parties and the U. S. Attorney negotiated a presuit out- of-
court settlement agreement, which provided the complainants with $1, 000 and
obligated the respondents to treat families with children the same as other
tenants.

51 The complainants in this case had filed a complaint with HUD alleging
discrimination on the basis of familial status. Specifically, the
complainants alleged that, on two different occasions, they called to
inquire about rental rates of apartments that had been advertised for rent.
Each time, they were informed that the complex did not rent to people with
children.

Settled- An out of court settlement agreement was reached without a lawsuit.
Compensation was paid to the complainant and modifications were made to the
respondent's rental policies.

52 This prompt judicial action, referred by HUD, involved national origin
and familial status discrimination against an Indian male, who claimed that
a co- op refused to sell him a one- bedroom unit because they did not
believe only he and his brother would live there. The co- op indicated that
their experience with Indian families was that they have their extended
families live with them.

Other- The complainant withdrew his complaint. 53 This joint investigation
between the Housing and Civil

Enforcement section and the U. S. Attorney's office was designed to target
noncompliant new construction at the blueprint or building stage.

Other- The section lacked the resources to pursue.

Appendix VI Information on Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Closed
Matters

Page 104 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Description of matter issues Reason for closing

54 The Housing and Civil Enforcement section created a task force to look at
business lending problems nationwide. This file related to a particular
geographic location as part of a larger investigation.

Other- The investigation focused on other locations. a According to CRT, tax
increment finance is a technique used for financing urban renewal. b
According to CRT, section 8 vouchers are HUD subsidies that are issued to
individuals to use as rent payment. To receive these vouchers, which are
generally administered through public housing authorities, individuals must
meet certain income eligibility requirements to qualify for the program.

Source: Review of Housing and Civil Enforcement section closed matter files
and interviews with section officials.

Appendix VII Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 105 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This appendix provides general information on the six cases initiated by the
Voting section in fiscal year 1998 and provides a brief description of each
case and its disposition as of May 2000. The six cases were initiated at the
discretion of the section.

The section participated as amicus curiae in three Shaw- type cases and
participated as plaintiff in three cases. Race was the protected class for
half the cases, national origin was the protected class for one, and the
remaining two cases related to voting protections for military personnel and
civilians residing overseas. Table VII. 1 provides information regarding the
origin, government role, protected class, case type, and discrimination
issue for each of the Voting section cases initiated during fiscal year
1998.

Appendix VII Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 106 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Case name Origin Government role Protected class Case type Discrimination
issues

Charles Stovall, et al., v. City of Cocoa, et al.

Section initiated Amicus curiae Race Participation in Shawtype case

14 th Amendment issue Thomas S. Fouts, et al., v. Sandra Mortham et al., and
Florida State Conference Black Business Association, et al.

Section initiated Amicus curiae Race Participation in Shawtype case

14 th Amendment issue Martin Cromartie, et al., v. James B. Hunt, Jr.
Governor of the State of North Carolina, et al.

Section involved in case from origin when Shaw lawsuit initially brought
against AG Reno

Amicus curiae Race Participation in Shawtype case 14 th Amendment issue

U. S. v. The Board of Elections in the City of New York

DOD referred, and Section initiated for UOCAVA and Section 5 enforcement

Plaintiff U. S. citizens/ military personnel residing overseas

Overseas voters Section 5- related

U. S. citizens/ military personnel residing overseas

U. S. v. State of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State Election Board; and Lance D.
Ward, as Secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board

DOD Plaintiff U. S. citizens/ military personnel residing overseas

Overseas voters U. S. citizens/ military personnel residing overseas

U. S. v. City of Lawrence, Massachusetts; Patricia Dowling, Mayor of
Lawrence; Lawrence Board of Registrars of Voters; Robert Hutton,
Chairperson, James Driscoll, Ronald Martin, members of the Lawrence Board of
Registrars of Voters; and James McGravey, City Clerk and member of the
Lawrence Board of Registrars of Voters.

Citizen Plaintiff National origin Language minority group Voter assistance
Vote dilution

Assistance At- large Bilingual Dilution Method of election Polling place
Redistricting

Source: Review of Voting section case files and interviews with section
officials.

The following provides a brief description of Voting section cases initiated
during fiscal year 1998 and their disposition as of May 2000.

