COM 0281.004 2016-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• If the eviden•ce establishes• •a prima° .facie:case,the investi atin.-:agency-must then determine whether th•e recipient can-articulate.a substantial'legitimate:justification for the challenged practice: To prove a substantial legitimate justification;-the recipient must show that the . challengedpolicy was necessary to meeting a"goal,that was:legitimate;.important, and integral to • the recipients mission. • - If the recipient can make such a showing,the inquiry mustifocus on whether there are any equally effective alternative:practices:that would result in-less.adverse impact'or Whether the • . • justification proffered bythe recipient is'actually•a;pretext:for discrimination. - If a substantial legitimate justification is identified,the third stage of the disparate.impact - analysis is the complainant',s demonstration of:a less discriminatory_ alternative. ' VI. FINDINGS • :.. . .. •Issues .: • Issue#1' - - : ...:... • The Hawaii Department of:Trans sortation.(HDOT).and Hawaii'County's Draft Hawaii Long • • Range Transportation Plan(HLRTP ):and.Final.HL . . P;•discri'mi •nate-'by•_fail• ing':to .recognize ' actual land-uses and"populatiois affecting low income and: Native.Hawaiians. in its long range • :transportation'planning - • ' _Issue#2 - HDOT-&Hawaii County fail to take into consideration'economic;development and multi-modal transportationneeds of:low;income communities'and specifically,'those in Puna and'Ka'u. • Issue.#3 : HDOT andsHawaii County.HIATP fail to provide transportation alternatives to meet the economicand multi modal-:needs`.c.f:the communities. • Issue 44 • • ' : •: HDOT and Hawaii County have failed to identify and apply.evaluative',criteria in development of}ILRTI in Puna&Ka'u,.'aswell as statewide:, • Issue#5 - • _ Native Hawaiians,who arelow•incore,are not being treated fairly'in Puna and Ka'u due to the discriminatory HLRTP of both HDOT and Hawaii.County. .: : 3•`af : Page