The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the catalyst in abolishing the separate but equal policies that had been a mainstay in our society. Though racial discrimination was the initial focal point, its enactment affected every race. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in housing, education, employment, public accommodations and the receipt of federal funds based on certain discrimination factors such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age or religion. Title VII is the employment segment of the Civil Rights Act and is considered one of the most important aspects of legislation that has helped define the employment law practices in this country. Prior to Title VII, an employer could hire and fire an employee for any given reason. Title VII prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, training, promotion, discipline or other workplace decisions. (Bennett-Alexander-Hartman, Fourth Edition, pp 85) Though it applies to everyone, its enactment was especially significant to women and minorities, who until its passage had limited recourse in harassment based discriminations in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency that enforces the federal laws, policies and regulations as it relates to employment discrimination.
Over the course of years, Title VII has been amended to reinforce its prohibitions to include pregnancy as a type of gender discrimination, jury trials, compensatory damage and punitive damages. Its amendments have also strengthened the enforcement policy of the EEOC. An employer and employee need to be aware of those areas that are and are not covered by Title VII. It applies to employers, unions, joint labor and management committees as well as employment agencies whose functions include referral and training decisions among others. It applies to all private, federal, state and local governments who employ 15 employees or more. An employer with less than 15 employees is not required to comply with the guidelines set by Title VII.
The Essay on Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 2
... voted down an amendment to Title VII to include age discrimination as an unlawful employment practice (www.eeoc.gov). In 1972, Title VII was amended to include the ... Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1973 which prohibits the Federal Government, as an employer, from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities. In ...
Title VII covers all levels and types of employees. In 1991, the act was further extended to include United States (U.S.) citizens who are employed outside of the U.S. for American employers. Non U.S. citizens are also protected as long as they are employed in the U.S. Title VII however, does not apply to the actions of those businesses that are operated on a Native American Indian reservation, a religious organization or a member of a communist party.
For example, the Indian reservation can provide preferential treatment to other Native American Indians and a religious organization can hire those who only share their faith without fear of a discrimination claim being upheld in court. If an employee alleges discrimination in the workplace, they may file a complaint with the EEOC. As the claims process furthers, the EEOC will move forward and file suit in federal court if reasonable cause is shown and no conciliation is made between the employer and employee. If no reasonable cause is shown, the EEOC will send the employee a right to sue letter. In alleging discrimination, it is important for both parties to be aware of the theories by which a lawsuit may be brought. A discrimination lawsuit must fit under disparate treatment or disparate impact in order to be recognized under Title VII.
Disparate treatment is considered intentional discrimination. It is “treating similarly situated employees differently because of prohibited Title VII factors”. (Bennett-Alexander etal pp 95) Anheuser-Busch, Inc., v. Missouri Com’n on Human Rights, is an example of a prima facie disparate treatment case. In this case, an African-American woman was subjected to disciplinary action for committing the same infractions as three of her white co-workers. The employer failed to punish all of the employees alike and had no reasonable explanation for reviewing the African-American claimant’s employment file more often that the whites.
The Term Paper on The Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964
... the employer based on violation of the title VII. The reason of such accusation will be discrimination based on gender. According to the Title VII of ... first year of employment could have a disparate impact on women and thus violate Title VII Although the Title VII is widely used as act regulating ...
In this circumstance there was a reasonable inference that the disparity in disciplinary action was the result of discrimination.(Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Missouri Com’n on Human Rights, 1984) An employer’s defense for disparate treatment cases is when they can show that their intentional discrimination was based on a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
According to the text, in order to have a successful BFOQ defense, “an employer must be able to show that the basis for preferring one group over another goes to the essence of what the employer is in business to do, and that predominant attributes of the group discriminated against are at odds with that business.” (Bennett-Alexander-Hartman pp 97) The general purpose of the disparate impact principle is to eliminate facially neutral employment practices that have a disparate or adverse impact on a protected Title VII group. Disparate impact is proved when the claimant can show that the employer’s general policy in job requirements, selection process, or promotion process excludes or has a negative impact on applicants or employees in a Title VII protected class. The disparate impact theory arose in 1971, in a race discrimination case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Griggs v.
Duke Power Co., In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, even in the absence of discriminatory intent, an employer was prohibited by Title VII from requiring a high school education or passing of a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment, where neither standard was shown to be significantly related to successful job performance, and both requirements operated to disqualify black applicants at a substantially higher rate than white applicants. (Griggs vs. Duke Power Co, 1971) An employer’s defense for disparate impact cases is when it can be shown that the disparate impact is actually job related or consistent with a business necessity and that the employer’s general policies are a legitimate requirement for the job. Title VII has changed the scope of human resource departments. All aspects of the employment relationship need to be clarified in order to make sure discriminatory behavior is not being overlooked in the workplace. Title VII has changed the pre-employment process in that the interviewer must be careful in the questions that are posed to the interviewee. The interviewer should not ask questions that can be deemed discriminatory. A rule of thumb is to limit questions that have to do with a person’s private life.
The Essay on Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964
Employment Law MGT. 434 Dan Cone Pamela Jones Facilitator September 22, 2003 Introduction The first paragraph of the 14 th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall ...
As an employer, it must be made clear that discrimination will not be tolerated in the workplace. Employers and employees need to become familiar with what constitutes discrimination. Employees need to be informed of the employer’s position as it relates to workplace discrimination. An employer should adopt policies that address this issue in the form of employee handbooks and/or in house training for all employee levels, including what steps will be taken for violations. If the employer and employee work together to prevent these forms of discretions, it can help curtail some of the litigiousness surrounding this issue. References Anheuser-Busch, Inc., v. Missouri Com’n on Human Rights, 682 S.W.2d 828 (Mo.App.
E.D. 1984) Bennett-Alexander-Hartman, Employment Law for Business, 4th Edition, 85, 95, 97, Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971)..