Table VII. 1: Information on the Voting Section's Discretionary Cases

Appendix VII Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 107 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The section participated as an amicus curiae in this case. The case involved
a determination of whether a consent decree designed to achieve compliance
with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as amended, violated the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U. S. Supreme Court
has rendered several opinions- referred to as the Shaw line of cases 1 that
provide guiding principles for interpreting protections under the Equal
Protection Clause in this context. The applicability of the U. S. Supreme
Court guidelines to this case required a comprehensive analysis to determine
whether, as a threshold issue, strict scrutiny applied to the district plan
at issue, and if strict scrutiny did apply, whether the plan was narrowly
tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. The section filed an
amicus brief on June 11, 1999, to convey to the court the U. S. interest in
the effective enforcement of section 2 of the VRA.

Disposition: Closed.

The U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order
in August 1999 wherein it concluded that the districting plan was
constitutional because it was not based predominantly on race, and the court
ordered the consent decree to be entered.

The section filed a motion with the court to participate as amicus curiae in
support of the defendants and defendant- intervenors. In its motion, the
section stated that it had been involved in previous constitutional
challenges to congressional and state legislative districting plans in
Florida, and elsewhere, because those cases, like this one, raised issues
concerning the proper interpretation and application of the VRA.
Specifically, the Department of Justice stated that it had a strong interest
in cases that consider the balance that must be struck between the
requirements of the VRA and the constitutional standard set out in the Shaw
line of cases mentioned previously.

Disposition: Closed.

In April 1999, the court granted the Department of Justice motion to
participate as amicus curiae. However, the section did not file an amicus
brief because the district court dismissed the case on procedural grounds
before the section had an opportunity to present its brief.

1 Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 509 U. S. 630 (1993); and Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II),
517 U. S. 899 (1996). See also Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900 (1995); and
Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952 (1996). (1.) Charles Stovall, et al., v. City

of Cocoa, et al (2.) Thomas S. Fouts, et al., v. Sandra Mortham, et al., and
Florida State Conference, Black Business Association, et al.

Appendix VII Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 108 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The section participated as amicus curiae in this case. The case stems from
the original Shaw v. Reno case that challenged North Carolina's
redistricting. The Voting section has been involved in the North Carolina
cases from the beginning. In this particular case, the Voting section filed
a brief as amicus curiae with the U. S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina in June 1998. The brief addressed the plaintiffs'
contention that the redistricting plan enacted by North Carolina in May
1998, and precleared by the Assistant Attorney General in June 1998,
violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause. The Department of Justice brief stated that the redistricting plan
was not subject to the strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause
because the redistricting plan was not predominantly based on race.

Disposition: Open.

This case is on appeal before the U. S. Supreme Court. The section brought
action pursuant to sSection 5 and 12( d) of the VRA of 1965, as amended, to
enforce rights guaranteed by section 5. 2 The action was also brought to
enforce the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).
The suit sought injunctive relief to ensure that U. S. citizens serving in
the military and nonmilitary voters residing outside the U. S. would be
given a reasonable opportunity to execute and return ballots and therefore,
to have their ballots counted. The complaint stated that state law
previously precleared under section 5 of the VRA required absentee ballots
to be mailed to eligible military absentee voters at least 32 days in
advance of an election. However, New York City had implemented a new voting
procedure that failed to mail absentee ballots to eligible military absentee
voters sufficiently in advance of the election without obtaining
preclearance in violation of section 5. Election officials also violated
UOCAVA when they failed to mail absentee ballots to military voters and
nonmilitary overseas voters sufficiently in advance of the election. The
complaint stated that, as a result, U. S. citizens would be deprived of an
opportunity to vote in the November 3, 1998, general election unless relief
was granted.

2 Under section 5, any change with respect to voting that a specially
covered jurisdiction- or any political subunit within it- makes is legally
unenforceable unless and until the jurisdiction obtains from the federal
court in the District of Columbia or from the Attorney General, a
determination that the change is not discriminatory on account of race,
color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is
unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the Attorney General
objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable. The Voting
section files lawsuits to enjoin the enforcement of voting changes that have
not received the required section 5 preclearance. section 5 of the VRA
applies to nine states in their entirety and one or more counties in seven
other states. (3.) Martin Cromartie, et al., v.

