34 C.F.R. § 106.3
Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation
(a) Remedial action. If the Assistant Secretary finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of sex in an education program or activity under this part, or otherwise violated this part, such recipient must take such remedial action as the Assistant Secretary deems necessary to remedy the violation, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1682.
(b) Affirmative action. In the absence of a finding of discrimination on the basis of sex in an education program or activity, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to alter any affirmative action obligations which a recipient may have under Executive Order 11246.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ. & Minn. State Colls. & Universities
Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ. & Minn. State Colls. & Universities (2018)
“at 8 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 ).) This statement is just a summary of the requirements of 34 C.”
Amy Cohen v. Brown University (1996)
“In addition, remedial action and voluntary affirmative action to overcome the effects of gender discrimination are permitted under the Title IX regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 , and by the Policy Interpretation, 44 Fed.”
Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1996)
“3 (b)(6)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (a) (“[i]f the Assistant Secretary finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of sex .”
Doe v. Russell Cnty. Sch. Bd. (2018)
“Addressing cases of student-on-student sexual violence, OCR has stated that "[i]n addition to counseling or taking disciplinary action against the harasser, effective corrective action may require remedies for the complainant, as well as changes to the school's overall services…”
Chang v. University of Rhode Island (1985)
“See 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (1984). The effective date of the EEOA was, as noted above, March 24, 1972.”
Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania (1993)
“We believe that the pre-1991 status of women’s proportionality requires remedial action to correct the discriminatory effects of IUP’s policies, 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (c). The 1991 cuts simply exacerbated an already existing Title IX violation.”
Craik v. Minnesota State University Board (1984)
“79, and universities were not even required to complete self-evaluations of policies and practices in this area until one year from March 24, 1972, the effective date of the Education Amendments of 1972, see 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (c) (1983). One of the requirements of the 1972…”
Myers v. Simpson (2011)
“” 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (b). *953 Likewise, following notice and comment for implementing regulations promulgated pursuant to Title IX, the Department of Justice, alongside other federal agencies, addressed the “viability of single-sex programs such as an educational science program…”
Gonyo v. Drake University (1995)
“” See Policy Interpretation at 71,415; see also 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (explicitly allowing voluntary affirmative action under Title DC).”
J T v. Uplift Education (2023)
“(alterations in original) (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (a)).12 The Court concluded that “[i]t would be unsound .”
Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences v. New York University Law Review (2020)
“The Department of Education has interpreted Title VI and Title IX, in 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (b) and § 100.3(b)(6)(ii) respectively, to permit universities to take affirmative action to “overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation therein by persons” of…”
Johns v. University of South Carolina (2022)
“at 288 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 106.3 (a)). “An institution can be held liable for a Title IX violation only if ‘an official who .”
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.