Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII PDF

***Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII*** **Introduction** - Before the Industrial Revolution -- most people worked for themselves or in family business - After Civil War -- people started to work in companies - Idea of employment -- employers could hire and fire workers without...

***Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII*** **Introduction** - Before the Industrial Revolution -- most people worked for themselves or in family business - After Civil War -- people started to work in companies - Idea of employment -- employers could hire and fire workers without interference[^1^](#fn1){#fnref1.footnote-ref} from the government - First try to limit child labor, set working hours, improve safety of workplace by Congress - The Supreme Court -- unconstitutionality of these laws -- violating business owners in "freedom of contract" - 1934 -- more regulation of employment - Today -- most business owners have to follow federal and state laws - Rules -- e. g.: minimum age for workers, minimum wage, overtime pay, and other workplace protections - Public employees (working for the government) -- additional protections under the *Constitution* (such as due process and equal protection rights) **Title VII of the *Civil Rights Act* of 1964: Employment Discrimination** - Before 1964 -- legal discrimination employees or job applicants (by employers) - E. g. based on their color, sex, religion, national origin - *Civil Rights Act* -- discrimination is illegal - Title VII of the *Act* specifically prohibits employment discrimination based on these factors - The law can be applied in public places - places like hotels, restaurants, gas stations, bars, entertainment venues, and public schools, colleges, and universities. - *Act* -- major step forward in ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all people - Applied to employers with 15 or more employees - Prohibition of employers form: - Refusing to hire someone or firing them because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. - Treating an employee unfairly in terms of pay, job conditions, or other work privileges because of these factors. - Goal: all employees are treated fairly and equally in the workplace **42 U. S. C. §200e-2(e)** - Protected categories: Race, color, religion, sex, or national origin - *Act* makes [unlawful punishment]: - - - ***A. Intentional Discrimination*** - under *Title VII* - Prohibition of: intentional discrimination + practices with effect of discrimination of individuals **1. Expressly prohibited forms of discrimination** - Unlawful to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including: - Hiring and firing; - Compensation, assignment, or classification of employees; - Transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall; - Job advertisements and recruitment; - Testing; - Use of company facilities; - Training and apprenticeship programs; or - Retirement plans, leave and benefits. **2. "Otherwise" Prohibited Forms of Discrimination** - *Title VII* of the *Civil Rights Act* bans discrimination in employment - also prohibits discrimination in broader ways -- more general rule - no one should be treated unfairly for other reasons that aren't directly listed - This rule has been [interpreted] by courts to include: - 1\. **Harassment** - to harass someone at work e. g. based on sex (sexual harassment) (illegal) - there should't be created \"hostile work environment\" is a form of discrimination - 2\. **Failure to accommodate religious practices** - Employer has to try to make work schedules or duties to allow employees to observe their religion (unless it would cause serious business problems) - 3\. **Stereotyping** - assumptions or stereotypes about someone\'s abilities or characteristics (illegal) - 4\. **Discrimination based on relationships** - to deny someone a job or opportunity just because they are married to or associated with someone of ceratin race, color etc. (illegal) - court in these cases -- question if the action was materially adverse (= significantly harmed the employee) - "yes" -- court might rule it violates *Title VII* - courts can sometimes disagree on the amount of \"adverse enough\" to be unlawful a\. **[Harrasment]** - = unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information - Unlawful in cases of: - The victim has to endure the behavior to keep their job - The behavior is severe or frequent enough to make the workplace intimidating, hostile, or abusive to a reasonable person. - Also illegal if someone is chrged for taking part in a discrimination investigation, lawsuit, or for opposing discriminatory practices. - Longer annoyance or one-time incidents (that aren't serious enough) -- illegal harassment - To be illegal - work environment that feels intimidating or offensive to most people - [Examples of harassment:] - Offensive jokes or slurs - Name-calling or insults - Physical threats or assaults - Ridicule or mockery - Displaying offensive images - Interfering with someone\'s work - Harassment can happen in [various situations], such as: - The harasser could be a boss, coworker, or even a non-employee. - The victim doesn't have to be the person directly harassed---it can affect anyone who witnesses or is impacted by the behavior. - Harassment can happen even if the person isn't fired or financially harmed. **b. Religious Practices Discrimination** - = employer treats a job applicant or employee unfairly because of their religious beliefs - *Title VII* -- protection of people who practice: - [traditional] religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism) - [ethical or moral beliefs] (even if they are not part of a formal religion). - employer [cannot] force employees : - to participate in religious activities or - to participate in employer's religious practices - (unless doing so would cause significant hardship to the business) - **Religious Accommodations** - *Title VII* requires an employer or other covered entity to [reasonably