# Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of New York City

> Supreme Court of the United States · July 1, 1983 · 463 U.S. 582

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429331

## Case

- **Full name:** GUARDIANS ASSOCIATION Et Al. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** July 1, 1983
- **Citations:** 463 U.S. 582; 51 U.S.L.W. 5105; 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,695; 32 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 250; 103 S. Ct. 3221; 77 L. Ed. 2d 866; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 101
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rehnquist
- **Judges:** White, Powell, O'Connor, Marshall, Stevens, Rehnquist, Brennan, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 496 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429331

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that under Ti- tie VI of the Civil Rights Act, which has similar enforcement language to FERPA, Congress regarded termination of funds as “ ‘a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,’ because ‘cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of federa…
- finding, in a suit based on the city police department's "last-hired, first-fired" policy, that discrimination "resulted from the disproportionate impact of the entry-level tests on racial minorities" but that "proof of discriminatory impact does not end the matter"
- explaining that monetary recovery under Title VI requires proof of intent so that the court can be sure that the recipient of the Title VI funds had knowledge of the violation and could have chosen to refuse the federal funds rather than face liability
- stating “The key question for present purposes is whether the decree requires the payment of funds or grants other relief, ‘not as a necessary consequence of compliance in the future with a substantive federal question determination, but as a form of compensation’ or other rel…
- noting that a were genuine issues of fact regarding a Title IX violation.” major part of the analysis in Cannon was “that Title IX had Id. Yet the magistrate court improperly applied the Horner I been derived from Title VI, that Congress understood that panel’s summary judgmen…

## Opinion text

*612 Justice Rehnquist,
concurring in the judgment.
I join in Parts I, III, IV, and V of Justice White’s opinion and join in Part II of Justice Powell’s opinion. I therefore would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429331. Public record. Not legal advice.