James B. Hunt, Jr. Governor of the State of North Carolina, et al.

(4.) U. S. v. the Board of Elections in the City of New York

Appendix VII Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 109 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters Disposition: Closed.

A settlement agreement was filed with the U. S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, whereby New York City agreed, among other
things, to extend the deadline by 10 calendar days for receipt of ballots
from military and nonmilitary overseas voters.

The section brought action to ensure that U. S. citizens overseas, who were
qualified to vote in the September 15, 1998, federal primary runoff election
of the State of Oklahoma, and who had filed timely applications for absentee
ballots, would have their ballots counted. In the September federal primary
runoff election, voters in the State of Oklahoma were to select or
participate in the selection of nominees for the offices of U. S. Senator
and members of the U. S. House of Representatives. The complaint stated that
election officials in Oklahoma failed to mail absentee ballots to military
and civilian overseas voters on a date sufficiently in advance of September
15th to allow the casting and return of ballots by the state established
deadline. The U. S. sought a court order to require Oklahoma to take
corrective action.

Disposition: Closed.

The section and the defendants entered into a consent decree, whereby the
state agreed, among other things, to extend its deadline by 14 days to allow
for receipt of absentee ballots.

In this case the government brought a lawsuit under section 2 and section
203 of the VRA. The section's complaint alleged (1) that defendants failed
to provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance,
or other materials or information, including ballots, in the Spanish
language; (2) that defendants' failed to appoint and assign Hispanic persons
on the same basis as whites to serve as poll workers; (3) that defendants'
ineffective oral and written bilingual assistance and discriminatory poll
worker appointment and assignment practices and procedures denied Hispanic
citizens, including Spanish- language minority citizens, an equal
opportunity to participate in the electoral process; (4) that the method of
electing the Lawrence City Council diluted the voting strength of Hispanic
citizens; and (5) that the method of electing the Lawrence School Committee
diluted the voting strength of Hispanic citizens.

Disposition: Open/ Closed in parts.

(5.) U. S. v. State of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State Election Board; and Lance D.
Ward, as Secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board

(6.) U. S. v. City of Lawrence, Massachusetts; et al.

Appendix VII Information on Voting Section Cases

Page 110 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

The defendants in this case entered into a settlement agreement of the first
three allegations of the complaint. The settlement agreement was filed with
the court, and the section is to monitor it until December 31, 2003. The
remaining two allegations have been put on hold through a joint motion to
administratively close the case, pending release of the 2000 Census in April
2001.

Appendix VIII Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 111 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

This appendix provides (1) general information on the Voting section's
closed matters that we reviewed and (2) a brief description of each matter
and the reason the matter was closed.

Our review of the Voting section's 22 closed matter files found that 10 of
the closed matters involved section- initiated investigations of potential
discriminatory voting issues, 9 of the closed matters involved the section
monitoring on- going private lawsuits to determine whether they should
participate in a particular case, and 3 of the closed matters involved
monitoring of elections. The origin of the matters varied. The protected
class for most of the closed matters was race. Of the 22 closed matters, 15
of the matters related solely to race discrimination. The 22 closed matters
dealt with a variety of voting issues. Table VIII. 1 provides general
information on each closed matter initiated during fiscal year 1998 that was
closed as of March 2000.

Matter number Section involvement Matter type Matter subject Protected class
Origin

1 Investigation Language minority group

Voter assistance Spanish language minority

Section initiated 2 Investigation NVRA compliance Purge/ reidentification
Not applicable Section initiated

Identified in newspaper articles 3 Investigation Absentee ballot fraud
Interference with vote Race Citizen 4 Investigation Racial imbalance of

poll workers Racial imbalance of poll

workers Race Received periodic

citizen complaints since 1992 5 Investigation Polling place

procedures Voter identification requirements at polls Race Section initiated
6 Investigation Section 5 related State judicial campaign

finance reforms Not applicable Referred by section 5

review 7 Preelection

investigation Voter assistance

Privacy and absentee voting procedures

Assistance Race Section initiated 8 Investigation Section 2 of VRA Dilution
Language minority or

race Section initiated

9 Investigation Section 2 of VRA Dilution Language minority or race

Section initiated 10 Investigation Improper election

procedures Improper election procedures Race Citizen 11 Monitor a private

lawsuit Section 5 related

Section 2 of VRA Annexation

Redistricting Regularly scheduled election cancelled

Race Private attorney 12 Monitor a private

lawsuit Shaw type case Redistricting Race Private attorney

Table VIII. 1: Information on Voting Section's Matters Initiated During
Fiscal Year 1998 That Were Closed as of March 2000

