argues that it need not provide the license examination in any foreign languages because it cannot possible provide it in all foreign languages. The law is not so blind. The fact that there may be a handful of people whose languages are too obscure to accommodate is not a reason to refuse to serve the thousands of persons whose languages are common in the state. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. at 572, 94 S.Ct. 786 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (English-only policy would not violate Title VI in a case “concerned with just a few youngsters, or with just a few youngsters, or with just a single child who speaks only German or Polish or any language other than English.... [Njumbers are at the heart of this case.”); Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools, 499 F.2d 1147, 1154 (10th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>); see also Valadez v. Graham, 474 F.Supp. 149,
holding that a plaintiff can sue for retaliation under title vi recognizing that standards of liability under title vi are different from traditional agency principles or the general standards of liability under title vii holding that because the proper defendant in a title vi case is an entity rather than an individual plaintiff could not be sued in his individual capacity under title vi recognizing that only when a substantial group of foreign language speakers is being deprived of their rights will a title vi violation exist recognizing that title vi of the civil rights act of 1964 and title ix of the educational amendments of 1972 created individual federal rights because those statutes were phrased with an unmistakable focus on the benefitted class