Court Considers Discrimination Law

WASHINGTON (AP) â€” Martha Sandoval understood a little English â€” enough to know what signs like ``stop'' or ``right turn'' meant, but not enough to read a book, or a driver's license

Tuesday, January 16th 2001, 12:00 am

By: News On 6

WASHINGTON (AP) â€” Martha Sandoval understood a little English â€” enough to know what signs like ``stop'' or ``right turn'' meant, but not enough to read a book, or a driver's license exam.

Sandoval, originally from Mexico, wanted to take Alabama's driver's exam in 1996. She gave up when she learned that the state, following up a 1990 ``English only'' law, had stopped offering the test in Spanish.

The Supreme Court was hearing from her lawyers Tuesday in a case that will test the scope of a major federal anti-discrimination law. The court agreed to settle whether private individuals such as Sandoval can sue under the part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bars state recipients of federal money from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

Sandoval won a federal class-action suit scrapping the English language rule for driver's exams, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The lower courts said the policy violated the federal anti-bias law because it would have a ``disparate impact'' on non-English speakers, and ordered the state to offer the tests in other languages.

``The protection of the Constitution extends to all,'' the appeals court wrote. ``To those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue.''

Both lower courts rejected state officials' arguments that the relevant portion of the 1964 law does not allow lawsuits by private citizens.

All the federal appeals courts that have studied that issue have reached the same conclusion, but the Supreme Court has never spoken definitively on the issue.

It is not clear whether a Supreme Court ruling would revisit the legality of the English-only tests, but if Sandoval never had the right to sue, her class-action case could be a hollow victory.

Lawyers for Sandoval, a house cleaner and shopkeeper in Mobile, Ala., urged the court to keep the case narrowly focused on Sandoval's right to sue, which the lawyers argue is plain.

Ensuring the right to sue is especially important because a previous Supreme Court ruling blocked alleged victims from receiving money such as back pay in similar situations.

``If private civil actions are not available, funding recipients will have even less incentive to comply with these regulations,'' her lawyers wrote in court papers.

The Clinton administration sided with Sandoval.

Alabama agrees that the ``national origin'' part of the 1964 law bars intentional discrimination. But the state claims that the driver's exam rules did not discriminate intentionally and had nothing to do with the several million dollars of federal aid that the Alabama Department of Public Safety receives each year.

``The problem is, every law has a disparate impact on someone,'' Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor wrote in court papers.

The state has cast the argument as a state's rights issue, saying the state had the authority to require English on driver's exams and that a private right to sue would undermine state authority.

``The decision to imply a private cause of action against a state on the basis of an administrative regulation fails to respect the independent role of the states in our national government,'' Pryor wrote.

At least 20 states in recent years have designated English as the official state language, but many of the laws appear to be symbolic and do not restrict government use of other languages.

Alabama's 1990 amendment declared English the state's official language and instructed state officials to ``take all steps necessary'' to preserve and enhance ``the role of English as the common language.''

The case is Alexander v. Sandoval, 99-1908.

â€”â€”â€”

On the Net:

Supreme Court site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

For the appeals court ruling in Hagan v. Sandoval: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html and click on 11th Circuit.