accommodate] an employee\'s religious beliefs or practices - Employers may need to make changes to the workplace to help an employee practice their religion - Includes: flexible scheduling, shift swaps, job changes, or adjusting workplace rules - **Undue Hardship** - Employers don't have to accommodate an employee's religious practices if doing so would cause \"undue hardship\" to the business. - = accommodation that is costly, harms workplace safety, violates agreements, reduces efficiency, or burdens other employees. - ***Trans World Airlines, Inc*. v. *Hardison*** (1977) - "undue hardship" = anything that imposed "more than a minimal cost" on the employer - give an employee "the privilege of having Saturdays off" for religious reasons [→]{.math.inline} religious favoritism [→]{.math.inline} discrimination against other employees (that don't practice this faith) - decision: separation of church and state - revised in *Groff* v. *DeJoy* - ***Groff* v. *DeJoy*** (2023) - Gerald Groff is a Christian and U.S. Postal Service worker -- refused to work on Sundays (religious beliefs) [→]{.math.inline} USPS offered to find employees to swap shifts [→]{.math.inline} no co-worker would swap [→]{.math.inline} Groff didn't work [→]{.math.inline} fired - Supreme Court clarified the rules for religious accommodations - employer must show that accommodating an employee's religious practices would result in a [substantial burden] on the business (not just a minor inconvenience) - e\. g. an employer must demonstrate that accommodating an employee's request would significantly increase costs or negatively impact the business. - \"hardship\" doesn\'t mean a small inconvenience - Court wasn\'t overturning an earlier decision (*Hardison*) but interpreting it in broader context ***B. Unintentional Discrimination and Disparate Impact*** - *Title VII* -- unlawful for employer to: - \(2) *limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.* (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2) (2012)) - basis for a claim of **unintentional discrimination**, i. e., **disparate impact** - no need to prove that the employer intentionally discriminated - plaintiff shows: a natural employment practice lowered his "employment opportunities" because the practice had a disproportionate impact on the plaintiff's protected class - ***Griggs* v. *Duke Power Co****.*, 401 U.S. 424 (1971) - Supreme Court: company's neutral requirement of all employee's high school education [→]{.math.inline} regardless of whether it was necessary for their job [→]{.math.inline} discriminatory (under Title VII) - It had a disparate effect on African-Americans. A. ***Title VII Defenses and Exemptions*** A. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ): Sex, Religion, National Origin - Title VII - permits certain practices that may be used is certain situations (otherwise discrimination) - 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e) - \(1) - Employers may take religion, sex, or national origin into account \"in those specified instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification that is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the trade or business.\" - Example - certain occupations require only one of the sexes - Not applicable to race and color - The Supreme Court has highlighted the term **"occupational" ---\>** the objective requirements must relate to abilities and skills - Sex - should constitute an exception, only rare cases A. Pretextual Reasons for Discriminatory Actions and the Disparate Treatment Rebuttal. - Employers - Sometimes they will issue why the discrimination occurred - Most often, the claim is that the reason was not discriminatory (even if it was) ---\> the employee must prove otherwise - One way an employee can show that the reason was pretextual is by proving that he was subjected to disparate treatment B. Religious Employers and Educational Institutions - Title VII - the provisions allow religious educational institutions to make employment decisions based on religion (or religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society) - generally prohibits employers from discrimination on the basis of an individual's religion - If an employer falls within one of the options, it may take into account an individual\'s religious beliefs - Option for religious educational institutions to make employment decisions based on religion. - The U.S. Court of Appeals: - Congress\'s goal was \"intended Title VII to free individual workers from religious bias\" while \"allowing religious organizations to create and maintain communities composed solely of individuals committed to their doctrine." A. ***Affirmative Action*** - Affirmative action - what constitutes equality and fairness? - Disagreement about the value of affirmative action - confusion about what people believe affirmative action entails - Many people mean a quota system or any other preferential treatment accorded to otherwise unqualified applicants. - ---\> this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the law - Affirmative action plans cannot involve quotas or preferences for unqualified applicants over-qualified applicants - Only allows an employer to use race or gender as a "plus factor" when choosing between two equally qualified candidates - The first major affirmative-action employment case - United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 444 U.S. 193 (1979) - the Supreme Court - Whether Title VII prohibits the use of racial criteria in a \"voluntary\" affirmative action plan - The Supreme created a test to determine if an affirmative action plan was valid: A. the plan must be "designed to eliminate conspicuous racial imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories," B. the plan must "not unnecessarily trammel the interest of the white employees." - Weber company - no minorities in specialist positions - The program was intended to ensure the introduction but the volatility so - Affirmative action was taken in the workplace, but the problem was the