Appendix VIII Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 112 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Section involvement Matter type Matter subject Protected class
Origin

13 Monitor a private lawsuit

Section 2 of VRA, denial of right to vote

Take over of powers of elected school board

Language minority, race (Black and Hispanic)

Citizen 14 Monitor a private

lawsuit Racial gerrymandering Redistricting Race Private attorney 15 Monitor
a private

lawsuit Section 2 of VRA Dilution Race U. S. Attorney Office

16 Monitor a private lawsuit

Section 2 of VRA Annexation Incorporation

Race Citizen complaint 17 Monitor a private

lawsuit Shaw- type case Redistricting Race Private attorney 18 Monitor a
private

lawsuit Shaw- type case Redistricting Race Section initiated

19 Monitor a private lawsuit

Section 2 of VRA Minority language

Dilution Redistricting

Race (Native American )

Private attorney 20 Monitor election Federal observers Voter assistance

Polling place procedures Race Section initiated 21 Monitor election Federal
observers Voter assistance Race Referred from Section

5 and related to private litigation against the same county that the section
was monitoring 22 Monitor election Language minority

group Voter intimidation

Bilingual Interference with vote Spanish language

minority Another case in the section, local official Source: Review of
Voting section closed matter files and interviews with section officials.

Appendix VIII Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 113 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Table VIII. 2 provides a brief description for each Voting section matter
initiated during fiscal year 1998 and the reason that the matter was closed.

Matter number Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

1 Investigation

The section initiated a section 203 language minority group investigation in
several counties in California, one of which was this particular matter. The
investigation assessed the bilingual programs in the particular counties.

Lacked merit- No problem existed. County was found to be providing
assistance to minorities.

2 Investigation

The section investigated purge procedures that appeared to be inconsistent
with the voter cancellation requirements set forth in the NVRA. A county
clerk had purged about 30,000 voters from the county's voter registration
list in August 1997.

Lacked merit- The Voting section investigation did not reveal sufficient
evidence that electors were harmed by the process to justify filing a
lawsuit or continuing the investigation. 3

Investigation The issue in this election investigation was whether absentee

ballots were being used without the permission of the voters. The allegation
involved black voters who were approached by a campaign worker for a white
candidate and asked if they would like to vote in an upcoming circuit judge
election using an absentee ballot. The black voters declined but the
campaign worker requested their names and addresses and the voters provided
the information. Subsequently, the black voters received absentee ballots in
the mail even though they had declined the initial request to vote absentee.
The voting section provided limited observer coverage for the election to
determine whether the white candidate had fraudulently obtained the absentee
ballots of certain black voters.

Lacked merit- The coverage of the election did not reveal evidence of fraud.

4 Investigation

The Voting section initiated a preelection investigation in response to
concerns about election day poll workers in a county. At issue was the
racial balance of poll- worker appointments.

Corrective action- The Director of the Board of Election agreed with
concerns raised and took corrective action.

5 Investigation

The section conducted an election investigation to determine whether a
particular state's photo identification requirements were being administered
in a racially discriminatory manner, or otherwise would have a racial
impact. The concern was that African- Americans generally were not aware of
the new state requirement for voters to provide identification at the polls
or that those who did not have identification could vote after signing an
affidavit.

Lacked merit- The investigation revealed no complaints or evidence that the
identification requirement was applied in a discriminatory manner.

6 Investigation

The section investigation focused on whether they should litigate a section
5 coverage issue against a particular state. The state had submitted for
section 5 review a statutory change that required campaign contribution
disclosures for judicial elections and provided that judges recuse
themselves from individual cases where a conflict might exist. Following
inquiries from the Voting section, the state withdrew its submission on the
grounds that the changes were not covered under section 5. The section was
considering whether section 5 coverage applied or not. At the same time, the
state legislature was considering one or more bills in its 1998 session to
alter the statute that was at issue.

Lacked merit- The section attorney recommended against litigation for the
time being because the state legislature was considering changes to the
statutory provisions in question.

