The Movement Of The 1964 Civil Rights Act Essay

In 1921, women were granted suffrage, but suffragists were still hungry for more. Knowing that the right to vote would not eliminate sex discrimination in America, Alice Paul wrote the Equal Rights Amendment to step closer to equality. After half a century of struggle, women in America are still fighting for rights that men were given to when they were born. Even though women are just as intelligent, capable and hardworking as men, if not more, they are not considered an equal under the U.S. Constitution. Can you believe that today, in the 21st century, we still degrade women and treat them as inferiors to men? Can you believe that just because you are a woman, you are less than equal to the male population? Look around you, all those boys and girls are not equal to each other under our “just” country’s laws. As it is long overdue, the Equal Rights Amendment should be ratified because there is no other amendment that talks about sex discrimination, it would eliminate any inequality in regards to sex, and it would make the judicial stance on sex discrimination cases much clearer.

Why do women have to work overtime in order to obtain the equal amount of pay and provide for their family? Many women had an issue since the late 1840’s and it stills occurs today across the globe. Some men claim that women make more than them, while others admit of making more than a woman. Over all the women's rights movement is primarily wanting the political, social, and economic status of women equal to a men (Women’s Rights Movement). Women want the ability to achieve the same opportunities of a man in the household, educational field, and in the working environment. In “Testimony”, Gloria Steinem explores the idea of not being equivalent to a man, most notably in her use of catalogue and parallelism in order to convince men, women, and the government to balance the rights among a women and a man.

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

Repeatedly throughout history, the United State’s Supreme Court has changed their standing on labor laws, from supporting the right’s of employees to supporting the right’s of employers. In 1903, the Supreme Court concluded through Lochner v. New York that the government did not have the right to oversee businesses, but in 1908 the Supreme Court passed an unprecedented decision regarding labor laws. In Muller v. Oregon, the Supreme Court alternatively sided with the workers and upheld restriction on working hours in a gendered argument based on the fact that the workers were women. On the surface, the decision was just, as it protected workers’ right, but in the long run the outcome was unjust; suggesting through gender formation, intersectionality, and structural sexism that superficially the decision was a progressive legislation but it masked misogynist values, preserved heteronormative ideals and perpetuated gender inequality.

Oregon decision, a precedent for labor hour laws was set based on genders. With the Industrial Revolution booming, many people have been looking for jobs at factories. With the factories, cheap labor is easy to find but the working conditions are harsh and the hours are long for minimal pay; one job is hard to support a family. As Woodrow Wilson put it, “There was a time when corporations played a very minor part in our business affairs, but now they play the chief part, and most men are the servants of the corporations” (Wilson 41). Labor laws are definitely needed during the Lochner era because many people were subjugated with terrible work because they needed to be able to support their family. Muller v. Oregon jumpstarted the nation into the transition for safer work and was a huge step for lining the nation into a safe haven for everyone. However, the execution of a safer world was inadequate because of its repercussions. With the hegemonic male patriarch in society, women are viewed as subservient in our society. The gender formation with amount of physical strength has translated to women being perceived as weaker and needing fewer hours in order to survive. They are constantly seen as weak because a “woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious” (Brewer 83). People view giving birth as females’ behaviors because males cannot give birth. Because women give birth, society inherently gives women the job of taking care of their offspring. Men have an inborn personality of independence and apathy; because women do not share the same characteristics, they view females as inferior. Men have synonymously put child birth and taking care of children as one value for women, making them inferior because males are not born with that characteristic of care. History has shown repeatedly that women are seen as weaker and this case further justifies this fact.

In the Muller vs. Oregon case, which was used to justify sex discrimination, women were ruled “ not an equal competitor with her brother.” The Muller vs. Oregon case limited the workday for female wage workers to ten hours.(DOC 3) The 19th amendment gives all American people the right to vote. “Beginning in the 1800s, women organized, petitioned, and picketed to win the right to vote, but it took them decades to accomplish their purpose.” Jane Addams was a reformer and the biggest voice to speak out for women’s rights. In the journal “Why women should vote” , she is trying to reach out to women who are anti-suffrage. She believes women should have the right and fight for the right to vote. This paragraph relates to the thesis because giving women the right to vote gave women to finally feel somewhat equal to

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

But with the civil rights movement act in 1964, feminist made their way to congress and lobbied for the injunction of gender discernment in the labor force. After much deliberation, the civil rights act was conceded with the prohibition of title VII: “equal employment opportunity.” For this reason, in 1965, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was assembled to secure the implementation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but despite all the efforts the EEOC decided that gender discrimination in the workforce was permitted. During the Third National conference of Commissions on the status of women, many of the activist for women’s rights gather at this conference requesting that the EEOC fulfilled its lawful decree and put an end to the segregation in the workforce, but they were denied under the allegation that they didn’t have any authority to do so.

