## Facts

- New York City used facially neutral written examinations for entry-level NYPD hiring, appointing candidates strictly by rank order of test scores.
- Black and Hispanic applicants who passed were appointed later than similarly situated white applicants because of rank-order selection, reducing their seniority and related employment benefits.
- The City later implemented layoffs under a “last-hired, first-fired” policy, disproportionately affecting minority officers with lower seniority.
- Minority officers and organizations brought a class action alleging that the testing-linked layoffs violated, among other provisions, Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The municipal respondents administered programs receiving federal financial assistance, bringing the dispute within Title VI’s coverage.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VI permits liability based on discriminatory effect (disparate impact) without proof of discriminatory intent, including through valid regulations.
2. Whether private plaintiffs may sue to enforce Title VI and its implementing regulations.
3. Whether, for unintentional disparate-impact violations, private plaintiffs may obtain compensatory remedies (e.g., backpay and constructive seniority) or are limited to injunctive/noncompensatory relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment denying Title VI compensatory relief.
- A controlling plurality concluded that discriminatory intent is not a required element for establishing a Title VI violation through valid regulations reaching disparate impact.
- The Court nonetheless treated compensatory remedies for unintentional disparate-impact violations as unavailable in a private action under Title VI.
- The District Court’s Title VI remedies—constructive seniority and associated backpay/benefits—were deemed compensatory and therefore improper for unintentional violations.
- The Title VII relief affirmed below was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Title VI’s administrative enforcement scheme permits regulations that prohibit practices producing unjustified discriminatory effects in federally funded programs.
- Proof of discriminatory effect can establish regulatory noncompliance under Title VI even without proof of discriminatory intent.
- In private litigation, compensatory relief (including constructive seniority and backpay) generally requires intentional discrimination; for unintentional disparate-impact violations, relief is limited to injunctive or other noncompensatory remedies.
- In a fragmented decision, the controlling result may rest on the overlap among separate opinions; here, sufficient agreement existed to bar the requested compensatory Title VI relief.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted Title VI disparate-impact regulations to reach facially neutral practices with discriminatory effects, but held that private plaintiffs could not recover compensatory remedies such as constructive seniority and backpay for unintentional violations, leaving primarily equitable relief absent proof of intentional discrimination.


Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of N.Y.C., 463 U.S. 582 (1983)