23 U.S.C. § 324

Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 23 CasesGoogle Scholar

No person shall on the ground of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal assistance under this title or carried on under this title. This provision will be enforced through agency provisions and rules similar to those already established, with respect to racial and other discrimination, under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, this remedy is not exclusive and will not prejudice or cut off any other legal remedies available to a discriminatee.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). · cites it 2× “§140 (a) (Federal-Aid Highways; Nondiscrimination)  23 U. S. C. §324 (Highways; Prohibition of Dis- crimination on the Basis of Sex)  25 U.”

BBF Eng'g Servs., PC v. State of Mich., 573 F. App'x 377 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “In the face of this plain language, persuasive authority from our sister circuits, and confirming dicta from the Supreme Court, BBF attempts to read 23 U.S.C. § 324 — a wholly separate statute that addresses gender discrimination in federally funded contracts — in a manner that…”

M. C. West, Inc. v. Lewis, 522 F. Supp. 338 (M.D. Tenn. 1981). · cites it 2× “The only statute that pertains to the highway program is 23 U.S.C. § 324 , but it merely prohibits discrimination on account of sex.”

(PS) Reedy v. State of California (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 7× “Disparate Treatment [ 23 U.S.C. § 324 ] 15 6. Disparate Impact [ 23 U.”

Rasins Landscape & Assocs., Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Transp., 528 F. App'x 441 (6th Cir. 2013). “The Department also requires that prime contractors enter into a contract with the Department that mandates compliance with 23 U.S.C. § 324 , which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and that prime contractors post bond for payments owed to subcontractors by obtaining…”

Everett v. Georgia Dep't of Transp. (N.D. Ga. 2024). “Turning to the Title VI and 23 U.S.C. § 324 claims, the Plaintiffs have made no allegation that RMD received federal funds.”

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.