Ssa medicare medicaid expansion of rehab programs

– SSA = Medicare + Medicaid; expansion of rehab programs (grants to states for “special
education services”  no entitlement, but giving $$$ IF they provide such services)
 1968 – Architectural Barriers Act
 1972 – Supplemental Security Income
 1988 – FHA Amendments Act  added disability
Two advances in definition of ‘equal treatment’ important
 (1) similarly-situated or similarly-qualified individuals ought to be treated
in same manner irrespective of race, color, national origin, sex
 McDonnel Douglas v. Green (1973)
 (2) identical treatment, in some instances, is not equal treatment
 Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) – concluded consistent
application to African American + white job applicants of facially-
neutral selection criteria, even absent intent to discriminate, could
violate Title VII b/c of disparate impact
 Adopted principle that consistent application of neutral criteria isn’t
inherently sufficient to satisfy Title VII
o CJ Burger – articulated the test that’s the central doctrine to
employment discrimination law

o “Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices
that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. Good
intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem
employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as
built-in headwinds for minority groups and are unrelated to
measuring job capability”
 Legal treatment of students who’re non-English speakers under Civil Rights law = set stage for
development of ‘reasonable accommodations’ concept under disability law
o 1970: U.S. Dep’t of Health, Education, + Welfare issued Memo interpretive guidance
for public elementary + secondary schools re: non-English speaking minority children
 Schools violated Title VI if provided non-English speaking language-minority
groups w/ just same services as their non-minority, English-speaking peers
 Schools must offer special programs or combine w/ bilingual education
o Validity of Memo directly tested in Lau v. Nichols (1974)
 1800 students of Chinese ancestry in San Francisco School District didn’t speak
English, received no supplemental services to learn English
 District court + 9 th Cir. concurred w/ School District that was providing children
w/ same services as others, wasn’t violating 14 th Amend. or Title VI
 SCOTUS, in set of concurring opinions, declined to reach 14
th
Amend. question
 BUT concluded Dep’ts Title VI regulation + interpretations w/ regard to
non-English speaking children were valid
 School District not in compliance w/ requirements
 Justice Douglas: “no equality of treatment merely by providing students
w/ the same facilities, books, teachers, etc.,
o Students who don’t understand English effectively foreclosed
from any meaningful education
o Basic English skills are at core of what public schools teach
o Seems obvious that Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer
benefits than English-speaking majority from respondents’
school system which denies them meaningful opportunity to
participate in educational program = discrimination