colleges. - = Students for Fair Admissions - Supreme Court decision overturning precedent allowing limited use of race in college admissions. - Consideration of race violates the principle of equal protection (\"reverse discrimination\" arguments) - Two cases were addressed - In both, applicants were rejected on the basis of their race (UNC - a public university; Harvard - a private university) - A majority opinion was issued - Added to the decision: universities do not have sufficiently targeted and measurable goals to justify the use of race - Schools\' programs were unconstitutional! - After these cases, the courts acknowledged: - That strict scrutiny allows the government to make decisions based on race - But it emphasized-a \"colorblind\" approach to equal protection jurisprudence - Constitution - applied the same level of scrutiny to classifications intended to benefit racial minorities as to classifications intended to harm them - all racial classifications are equally suspect - The Fourteenth Amendment - \"absolute equality of all citizens\" and the application of the law \"without regard to color\" - should apply. - The Court pointed to the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in public schools - education for all on equal terms - state cannot \"use race as a factor in providing educational opportunities to its citizens\" A. ***Other Anti-Discrimination Laws*** A. Age Discrimination - The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 = ADEA - = prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age - Initially protected workers over 40 years of age (workers between the ages of 40 and 65) - Amendments - eliminated the upper age limit and ended mandatory retirement for almost all workers - What benefits, pension and retirement plans should look like - Applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments - And employment agencies and labor organizations, as well as the federal government - For claims under the ADEA, proof of discriminatory motive is required - = employer created a plan or scheme that appears neutral on its face but in fact discriminates on the basis of age. - employers need show that their practices further some reasonable business purpose B. Disability Discrimination (ADA) - The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - Rehabilitation services began in the early 20th century - Rehabilitation Act expanded the rights of individuals with disabilities in higher education, government, and private industry - Applies to employers that are agencies of the federal government and employers receiving federal contracts over \$2500 or federal financial assistance - 1990 - the American with Disabilities Act = to protect disabled people from being discriminated against in a variety of situations, including employment - Employers with 15 or more employees - = prohibits discrimination based on a physical or mental handicap - Under the ADA, an employer cannot discriminate against A. qualified individual with a disability B. who can perform the essential job functions C. if reasonable accommodations are possible without imposing an undue hardship on the employer. - Helped to change negative attitudes and reduce stigma associated with disabilities - Has inspired other countries B. ***Enforcement*** - Complaints are filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). - EEOC: - interprets and enforces anti-discrimination statutes - pursue actions directly or give the individual permission to pursue separate lawsuits - States and other entities have their own anti-discrimination laws and authorities. - \"Fair Employment Practices Agencies\" (FEPAs) - operate similarly to the EEOC - They use federal laws, even those that are stronger in nature - Before filing a charge under federal law, individuals must file a discrimination charge with the EEOC or FEPA office. - The EEOC will investigate the charge and then forward a right-to-sue letter - 1991 - Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 - Overturned certain Supreme Court decisions (decisions made it more difficult for employees to win in court) - The established elements for proving a disparate impact claim + a claim for compensatory and - Permits a private cause of action for race-based retaliation claims. Title VII Case Study Sex Discrimination **Title VII Overview**\ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 initially did not address sex discrimination, as gender-based pay inequality was already covered by the Equal Pay Act (1963). However, Title VII was amended to include \"sex\" as a protected category, leading to debates about its scope. **Key Cases:** **Gilbert v. General Electric (1976):** The Supreme Court ruled that pregnancy discrimination wasn\'t covered by Title VII. In response, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978), clarifying that \"sex\" includes pregnancy-related discrimination. **Bostock v. Clayton County (2020):** The Supreme Court ruled that firing employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII\'s prohibition against sex discrimination. The majority emphasized the plain text of the law, despite the drafters likely not foreseeing this outcome. Dissenting justices argued that \"sex\" was not understood to include sexual orientation or gender identity in 1964. **Religious Exemptions:**\ After *Bostock*, courts have addressed religious exemptions. In *Bear Creek Bible Church & Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC* (2021), a Texas court ruled that businesses could use religious freedom protections to avoid LGBT discrimination claims. The Fifth Circuit later upheld parts of this decision, allowing religious institutions to claim exemptions from Title VII. **Conclusion:**\ The interpretation of sex discrimination under Title VII has expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity, but religious exemptions remain a contentious issue. ::: {.section.footnotes} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ::: {#fn1} Interference = zasahování[↩](#fnref1){.footnote-back} ::: :::