Case Background
This section provides resources that contextualize the court case Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Seif. It includes previous court case precedents mentioned and relied upon in the case in question, background on the legal environmental justice movement, and the text of the different Sections of the Civil Rights Act.
|
Resource
|
Description
|
Access
|
|---|---|---|
|
"Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism" by Chester Environmental Justice
|
This web page contains various links to to different sources varying in content but all generally focused on explaining the difference between environmental equity and environmental justice. These sources also focus on the law and policy rules and/or scope of environmental justice in the sphere of law and policy. In other words, this source provides useful links that help explain how law and policy can be used to expand environmental justice efforts and goals. It includes current laws, executive orders, and relative examples/news related to the use of courts in environmental justice. These are all important resources to understanding the complexities of CRCQL v Seif.
|
|
|
"Chester Residents for Quality Living v. Seif, 944 F. Supp. 413 (E.D. Pa. 1996)"
|
Memorandum of the trial Chester Residents for Quality Living v. Seif, detailing the occurrences during the trial. CRCQL argued that the placement of the waste facility permit granted to Soil Remediation Services, Inc. was discriminatory. The plaintiffs believed that the placement of the waste facility led to the burden of the pollution and adverse health effects being placed on the African American Community within Chester, instead of the majority white community within the rest of Delaware County. This case was eventually dismissed due to inability to prove discriminatory intent.
|
|
|
"Delaware County History: Chester City" by Keith Lockhart
|
This web page has various links to historical documents and articles (tax documents, census records, maps, pictures, etc) all relating to the area that is now known as the City of Chester. History is extremely important in understanding current issues; the actions of the past can continue to have effects in the present. These historical documents offer an opportunity to learn more about the history of Chester and through that knowledge, people interested in today's environmental injustices in the city can truly understand their origin and therefore combat it much more effectively.
|
|
|
"Fighting Dirty Business: Litigating Environmental Racism" by Barbora Kvočekova
|
This source provides a brief history of the environmental justice movement and a short history of environmental justice in Chester. It follows with an analysis of environmental law and the relation of that subject to environmental justice. This article provides some examples in which the law can be used to advance environmental justice goals and issues. Interestingly, this article also provides a description of how environmental justice issues can be legitimately raised through human rights provisions. This article provides a simple introduction into the world of using existing law and policy to advocate for environmental justice concerns.
|
|
|
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's New Environmental Civil Rights Policy" by Michael D. Mattheisen
|
In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new civil rights policy to better implement environmental justice. This new initiative includes the Environmental Justice concept, which calls for there to be uniform environmental and public health conditions regardless of race and income. It also includes Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national-origin in federally assisted programs. Additionally, it includes the Disparate Impact Rule of Law, which prohibits unintentionally causing discriminatory effects. It includes the EPA’s Title VI regulations, which set a standard for discriminatory effects. It includes the President’s Executive Order in Environmental Justice, which applies the concept of environmental justice to federal actions. Additionally, the Title VI and Disparate Impact Rule of Law are applied to state environmental permitting. This is important because it can be used to challenge the polluting industries in Chester.
|
|
|
"Margaret Bean et al., Plaintiffs, v. Southwestern Waste Management Corp. et al., Defendants."
|
Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corp was the first case to challenge the location of a waste facility using a civil rights act. Despite a highschool being located 1,700 feet from the facility, proving disparate impact, there was not enough evidence to prove discriminatory intent, so no equal protection suit was filed. Specifically, statistical data on solid waste site locations placed by the Texas Department of Health failed to establish a pattern of discrimination. This is important to Chester because it covers challenging a permit for a polluting industry with a civil rights act. It shows that statistical data must establish a pattern of discrimination to result in the revoke of a permit and that the placement of polluting industries can be deemed insensitive and illogical all while not being deemed an act of discrimination if the permit challenge is not supported by the necessary statistics or other supporting evidence.
|
|
|
"Sandoval v. Hagan, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (M.D. Ala. 1998)"
|
This was a pivotal case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It was filed against the Alabama Public Department of Safety for only offering drivers license examinations in English. This case was filed as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act. It was found that the English-only policy barred many Americans of foreign descent from getting licenses, which made it more challenging for them to be employed, get access to child care services, and pick up life essentials. After the case, reasonable accommodations for non-English speakers applying for licenses became mandatory. This case is important to Chester because it is an example of how the Equal Protection Clause and Civil Rights Act can be used to challenge discriminatory practices.
|
|
|
"Chowdhury v. Reading Hospital Medical Center"
|
This source provides access to opinions, summaries, and case details for the Chowdhury v. Reading Hospital Medical Center case. This case was cited in CRCQL v. Seif. The claims from this case were dismissed due to the decision made in a previous case, which denied any private right of action under Section 602 of Title IV. Section 602 of Title IV states that an individual may file a complaint with a funding agency, but has no role in the investigation of their complaint. Additionally, claims were dismissed because the “discriminatory intent” references in section 601 of Title VI must “be shown” to allow someone to move forward with private action.