Table VIII. 2: Matters and the Reason the Matter Was Closed

Appendix VIII Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 114 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

7 Preelection Investigation

The section investigated concerns about assistance provided to voters in a
particular county. Specifically, the concerns related to providing voter
privacy, ensuring voters have assistance from whom they choose, and ensuring
that absentee voters did not vote twice.

Corrective action- Official in the voting district acknowledged problems at
the polls in the past and had been proactive in preventing occurrences.
Voting section attorney believed that the official would continue to be
proactive in preventing reoccurring problems in assistance and voter
privacy. 8

Investigation The section investigated whether school board elections in a

particular school district had resulted in polarization and lack of
electoral success for Native- Americans.

Lacked merit- The section found that the facts of a section 2 suit would
show polarization and lack of electoral success, but the school district
could show that Native- American turnout in school elections was poor. Thus,
a potential court assessment could find that the Native- American electorate
was disinclined to participate. The section attorney concluded that a
lawsuit would not be wise. 9

Investigation The section initiated an investigation of a particular school
district

to determine whether the district's at- large elections of school board
members denied or abridged the rights of Native Americans.

Lacked merit- The investigation concluded that it could not establish all
three preconditions established by the Supreme Court to show evidence of
unlawful vote dilution under section 2 of the VRA. a 10

Investigation The section initiated an investigation in response to citizen

complaints about the way in which a particular county calculated the results
of an August 1998 school board election between a white incumbent and a
black challenger. The same citizens also complained about the county's
denial of a requested recount by an unsuccessful black candidate for county
commissioner that was conducted in the same election.

Lacked merit- The investigation found that (1) the recount was consistent
with state law, (2) there was no evidence of a failure or refusal to count
the vote of a person permitted to vote, and (3) the election administrator
complied with state law when he denied the recount request of the black
county commission candidate. 11

Monitor private lawsuit

The section monitored a private lawsuit filed against a particular city with
respect to several actions it had taken. These included a 1994 annexation,
cancellation of a regularly scheduled municipal election in 1996, and a 1997
redistricting plan. The city submitted a section 5 preclearance request to
the Voting section, but it was not submitted in a timely manner and the city
delayed providing requested information.

Court action- The District Court order found in favor of the plaintiff and
ordered the city to hold special city elections. In August 1998, the
Attorney General, through the Voting section, interposed a section 5
objection to the city's submitted voting preclearance request.

12 Monitor private lawsuit

The section monitored a suit that challenged the congressional redistricting
in a particular state. The redistricting was established in 1992 by a three-
judge court order after the Voting section had objected to the state
legislature's plan following a section 5 review. The court- ordered
redistricting plan has been in use ever since. In August 1997 the plaintiff
filed a federal lawsuit challenging the majority black district in the
court- ordered plan alleging racial gerrymandering- that race was the sole
factor in drawing the district lines. The Voting section was considering
intervening on behalf of the defendant or filing an amicus curiae brief. The
court dismissed the case before the Voting section had to take action.

Court action- The District Court dismissed the case recognizing the inherent
impracticability of attempting to modify the Congressional districting plan
through litigation prior to the 2000 Census. All parties recognized that the
2000 Census redistricting plans should address the need to comply with the
laws.

Appendix VIII Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 115 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

13 Monitor private lawsuit

The section monitored a class- action lawsuit brought by parents of children
in a school district against a state government. The parents asked the
Department of Justice to investigate perceived violations of their voting
rights by the state. The state had assumed control of the school district in
1993. The private classaction lawsuit alleged that the state had failed to
manage the school district properly and had failed to provide an adequate
education and a safe environment for its students. New state legislation was
initiated to provide a mechanism to return to an elected school board.

No further action warranted- The section concluded that there was an
insufficient basis upon which to find any violations of VRA.

14 Monitor private lawsuit

The section received pleadings and correspondence from plaintiff's lawyer in
a lawsuit filed against a particular city that challenged the city's
elections scheduled in 1998 and 2000 because they would be affected by a
1991 city redistricting plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the city had
violated the rights of voters by racially polarizing six local election
districts when it packed black electors into two districts and whites and
others in the remaining four.

No further action warranted- Claims alleged did not warrant the Voting
section's participation.

