Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Civil rights acts of 1964 apush
Equal employment opportunity initiatives
Discrimination Against Homosexual
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Civil rights acts of 1964 apush
The Workplace and Title VII 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. 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 a... ... middle of paper ... ...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. 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).
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. Race, color, national origin, gender, and religion are known as protected classes. The Supreme Court later established “several theories of discrimination that plaintiffs may purses based on the type of discrimination alleged.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015) The three most common theories are disparate treatment, mixed motives, and disparate impact. Aquino v. Honda is an example of disparate treatment as Aquino believe his was terminated, thus discriminated against, because of his race. Disparate Treatment is defined as “overt and intentional discrimination.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015)The burden of proof was on Honda to prove it had legitimate reason to terminate Aquino. The court ruled that Honda had met the burden of proof; the firing was not discriminatory as the accusations were not baseless nor did they amount to pretext. When the burned shifted back to Aquino to prove his firing was discriminatory in nature, he could not provide any
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." ():-. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm on Mar 17, 2014
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has grown over the past few decades to ensure that employees, as well as employers, are protected against all employment discrimination. It is extremely important that both employers and employees know and understand what the law means and how to handle such acts of discrimination. As more amendments are passed into law, employers need to have clear and concise policies to help fight against discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Moran, 2014, p. 164). This helps ensure fair treatment to all workers. To ensure the safety of all workers, Title VII also protects against harassment, which includes quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment harassment, religious harassment, and racial harassment.
The idea that is being presented is that discrimination is taking a role in analyzing a person’s work ethic and educational background. This unfair descriptive process was and still is causing issues with native employment.
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
According to Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, (2001) “the most important statue eliminating discriminatory employment practices, however, is the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act o 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” The appropriation section o...
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is prohibited by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace, including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American descent.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbid businesses connected with interstate commerce to discriminate when choosing its employees. If these businesses did not conform to the act, they would lose funds that were granted to them from the government. Another act that was passed to secure the equality of blacks was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act, which was readopted and modified in 1970, 1975, and 1982, contained a plan to eliminate devices for voting discrimination and gave the Department of Justice more power in enforcing equal rights. In another attempt for equal rights, the Equal Employment ...
Title IX is historically related to the social changes that were becoming increasingly noticed after the Civil Rights laws were coming to light. These social changes represented a national commitment to end discrimination and establish a mandate to bring the excluded into the mainstream (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). It was the federal government that utilized these laws, created by Title IX, to deliver the promise of all people’s equal opportunities and rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to develop their talents. As an early example of the barriers set up before Title IX, Luci Baines Johnson, daughter of President J...
In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to end racial discrimination in employment, institutions like hospitals and schools, and privately owned public accommodations In 1965, congress returned suffrage to black southerners, by passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Foner 926). In the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional (Foner 951). Because of the civil rights movement in the sixties, minorities gained more rights than they had prior to the 1960s. While the 1960s were a time of advancement for minorities, it was also a time of advancement for women. In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, which outlawed discrimination in the workplace based on a person’s gender (Foner 944).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.