C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 106—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE › Subpart C—Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Admission and Recruitment Prohibited

34 C.F.R. § 106.23

Recruitment

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Nondiscriminatory recruitment. A recipient to which this subpart applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in the recruitment and admission of students. A recipient may be required to undertake additional recruitment efforts for one sex as remedial action pursuant to § 106.3(a), and may choose to undertake such efforts as affirmative action pursuant to § 106.3(b).

(b) Recruitment at certain institutions. A recipient to which this subpart applies shall not recruit primarily or exclusively at educational institutions, schools or entities which admit as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if such actions have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of this subpart.

[45 FR 30955, May 9, 1980, as amended at 85 FR 30579, May 19, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1982–2016 · leading case: Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the Univ. of Michigan, 539 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the Univ. of Michigan, 539 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 3× “§ 1681 ; 34 C.F.R. § 106.23 . Based on these claims, the Coalition plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin permanently the implementation of Proposal 2 at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University.”
Manley v. Texas S. Univ., 107 F. Supp. 3d 712 (S.D. Tex. 2015). “shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.”
Reach Academy for Boys & Girls, Inc. v. Delaware Dep't of Educ., 8 F. Supp. 3d 574 (D. Del. 2014). “4 This is the likely result, due to the unique set of circumstances presented here, notwithstanding 34 C.F.R. § 106.23 (c)(2), which contemplates (at least in some circumstances) that there need not be parity between the number of all-boys charter schools and the number of…”
Hillsdale Coll. v. Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 696 F.2d 418 (6th Cir. 1982). “The regulations specify, in part, the high schools where Hillsdale may recruit students for admission ( 34 C.F.R. § 106.23 ), the literature that Hillsdale may provide to the students about the college ( 34 C.”
Coalition to Def. Aff. Act. v. REGENTS OF U OF MI., 539 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 3× “§ 1681 ; 34 C.F.R. § 106.23 . Based on these claims, the Coalition plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin permanently the implementation of Proposal 2 at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University.”
Holloway v. Scott (D.D.C. 2016). “at 5 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 106.23 (a)). “The threshold issue for any Title IX claim is whether there has been discrimination based on sex.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.