Are community college instructors and students in America subject to the same anti-discrimination, Title IX,non-sexual abuse, anti-hate-crime, identity, LGBTQ rights gender-abuse laws as universities in the United States of America?

If an instructor were to bias treat students, discriminate based on the student's age, background, educational history, gender, sex can the victim sue the community college, the local government, and the instructor with the instructor having the status as an sole proprietor civil court?

Are community colleges so cheap or just a little off bankruptcy, that individual instructor so penniless that there exists no injunctive relief or money-compensation available/worthy of the time to sue them minus lawyer fees making the whole legal action a waste of time?

  • 1
    Injunctive relief does not require the defendant to have money. An injunction is a court ordering someone to do something, such as ceasing some specific pattern of discriminatory behavior. A lack of money will not prevent someone from complying with such an order.
    – Kevin
    Sep 14, 2022 at 20:44

2 Answers 2


Title IX Applies. So does Title VI

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has issued a Title IX Legal Manual. This reads in the section Scope of Coverage:

Title IX prohibits, with certain exceptions, any entity that receives "federal financial assistance" from discriminating against individuals on the basis of sex in education programs or activities. The clearest example of federal financial assistance is the award or grant of money. However, federal financial assistance may also be in nonmonetary form. See United States Dept of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. 597, 607 n.11 (1986).

Much the same is true of Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964.

The term "federal financial assistance" is interpreted quite broadly, and most, perhaps all, community colleges will be within the scope of Title IX and Title VI.

Federal Anti-discrimination Law

Nolo's page lists several laws (all should spply to any community college) and their scope, including:

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e and following)

    prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). It also prohibits employers from retaliating against an applicant or employee who asserts his or her rights under the law.

  • Pregnancy Discrimination Act

    amended Title VII to make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition

  • Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 USC 621-634).

  • Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213).

  • Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. 206(d))

  • Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) (8 U.S.C. 1324).

    IRCA prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of their citizenship or national origin. IRCA's prohibition on discrimination applies to all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including hiring, firing, compensation, benefits, job assignments, promotions, and discipline.

  • Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)

    Although the law's original purpose was to protect African Americans, courts have interpreted it to protect people of all races from discrimination and harassment. Section 1981 has also been interpreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, if the discrimination is racial in character.
    Section 1981 protects all private employees and all employees of state and local governments. It also protects independent contractors from discrimination by hiring firms and protects partners in a partnership from discrimination. It does not apply to federal employees, however.

  • Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (42 U.S.C. 2000ff and following).

  • Typo? in "Civil Rights act of 1866"? ... Sep 15, 2022 at 21:31

The primary question is who is liable for any discriminatory acts. The institution is clearly liable, but the individual instructor is not liable. The burden of compliance falls on the institution, which is expected to correct individuals who put the institution at risk. See the DoJ Manual in the section on scope of coverage. The instructor is not liable, nor is a student at an educational institution who makes a discriminatory remark. The government (city or county as the case may be) is probably not liable either since the educational institution autonomously applies for and receives federal assistance (unless the city actually is the applicant and recipient).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .