C.F.R. » Title 49 » PART 21—NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY-ASSISTED PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—EFFECTUATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

49 C.F.R. § 21.1

Purpose

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

The purpose of this part is to effectuate the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter referred to as the Act) to the end that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood Organizations v. Coleman
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood Organizations v. Coleman (1977) paed · cites it 2× “§ 1981 ; 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 , et seq.; the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Act of 1970, 71 P.”
Ecos, Inc. v. Brinegar (1987) ncmd · cites it 3× “Crest Street filed this administrative complaint, with the USDOT, pursuant to Department of Transportation regulations titled in part “Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” See 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 et seq. The Department of Transportation specifically established…”
Erie CPR v. PA Dep't of Transp. (2018) pawd “See 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 et seq. As interpreted by Plaintiffs, these regulations "specifically prohibit a recipient of [federal] financial assistance from using criteria or methods of administering its program which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because…”
National Ass'n v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc. (1978) ded “of State); 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 et seq. (Dept. of Transportation).”
People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Cook Development Co. (1995) illappct “” ( 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 (1994).) The stated purpose of part 23 is "to carry out the Department of Transportation’s policy of supporting the fullest possible participation of firms owned and controlled by minorities and women, (MBEs) in Department of Transportation programs.”
South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2001) njd “9 and 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 et seq.). 165. As the Third Circuit recently noted, “[although the Supreme Court has not yet spoken on the issue, the courts of *483 appeal have generally agreed that the parties’ respective burdens in a Title VI case should follow those developed in Title…”
People Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. v. COOK DEV. CO. (1995) illappct “" ( 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 (1994).) The stated purpose of part 23 is "to carry out the Department of Transportation's policy of supporting the fullest possible participation of firms owned and controlled by minorities and women, (MBEs) in Department of Transportation programs.”
Crest Street Community Council, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation (1984) ncmd “49 C.F.R. § 21.1 . The Administrative Complaint sought prohibition of further planning or construction of the freeway by NCDOT and rejection by USDOT of the NCDOT Environmental Impact Statement until the freeway project was brought into compliance with applicable laws.”
S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Fulton County (1987) gand “The Title VI regulations, which were in force in their present form at the time § 30 of the AADA was adopted in 1976 and are now found at 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 et seq., explicitly condone race conscious remedies: This part does not prohibit the consideration of race, color, or…”
Crest Street Community Council, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation (1985) ca4 “Moreover, the purpose of the regulations under which plaintiffs filed their *1030 administrative complaint “is to effectuate the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 , so we have no hesitancy in concluding that plaintiffs meet the literal…”
West v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (2025) cand “26 275, 293 (stating that there is no right of action under regulations promulgated under § 27 602); 49 C.F.R. § 21.1 et seq. The Court now focuses on Plaintiff’s Title VI, Section 1 To state a claim for Title VI retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) participation in a 2…”
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.