Typically sex arrangements were tested by ladies who felt they denied of equivalent lawful treatment, yet they were additionally tested by men who felt ladies were given uncalled for lawful insurance (Conley , 2013). Initially, the greater part of the sexual orientation particular enactment in the United States was passed on the grounds that generalizations in regards to ladies invaded the attitudes of a considerable lot of our country's officials. Gradually the legislature understood that ladies had been fixed into the local circle and endeavored to switch this segregation by giving ladies extraordinary pay. In a few occasions the treatment ladies got was remaining from old thoughts of part writing, while in others, laws specifically attempted

Throughout history there have been many movements in order to gain equal rights and equal pay for women. In 1903 the National Women’s Trade Union League was established to advocate for improved wages and working conditions, in 1920 the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor was formed in order to collect information about women in the workforce and in order to safeguard good working conditions for women, in 1961 improvements like fair hiring practices, paid maternity leave and affordable child care were recommended, and many more. Although women have achieved a great number of things there are still some problems in the workplace and at home. While women have been increasing their participation in the labor force they continue to be the

The case Mitchell, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Inc. was filed in the courts for gender discrimination of Stella Mitchell and other women employed at MetLife Inc. Met Life denied female sales representatives that were qualified to obtain higher levels of the agency. The company also allegedly denied access to training, development resources and assignments. (Goldstein, Mitchell, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Inc., 2000) Met Life settles with payments resulting of $5,000,000 to the plaintiffs and $5,000,000 in programs.

Right after that, many women were discouraged when the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a pay discrimination case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007) rejecting the complaint of gender-based pay discrimination. At almost age 60 retirement ready, Lilly Ledbetter found out she had been paid less than male workers at a Goodyear tire plant that she had worked at. She sued them, and a federal district court jury gave her $300,000 in compensation. Her victory did not last very long though. The Supreme Court decided that she had not met the law’s requirement of filing the law suit inside 180 days of the discriminatory act. The judges did not take Ledbetter’s argument that she could not sue about what she did not know

Another important event that was later passed was the Equal Rights amendment on March 22, 1972. This amendment was first proposed to the national women’s society in 1923. This amendment was ratified but failed, to be the 27th amendment on the constitution. It would read as “Equality of the rights of law under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state of account of sex. Alice Paul wrote this amendment, which was passed because they had a deadline that was not suppose to be permitted for a seven years period. It took the a long time for the legislature to ratify or pass this law because they needed three out four states in order for it to meet the required steps to be an amendment. ("Equal Rights Amendment." West 's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. 14 Dec. 2014 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>)

women and women’s rights, whether those rights be in the home, workplace, or anywhere in

In 1936 the Supreme Court heard the case of West Coast Hotel vs. Parrish. The case originated from a 1932 law in Washington State entitled “Minimum Wages for Women.” This law was supposed to set up minimum wages for women and children because the state felt that these groups were likely to be exploited. The public and many industrial influences collaborated to come up with what they felt was appropriate. For Elsie Parrish who was a chambermaid at a hotel owned by West Coast Hotel that meant that she should be making $14.50 for every forty-eight-hour work week. However, this was not the case and Mrs. Parrish was not being paid the wages that had been set forth in the “Minimum Wages for Women” law. Elsie Parrish decided to sue West Coast Hotel in a Washington State Court for the difference between the wages she was act-ally making and what the law said the minimum wage for women was. West Coast Hotel’s defense of their actions was claiming that the law itself was unconstitutional. The state court ruling was in favor of the hotel. Parrish then appealed the decision to the Washington Supreme court, they reversed the decision of the state court and then ordered that West Coast Hotel pay damages to Parrish. West Coast Hotel then appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court in 1936. West Coast Hotel, the appellant, was relying on the verdict of the Adkins v. Children’s Hospital case that had been heard by the Court. In the Adkins case, the Court had deemed that the