|
|
|
"Chowdhury v. The Reading and Medical Center, 520 F. Supp. 134 (E.D. Pa. 1981) Court Case"
|
Noting that under the administrative enforcement mechanism Congress provided in section 602 of Title VI, "an aggrieved individual may file a complaint with the funding agency but has no role in the investigation or adjudication, if any, of the complaint." In an environmental justice context this means that aggrieved individuals may not be able to investigate their complaints. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals would later mention that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had misapplied the ruling in the Chester case.
|
|
|
"14th Amendment US Constitution"
|
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The Equal Protection Clause of the amendment states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Residents living in communities of color brought Fourteenth Amendment actions to secure municipal services equal to those in white neighborhoods. These cases include: Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 F.2d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983), which found discrimination in street paving, water distribution, and storm drainage services. To date, the Equal Protection Clause has proved ineffective in litigation over the siting of permitted facilities. However, residents of Cadillac Heights, a predominantly African American and Hispanic neighborhood in Dallas, Texas, survived summary judgment in their action alleging that the city maintains a pattern of inferior zoning, flood protection, and environmental quality in some neighborhoods. The residents further alleged that the city established this land use pattern based on race-conscious decision making.
|
|
|
"Guardians Association v. Civil Service Comm'n, 463 U.S. 582 (1983) Court Case"
|
Black and Hispanic police officers were appointed to the New York City Police Department upon achieving passing scores on the examinations administered to make entry-level appointments. Since appointments were made in order of test scores, however, the examinations caused blacks and Hispanics to be hired later than similarly situated whites, which lessened petitioner officers' seniority and related benefits. Accordingly, when the Department subsequently laid off police officers on a "last-hired, first-fired" basis, those officers who had achieved the lowest scores were laid off first, and petitioner officers were disproportionately affected by the layoffs. This case set the precedent that compensatory relief (monetary relief) in a Title VI action (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance) is only available upon a showing of intentional discrimination.
|
|
|
"Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964"
|
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. ("Title VI") Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance. Environmental justice and Title VI are both rooted in the same basic principle that no person should bear an unfair share of harm on account of their race, color or national origin. At its core, Title VI requires recipients of federal funding to ensure that their programs operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Indeed, the central tenet of environmental justice – that programs benefiting a community as a whole not disproportionately allocate their adverse environmental and health burdens – flows directly from this underlying principle of Title VI.
|
|
|
"Polaroid Corporation v. Disney 698 F. Supp. 1169 (D. Del. 1988) Court Case"
|
Polaroid Corp. v. Disney established a 3-prong test to determine whether there is an implied private right to action: (1) 'whether the agency rule is properly within the scope of the enabling statute'; (2) 'whether the statute under which the rule was promulgated properly permits the implication of a private right of action'; and (3) 'whether implying a private right of action will further the purpose of the enabling statute.' It also helps to recognize a private remedy ""to enable injured shareholders to seek damages to compensate for loss stemming from violation of the Act and an injunction against a tender offer violating the Act where the requirements for equitable relief have been met."
|
|
|
"Goshen Road Environmental Action Team v. US Department of Agriculture Court Case"
|
Goshen Road v. US Department of Agriculture is a 1995 case in which a citizen group (GREAT) sued the Department of Agriculture, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the operation of a nearby wastewater treatment facility. The plaintiffs stated that the facility was an infringement on their rights in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also was a violation of NEPA, as the defendants did not provide a statement regarding the environmental impact of the facility. While the courts agreed that the plaintiffs suffered, “irreparable harm as a result of the continued operation of the wastewater facility,” the court set a precedent by using a “balancing of hardships” test. Through this test, the court compared the hardships of the plaintiffs and the hardships of the defendants and the general public. Since the facility would have to be shut down completely to eliminate the environmental hazards and other effects it was bringing to the area, the balance of hardships test favored the defendants; neither declaratory nor injunctive relief was given to the plaintiff.
|
|
|
"Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against I-670 v. , 608 F. Supp. 110 (S.D. Ohio 1984) Court Case"
|
Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against I-670 v. Damien is a 1984 case brought before the United States District Court of Ohio in which a group of majority African Americans sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent construction on I-670. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants did not involve the public in the decision-making process behind the construction of the freeway. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claimed a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting that the defendants did not consider the impact of I-670 on minority groups living in Columbus. While the Court provided declaratory relief to the plaintiffs in terms of the defendants’ lack of involvement with the public, the Court did not provide injunctive relief. This decision set the precedent that if the defendant can give satisfactory reasons for justifying its location (in response to accusations of discriminatory effects), the plaintiffs carry the burden of having to prove an equally satisfactory alternative exists. Otherwise, the plaintiff is unlikely to receive injunctive relief.
