Authority of USDA to Award Monetary Relief for Discrimination, 94-9
| Citation | 18 Op. O.L.C. 52 |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | 94-9 |
| Court | Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice |
| Parties | Authority of USDA to Award Monetary Relief for Discrimination |
The Department of Agriculture has authority to award monetary relief, attorneys' fees, and costs to a person who has been discriminated against in a program conducted by USDA if a court could award such relief in an action by the aggrieved person That question is controlled by whether the anti-discrimination provisions of the applicable civil rights statute apply to federal agencies, and if so, whether the statute waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against imposition of such relief.
The anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not apply to federal agencies. Some anti-discrimination provisions in each of the other civil rights statutes addressed in the opinion do apply to federal agencies, but only one of the statutes, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, waives sovereign immunity with respect to monetary relief, authorizing imposition of compensatory damages. The Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act do not waive immunity against monetary relief Attorneys' fees and costs may be awarded pursuant to the waiver of immunity contained in the Equal Access to Justice Act
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREThis memorandum responds to your request for our opinion concerning the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to award damages and other forms of monetary relief attorneys' fees, and costs to individuals who the Department of Agriculture ("USDA") has determined have been discriminated against as applicants for, or participants in, USDA conducted programs.[1] You have informed us that the statutes authorizing these programs do not authorize such relief and have asked our opinion whether various civil rights statutes authorize the Secretary to afford such relief.
The Secretary has authority to award monetary relief attorneys' fees, and costs if a court could award such relief in an action by the aggrieved person. Accordingly, the dispositive questions regarding your inquiry are whether the antidiscrimination provisions of the individual civil rights statutes apply to federal agencies, and if so, whether the statutes waive the sovereign immunity of the United States against imposition of such relief. In considering your request, we have reviewed Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. With respect to attorneys' fees and costs, we have also reviewed the Equal Access to Justice Act. [ 53]
We conclude that the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI do not apply to federal agencies. Some anti-discrimination provisions in each of the other statutes that we reviewed do apply to federal agencies, but only one of the statutes, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, waives sovereign immunity with respect to monetary relief, authorizing imposition of compensatory damages. The Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act do not waive immunity against monetary relief. Attorneys' fees and costs may be awarded pursuant to the waiver of immunity contained in the Equal Access to Justice Act.
A federal agency must spend its funds only on the objects for which they were appropriated. 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a). Consistent with this requirement, [2] appropriations law provides that agencies have authority to provide for monetary relief in a voluntary settlement of a discrimination claim only if the agency would be subject to such relief in a court action regarding such discrimination brought by the aggrieved person.
This principle has been applied in a number of Comptroller General opinions. For example, the Comptroller General has concluded that agencies have the authority to settle administrative complaints of employment discrimination by awarding back pay because such monetary relief is available in a court proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"); however, "[t]he award may not provide for compensatory or punitive damages as they are not permitted under Title VII." Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 62 Comp. Gen. 239, 244-45 (1983).[3] The Comptroller General has come to the same conclusion with respect to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). Albert D. Parker, 64 Comp. Gen. 349, 352 (1985). The Comptroller General has applied this appropriations law limitation directly to USDA. See Nina R. Mathews, B-237615, 1990 WL 278216, at 1 (C.G. June 4, 1990) ().[4] [ 54]
Therefore, the question you have raised regarding the Secretary's authority to award monetary relief in administrative proceedings turns on whether the various civil rights statutes authorize the award of such relief against federal agencies in a court proceeding. That question requires a two-step analysis: whether federal agencies are subject to the discrimination prohibitions of the statute; and, if so, whether the statute waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against monetary relief. See United States Dep't of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 613-14 (1992) (Energy Department conceded it was subject to procedural requirements of Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and liable for coercive fines under those statutes; therefore, only question presented was whether the statutes waived sovereign immunity from liability for punitive fines).[5]
The first step of the analysis requires application of conventional standards of statutory interpretation. The second step, however, requires application of a special, "unequivocal expression" interpretive standard that the Supreme Court has established to govern determinations as to whether a statute waives sovereign immunity — either the inherent constitutional immunity of the federal government or the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States:
Waivers of the Government's sovereign immunity, to be effective, must be unequivocally expressed. . . . [T]he Government's consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign, and not enlargefd] beyond what the language requires .... As in the Eleventh Amendment context, the unequivocal expression of elimination of sovereign immunity that we insist upon is an expression in statutory text. If clarity does not exist there, it cannot be supplied by a committee report.
United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-37 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, "[t]here is no doubt that waivers of federal sovereign immunity must be 'unequivocally expressed' in the statutory text." United States v. Idaho, ex rel. Dir., Dep't. of Water Resources, 508 U.S. 1, 6 (1993).
The methodology required by this "unequivocal expression" standard may be illustrated by the decision in Nordic Village. Seven Justices joined in an opinion for the Court that found that although a provision of the Bankruptcy Code could be [ 55] read to effect a waiver of sovereign immunity for monetary claims against the United States by a bankruptcy trustee, the provision was "susceptible of at least two interpretations that do not authorize monetary relief." 503 U.S. at 34. The Court made no effort to apply traditional rules of statutory construction to determine which was the better reading of the provision and simply concluded:
The foregoing [two alternative interpretations] are assuredly not the only readings of [the provision], but they are plausible ones — which is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not "unambiguous" and therefore should not be adopted.
Id. at 37.[6] The Court held that sovereign immunity against imposition of monetary relief had not been waived.
In consultation with the Civil and Civil Rights Divisions of the Department of Justice, and having received and considered submissions from various interested governmental and nongovernmental parties, [7] we have identified four civil rights statutes that may apply to USDA programs: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. We will discuss Title VI first. That analysis presents the least difficulty, because it is well established that the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI do not apply to federal agencies and thus there is no need to discuss whether sovereign immunity has been waived. The remaining three statutes require more discussion. The first step of the analysis is satisfied in each case because federal agencies are covered by the anti-discrimination provisions of each statute, at least to some extent. Applying the "unequivocal expression" standard required under the second step, however, we have concluded that sovereign immunity has been waived with respect to monetary relief by only one of the statutes: the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The final section of the memorandum discusses attorneys' fees and costs.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be [ 56] subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." By its terms this anti-discrimination provision...
To continue reading
Request your trial