Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Attached please find the information requested
of the Office of Revenue Sharing at the hearing
on September 26, 1977.

We hope it is satisfactory. Please let us know if we may be of further assistance to the Commission.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ADDENDUM TO AGE DISCRIMINATION TESTIMONY

You asked for the position of the Office of Revenue Sharing on whether the age discrimination prohibition is to be enforced under the Revenue Sharing Act, or the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. We are inclined to the view, and we believe correctly, that the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age is enforceable under the procedures prescribed by the Revenue Sharing Act as amended, rather than the procedures set forth in the Age Discrimination Act.

As you know, the Revenue Sharing Amendments were passed one year after the Age Discrimination Act. Since both Acts make age discrimination a prohibited practice by recipients of general revenue sharing funds, the later Act should govern where conflict exists regarding procedures. Secondly,

§ 122(a) of the Revenue Sharing Act as amended provides, with respect to age, that "Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975

activity".

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

shall also apply to any such program or (Emphasis added) We construe this provision to

mean that the expenditure of revenue sharing funds by recipient governments in any program or activity which discriminates on the basis of age, is prohibited. The prohibition is against age discrimination in activities and programs financed by recipients of revenue sharing funds. The procedures used to effect compliance with all the prohibitions

-2

against discrimination are provided in § 122(b) through (f) and SS 124 and 125 of the amended Revenue Sharing Act. Accordingly, it is our view that the enforcement procedures set forth in § 305 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 are not applicable where revenue sharing funds are involved because the Revenue Sharing Act has its own enforcement provisions against discriminatory conduct.

We find support for the above-stated position in the legislative history of the renewal of the General Revenue Sharing Program. Congress clearly intended that age dis

crimination, and other prohibitions added to § 122 (a) of

the Revenue Sharing Act, should be enforced by the procedures
set forth in the Revenue Sharing Act. The House of Repre-
sentatives, Committee on Government Operations, in H.R.
13367, the bill renewing general revenue sharing, initially
added age and handicapped status to the existing protected
classes. Senator Gravel, in support of his amendment to
add age and handicapped status to the Senate version of the
renewal bill stated on the Senate floor that:

The enforcement mechanism provided in the 1975 Act
is much more general and loosely structured. In
effect, the enforcement mechanism of that Act
tracks the existing [pre-amendment] revenue sharing
law. The Senate Finance Committee, however, in
reporting H. R. 13367 [the Revenue Sharing Amendment
bill] found that it was necessary to tighten up,
substantially, the civil rights enforcement proce-
dures under revenue sharing. Therefore, by adding

-3

an age bias prohibition to the Revenue Sharing Act
itself, as I propose, that prohibition would be
subject to the strict enforcement timetables adopted
by the committee. To not adopt my amendment and
instead to rely solely on the 1975 legislation is
to have those suffering from age bias with much
weaker and more loosely structured remedies.
[(p. S15719 Congressional Record, September 13,
1976)]

Further, the House Report (H.R. 94-1165, pt. 1) on its version of the general revenue sharing renewal bill consistently referred to the enforcement procedures as applying to the prohibitions as a whole. The House Report never referred to separate procedures for enforcing the discrimination provisions on the basis of age or handicapped status or religion. For example, the House Report states that a recipient government will be notified of noncompliance after the Secretary has made an initial determination of noncompliance based on his own investigation, and

". . . when a federal or state court or adminis-
trative agency, after notice and opportunity for
the recipient to be heard, makes a finding of dis-
crimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, age or handicapped status

(House Report 94-1165, Part 1, pg. 13).

In conclusion, we take the position that the enforcement procedures contained in §§ 122, 124, and 125 of the Revenue Sharing Act apply to all protected classes established by the Revenue Sharing Act, as amended, including age, handicapped status and religion. The Office of Revenue Sharing is bound only by those provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 which set forth the scope of the age discrimination prohibition and determine its effective date.

Exhibit No. 6

Proposed changes in Regulations for the
Weatherization program in light of the
Age Discrimination Act.

Mr. Clinton's office was contacted on November 15, 1977 concerning this exhibit. This information had not been received at the time the record was printed.

« PreviousContinue »