|
CRCQL v. Seif Case Analysis
This section provides analysis on the decision of the court case at hand. CRCQL had alleged that the PADEP—in its oversight of the waste permit process—had violated Section 602 in its failure to comply with the EPA’s anti-discrimination regulations. CRCQL appealed the lawsuit to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals after the lawsuit was rejected by the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. According to the Third Circuit, the primary objective was to determine: “Whether a private right of action exists under discriminatory effect regulations promulgated by federal administrative agencies pursuant to section 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
|
Resource
|
Description
|
Access
|
|---|---|---|
|
"The Case Against Private Disparate Impact Suits" by Thom Lambert
|
Lambert uses cases such as Chester v. Seif to argue that private disparate impact suits are a “bad idea,” as they prevent actions and decisions that have an overall beneficial effect despite having “incidental disparate effects.” The article details that, while intentional discrimination should continue to be banned, as it always does more harm than good, disparate impact—in this case, the harming of a particular marginalized group as a result of seemingly neutral regulations and policies—should be selectively enforced to ensure that federal agencies, which are more “politically accountable” than private suits, are making the decisions. Lambert’s enforcement plan may produce fruitful results in aiding environmental justice cases that call onto Title VI.
|
|
|
"The Role of Title VI in Chester Residents v. Seif: Is the Future of Environmental Justice Really Brighter?" by Kristen Raney
|
Rainey discusses the future of environmental justice through cases such as Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Seif. These cases set new precedents for environmental discrimination lawsuits. Most notably, citizen groups suing an agency for the placement of environmentally hazardous facilities in their area now only carry the burden of showing that “there is a disproportionate discriminatory effect” instead of also proving that there was a discriminatory intent. A byproduct of this decision, however, is that if the agency can justify the location of the facility, the citizen group must detail an alternative. The Chester Residents case also increased community involvement and education. In addition to detailing some lasting effects of the Chester Residents case, Raney also provides legal precedents upon which environmental racism plaintiffs can base their claims, including Common Law Nuisance Claims, Statutory Citizen Suits, The Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
|
|
"Is There a Private Cause of Action Under EPA's Title VI Regulations?: The Need to Empower Environmental Justice Plaintiffs" by Bradford Mank
|
Mank discusses disparate impact as it applies to environmental justice court cases such as Chester v. Seif. As a result of Guardian establishing that intentional discrimination must be proved by the plaintiff, Mank predicts that proof of intent will continue to be a burden to environmental justice plaintiffs despite the Equal Protection Clause serving as an obstacle in the way of proving discriminatory intent. Mank argues for a reevaluation of how private disparate impact cases are enforced in the court system, stating that, “an implied private right of action under Section 602 [of Title VI] and its implementing regulations will make it much easier for environmental justice plaintiffs to challenge state permit decisions.”
|
Case Impacts
This section highlights the aftermath and the implications of the court case, which was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the lawsuit was declared moot after the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection denied the permit to the waste facility that formed the basis of the original lawsuit. Other implications include an Executive Order by the then-President on environmental justice likely in response to press surrounding the case.
|
Resource
|
Description
|
Access
|
|---|---|---|
|
"Chester Lawsuit Declared Moot by U.S. Supreme Court" by Chester Environmental Justice
|
An article detailing Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Seif, the first environmental racism lawsuit filed in the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that the permit violated regulations by placing a solid waste facility in Chester, which already had many other similar facilities. Despite the case being considered moot, as the permit was never approved of, this case demonstrated that the Supreme Court would be willing to accept cases of similar stature. This case may have also influenced the rejection of various other waste facilities to be located in Chester in the following years.
|
|
|
"Summary of Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations"
|
Former President Bill Clinton's Executive Order on Environmental Justice seeked to draw federal attention on the environmental health effects of the government on minorities and low-income communities. This executive order addressed the problem of the disproportionate amount of adverse federal programs within these communities, and seeked to educate these communities with public information. This was a historic step and acknowledgement of the environmental justice movement.
|
|
|
"Suit Says Racial Bias Led to Clustering of Solid-Waste Sites" by Michael Janofsky
|
Short article from 1996 detailing Chester residents' fight against waste facilities, citing violations of the Civil Rights Act, as more than double the amount of permits had been given to place waste facilities in the Chester community than the predominantly white community of Delaware County. The community alleges that the living conditions around the facilities are near intolerable, and have adverse health effects. The article also describes two precedents for this case.
|
|
|
"U.S. Supreme Court Grants Pennsylvania's Request to Hear Arguments on Chester Lawsuit Against DEP"
|
CRCQL files a case against the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection), alleging discrimination due to the disproportionate amount of pollution within Chester, caused by various waste facilities. This case is important because it demonstrated that plaintiff did not need to demonstrate that the defendant had an intent to discriminate, just that their actions caused a discriminatory effect. This case was eventually taken to the Supreme Court, with both sides viewing this as a victory. CRCQL saw it as a demonstration that the Supreme Court would be willing to hear out similar cases, while the Ridge Administration, backing the DEP, believed the Supreme Court would support their claim that private citizens have no right to challenge the DEP's actions in court.
|