15 Monitor private lawsuit

The section monitored a case filed that challenged the merger of two courts
on the basis that the merger violated section 2 of the VRA. The merger
involved combining a city recorders court and a county circuit court. The
plaintiffs alleged that merging the two courts and requiring all judges of
the merged court to be elected on a countywide basis would dilute the voting
strength of AfricanAmericans. The plaintiffs based their dilution prediction
on African- American populations of 76 percent in the city and 40 percent in
the county.

Court action- District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant
(state), finding that the plaintiffs failed to show a violation of section
2.

16 Monitor private lawsuit

The section monitored a case that involved the redefining of a particular
town's boundaries. In 1998, the section initiated an investigation to
further investigate charges that the incorporation of the town was racially
motivated.

No further action warranted- The section found no evidence of racial
motivation.

17 Monitor private lawsuit

The section monitored a case that challenged the reapportionment of
districts in a particular county following the 1990 census. The county was
covered under section 5 and was required to submit the changes to the Voting
section for preclearance. In an effort to gain preclearance from Justice,
the county council felt compelled to create a new, additional majority
minority district. The complaint alleged that the council used race as a
predominant factor in deciding district lines.

Court action- The District Court decision found the redistricting plan
created and imposed by the county to be unconstitutional because it
impermissibly separated voters into different districts on the basis of
race, and that separation lacked sufficient justification. The county was
required to develop a new plan and file the revised plan with the court and
submit it to Justice for preclearance. 18

Monitor private lawsuit

The section considered amicus curiae participation in this case. The
plaintiff challenged a state's congressional redistricting plan. The section
was interested in the outcome to ensure that the state satisfied section 2
interest by maintaining a majority minority congressional district in which
African- Americans had an equal opportunity to elect their preferred
candidate.

Court action- Judge dismissed litigation based on state motion.

Appendix VIII Information on Voting Section Closed Matters

Page 116 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Matter number Type of matter Description of matter Reason for closing

19 Monitor private lawsuit

The section monitored this case because the section had section 2
investigations that could be impacted by the decision in this ongoing case
against a particular state. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive
relief against the continued use of the House and Senate districts in the
state on the grounds that they diluted the voting strength of Native-
Americans.

Court action- The case was decided in favor of the defendants.

20 Monitor election

Federal observers were assigned to cover a municipal election in June 1997.
The observers were assigned to cover the election because of prior problems
with affidavit ballots and voter assistance in an election that took place
in May 1997.

No further action warranted- The June 1997 observation concluded that the
election had gone smoothly and poll workers provided proper assistance. 21

Monitor election Federal observers were to be assigned to monitor the
treatment

of African- American voters in a municipal election. The monitoring was to
address concerns about voter assistance procedures. Federal observers were
to ensure that black voters in need of help at the polls were not denied
assistance and that they would receive assistance from the person of their
choice, as guaranteed under the VRA.

No further action warranted- Election was cancelled.

22 Monitor election

The Voting section monitored the primary election in a county to determine
whether county officials were complying with the language minority group
assistance requirements of the VRA, as amended. In addition, observers
monitored polling place activities and absentee ballot processing procedures
to gather information regarding challenges to Hispanic voters, which might
rise to the level of intimidation.

No further action warranted- The section monitored the election for
compliance and found the county to be in compliance

a The U. S. Supreme Court, in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986),
established three preconditions a plaintiff must establish in order to prove
unlawful vote dilution. Under section 2 of the VRA, the plaintiffs must
demonstrate that (1) the minority group is significantly large and
geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single- member
district, (2) the minority group is politically cohesive, and (3) the white
majority votes significantly as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the
minority- preferred candidate.

Source: Review of Voting section closed matter files and interviews with
section officials.

Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 117 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Laurie Ekstrand or William Jenkins, (202) 512- 8777 In addition to those
named above, Linda Watson, Brenda Rabinowitz, Lou V. B. Smith, Kristen
Plungas, Bonita Vines, and Jan Montgomery made key contributions to this
report. GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

Page 118 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Page 119 GAO/ GGD- 00- 192 Civil Rights Division's Case Selection and Closed
Matters

Ordering Copies of GAOReports The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to
the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit
cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4 th St. NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) U. S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using fax number
(202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send e- mail message with “info” in the
body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www.
gao. gov Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact
GAO FraudNET use: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated
answering system)

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100

(182093)
*** End of document. ***