31 U.S.C. § 6711

Prohibited discrimination

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)General Prohibition.—No person in the United States shall be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under, a program or activity of a unit of general local government because of race, color, national origin, or sex if the government receives a payment under this chapter.(b)Additional Prohibitions.—The following prohibitions and exemptions also apply to a program or activity of a unit of general local government if the government receives a payment under this chapter:(1) A prohibition against discrimination because of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.(2) A prohibition against discrimination against an otherwise qualified handicapped individual under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.(3) A prohibition against discrimination because of religion, or an exemption from that prohibition, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or title VIII of the Act of April 11, 1968 (popularly known as the Civil Rights Act of 1968).(c)Limitations on Applicability of Prohibitions.—Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply if the government shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that a payment received under this chapter is not used to pay for any part of the program or activity with respect to which the allegation of discrimination is made.(d)Investigation Agreements.—The Secretary shall try to make agreements with heads of agencies of the United States Government and State agencies to investigate noncompliance with this section. An agreement shall—(1) describe the cooperative efforts to be taken (including sharing civil rights enforcement personnel and resources) to obtain compliance with this section; and(2) provide for notifying immediately the Secretary of actions brought by the United States Government or State agencies against a unit of general local government alleging a violation of a civil rights law or a regulation prescribed under a civil rights law.(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title III, § 31001(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1874.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is title III of Pub. L. 94–135, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 728, which is classified generally to chapter 76 (§ 6101 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6101 of Title 42 and Tables.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), is classified to section 794 of Title 29, Labor.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241, which is classified principally to subchapters II to IX (§ 2000a et seq.) of chapter 21 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of Title 42 and Tables.

Title VIII of the Act of April 11, 1968, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), is title VIII of Pub. L. 90–284, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 81, known as the Fair Housing Act, which is classified principally to subchapter I (§ 3601 et seq.) of chapter 45 of Title 42. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3601 of Title 42 and Tables.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 6711, Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1021; Pub. L. 98–185, § 4, Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1309, related to State variation of local government allocations, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–272, title XIV, § 14001(a)(1), (e), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 327, 329, eff. Oct. 18, 1986.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · 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× “§732 (f ) (Government Accountability Office; Personnel Management System)  31 U. S. C. §6711 (Federal Payments; Prohib- ited Discrimination)  31 U.”

Graboski v. Guiliani, 937 F. Supp. 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “19 31 U.S.C. § 6711 (b) (1996 Supp.). Plaintiffs provide no indication that they have exhausted their administrative remedies for that claim as is required under 31 U.”

Emberton v. San Francisco City Gov't (N.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 5× “1 (“Bane Act”); discrimination claims pursuant to Title II of 2 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 31 U.S.C. § 6711 (a), and Cal. Civ. Code § 51 (b) (the “Unruh Act”); 3 violation of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.”

Sharifi v. East Windsor Twp. (D.N.J. 2024). · cites it 5× “§ 2000a-2 and 31 U.S.C. § 6711 . GAC □ 24~38.)* Plaintiff also asserts a claim for an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Burton v. Chicago Transit Auth. (N.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 3× “Revenue Sharing Act Finally, Burton contends that defendants violated the Revenue Sharing Act, 31 U.S.C. § 6711 (a). [63] at 14. The Revenue Sharing Act states, “No person in the United States shall be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to…”

Mamyrova v. Neighborhood Ass'n for Inter-Cultural Affairs, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2024). · cites it 3× “She says that these acts violated her rights under 31 U.S.C. § 6711 and Chapter 21 of Title 42.”

Barone v. Ford (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 3× “31 U.S.C. § 6711 14 Claim 10 15 Plaintiff alleges that based on claims 1-9, Judge Marquis, Aaron Ford, and several Jane 16 and John Does have violated 42 U.”

Ben Yahweh v. Bldg. Neighborhoods of Youngstown (N.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 3× “He alleges Defendant terminated his services, giving Plaintiff “a negative and false evaluation .. . to justify their acts of past business grievances.”

Emberton v. San Francisco City Gov't (N.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 2× “1 (“Bane Act”); discrimination claims pursuant to Title II of 6 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 31 U.S.C. § 6711 (a), and Cal. Civ. Code § 51 (b) (the “Unruh Act”); 7 violation of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.”

Jackson v. Rosen (E.D. Pa. 2020). · cites it 2× “) Jackson also brings federal statutory claims under 31 U.S.C. § 6711 , 51 U.S.C. § 20137 , and 18 U.”

Taylor (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “12-2-3,” 31 U.S.C. § 6711 , and A.R.S. § 41-1463 arguing that 14 Plaintiff failed to plead membership in a protected class or having a disability, Plaintiff 15 failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and Plaintiff alleges only legal conclusions (Doc.”

Tocarchick v. Fouts (E.D. Mich. 2022). “Plaintiff also cites 31 U.S.C. § 6711 , which prohibits discrimination in “a program or activity of a unit of general local government because of [disability], race, color, national origin, or sex if the government receives a payment under” Chapter 67 of Title 31.”

Show all 19 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.