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 A—Introduction

34 C.F.R. § 106.4

Assurance required

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

(a) General. Every application for Federal financial assistance shall as condition of its approval contain or be accompanied by an assurance from the applicant or recipient, satisfactory to the Assistant Secretary, that the education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which this part applies will be operated in compliance with this part. An assurance of compliance with this part shall not be satisfactory to the Assistant Secretary if the applicant or recipient to whom such assurance applies fails to commit itself to take whatever remedial action is necessary in accordance with § 106.3(a) to eliminate existing discrimination on the basis of sex or to eliminate the effects of past discrimination whether occurring prior or subsequent to the submission to the Assistant Secretary of such assurance.

(b) Duration of obligation. (1) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide real property or structures thereon, such assurance shall obligate the recipient or, in the case of a subsequent transfer, the transferee, for the period during which the real property or structures are used to provide an education program or activity.

(2) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide personal property, such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.

(3) In all other cases such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended.

(c) Form. The Director will specify the form of the assurances required by paragraph (a) of this section and the extent to which such assurances will be required of the applicant's or recipient's subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, or successors in interest.

[45 FR 30955, May 9, 1980, as amended at 45 FR 86298, Dec. 30, 1980; 65 FR 68056, Nov. 13, 2000; 85 FR 30579, May 19, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Grove City College v. Bell
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grove City College v. Bell (1984) scotus · cites it 6× “2 (g)(1), (h) (1982), [6] and, in July 1977, it requested that the College execute the Assurance of Compliance required by 34 CFR § 106.4 (1983). If Grove City had signed the Assurance, it would have agreed to "[c]omply, to the extent applicable to it, with Title IX.”
Mansourian v. Regents of University of California (2010) ca9 “UCD and other funding recipients therefore have an affirmative obligation to ensure compliance with at least one prong of the three-part effective accommodation test. The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) further requires federally funded universities to report to the…”
Grove City College v. Bell (1982) ca3 · cites it 4× “3 Pursuant to its regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.4 (a), the Department réquires each recipient of federal aid to file an Assurance of Compliance as a means of securing adherence to Title IX.”
Dkt Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for International Development, Dkt Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for International Devel (1989) cadc “Regulations promulgated under that section forbade aid to educational programs which did not execute an “Assurance of Compliance” required by 34 C.F.R. § 106.4 (1983). Grove City College did not discriminate, did not receive any direct federal aid, but on religious and other…”
Hillsdale College v. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1982) ca6 · cites it 2× “2 HEW sought an order terminating the financial assistance Hillsdale College students receive through various federal student loan and grant programs because of Hillsdale’s refusal to file HEW Form 639A (“Assurance of Compliance with Title IX Regulations”) as required by 34…”
Steshenko v. Gayrard (2014) cand “See 34 C.F.R. § 106.4 (Title IX); 34 C.F.R. § 100.”
Bolon v. Rolla Public Schools (1996) moed “For these and other reasons, the Court agrees that "the risk of harm is better placed on a school district than on a young student.”
Minor v. Northville Public Schools (1985) mied “34 C.F.R. § 106.4 (1980). Enforcement of these regulations, which included regulations prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex, was vested, pursuant to § 902 of the act, with the agency extending federal financial assistance.”
University of Richmond v. Bell (1982) vaed “A(l)); 34 C.F.R. § 106.4 . 7 Defendants concede that plaintiff’s obligation to comply with the assurances extends only so far as the valid regulatory authority of the ED.”
Center for Bio. Diversity v. Deb Haaland (2023) ca9 “8 In College Sports Council, the subsection 553(e) petition at issue was titled, “Petition To Repeal and Amend Guidance Issued Under 34 C.F.R. § 106.4 (c) Concerning Equal Athletic Opportunity.”
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California (2010) ca9 “UCD and other funding recipients therefore have an affirmative obligation to ensure compliance with at least one prong of the three-part effective accommodation test. The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) further requires federally funded universities to report to the…”
Steshenko v. Albee (2014) cand “See 34 C.F.R. § 106.4 (Title IX); 34 C.F.R. § 100.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.