Indians V Bowman

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the single most important piece of legislation that has helped to shape and define employment law rights in this country (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001)". Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, gender, disability, religion and national origin. However, it was racial discrimination that was the moving force of the law that created a whirlwind of a variety of discriminations to be amended into Title VII. Title VII was a striving section of legislation, an effort which had never been tried which made the passage of the law an extremely uneasy task. This paper will discuss the evolution of Title VII as well as the impact Title VII has had in the workforce.

Many of us have worked in job environment that were less than ideal and probably thought about quitting our jobs on a daily basis. Do you ever wonder what it was like before the laws were written and implemented that prevented your boss from discriminating against you and other coworkers? Well I can without a doubt say that I would not have want a job before the 1964 Congress enacted the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Bent, J.R., (2011). The telltale sign of discrimination: probabilities, information asymmetries, and the systematic disparate treatment theory, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2011, Volume 44, Issue 4, p. 797

Racially constituted labor was commonly seen during the early 20th century. Because of the implementation of labor disparity between races, “capricious restrictions that made economic parity with whites virtually impossible” (Sides, 2006). Although there have been attempts at labor equality, racial groups were oppressed and marginalized by white hierarchy. Deliberately assigning specific races to lower labor markets resulted in hindered work mobility for all minorities.

The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.

Although the majority correctly avoided the constitutional question, Justice Scalia authored a concurring opinion addressing the issue. Justice Scalia’s opinion poses the question: “[w]hether or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?” Id. at 2682, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 515. Justice Scalia’s assertion that “Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes” mischaracterizes the Act. Id. The disparate-impact provision of Title VII simply allows for and encourages employers to be cognizant of the racial impact of their business practices so that they can craft fair assessment procedures that gives everyone equal opportunity. Justice Scalia callously classified the City’s action as racial decision-making. This contention disregards the fact that race consciousness was deemed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by intentionally discriminating against him under both disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses and whether the TVA appeal to the District Court erred in each of these analyses could be legally supported to reverse their decision FindLaw, 2011).

Thus short-run violations of the rule are justified to create a more just distribution of benefits. In order to make an effective policy, the supreme company should be able to predict, as best it can, how many minorities and women it would select over time, without adopting the policy of discrimination. These predictions would constitute the institution's affirmative action in terms of “goals” (Anderson, 2002).

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.

In June 1941, President Roosevelt (FDR) signed the Executive Order 8802, in response to the pressure from the black leaders, to abolish discrimination in the federal government and defense industries. At the same time, Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) was established to help enforce the order and redress valid grievances of the black workers [WWII Lecture]. The executive order and FEPC indicates progress in the civil rights for African-Americans. As a result, automobile industries offered jobs to many black Americans. Nevertheless, economic opportunity did not mean equal treatment. The workplace for the black Americans were segregated and had poor working conditions. Racial tensions began to explode over housing, jobs, and even over

At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only

Along with this ruling, the Supreme Court appealed this case. It was believed that the plaintiffs in the case needed more proof. The court wanted the plaintiff to show more reasoning why that individual was denied a job based on race, creed, color, or other factors. The Supreme Court also wanted the employer to show the reasoning behind the testing or the requirements of the job. As a result, the case moved closer to disparate treatment. However, in these types of emotional cases proving the case can be tedious.

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

Affirmative action utilizes race as a factor for college and job applications. In order to give minorities a better opportunity to succeed, a certain percentage of minority students are let into the college or workplace, even though they may be less qualified. The end goal, a greater chance of success for minority groups, can not justify creating inequality for the majority of America. This paper aims to research court cases which have dealt with affirmative action and the Constitution in order to explain what is legally wrong with affirmative action. In addition, research will be done on how individuals have been held back from succeeding as a result of affirmative

According to the text, discrimination is the limitation or refusal of employment opportunity based on, or related to the protected class characteristics of persons (Walsh, 2013). Moreover, as the judge in the case of Baker v. Silver Oak Senior Living Management Co., after reviewing the facts, they are in the light most favorable to Kathy Baker. A decision would be reached not to terminate Baker, due to the fact that Baker has the