The Protection Of Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a Federal law protecting people in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance from being discriminated against due to their race, national origin, or color (United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights, 2015). In this discussion, I will review how, in my opinion, this law has contributed to improving culturally competent care.

The founding fathers of the United States of America fought hard to achieve an independent nation. An independent nation containing freedoms and rights for citizens that only the constitution can guarantee. One of the crucial rights guaranteed to U.S citizens today is the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone according to Brandeis and Warren. The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is however mentioned in the bill of rights. The bill of rights is the first ten amendments of the constitution, which protects many civil rights and liberties of all U.S citizens. The debate today is whether the constitution protects the privacy of citizens from being regulated and invaded by federalism.

President Lyndon B. Johnson and President John F. Kennedy made many notable advances to outlaw discrimination in America. They fought against discrimination on race, color, religion, and national origin. Although the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments outlawed slavery, provided for equal protection under the law, guaranteed citizenship, and protected the right to vote, individual states continued to allow unfair treatment of minorities and passed Jim Crow laws allowing segregation of public facilities. America would not be the country it is today without their effort to make this country better and of course without the help of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I support the idea that women should not be forced to wear any foreign substance on their face. Research even suggests some makeup can be toxic, cause pregnancy problems and even cancer. States like California have a strict rule that demand companies to report cosmetics products sold within the state that contain ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. The court decision would probably be different if the claim alleges that Harrah’s grooming policy would cause health hazards specific to women employees.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation in the United States was commonly practiced in many of the Southern and Border States. This segregation while supposed to be separate but equal, was hardly that. Blacks in the South were discriminated against repeatedly while laws did nothing to protect their individual rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ridded the nation of this legal segregation and cleared a path towards equality and integration. The passage of this Act, while forever altering the relationship between blacks and whites, remains as one of history's greatest political battles.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or even discharge anyone or discriminate anyone based off of wages, terms, and etc. because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Women in the workforce were the greatest impact in the 20th century. By this happening it allowed for everyone to compete on a fair scale for jobs and etc. In the 21st century individuals with disabilities would be a great impact on the workforce. Research has shown that people with disabilities are able to perform well as long as you are able to make accommodations so they are able to perform their jobs. In both cases having everyone able to participate allows new improve ideas to come to light.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was known as an end to racial segregation. It was brought about by a number of things including the effects of major events mostly involving riots. State and federal legislation needed it to be passed along with many social movements that influenced its decision. It is no question that it heavily changed America for the better by turning us into a melting pot and making us see that everyone should be treated as equals. It is important to remember that this act was not only beneficial to the time in which it was enacted, but it has affected our future by sustaining society. Today we continue to fight to outlaw discrimination within our nation, and thanks to the passing of this act we are able to be strong and help support the removal of unequal protection for all citizens. The general public has always deserved to be treated with the same rights that every White American is given. This act needed to be passed in order to see the harm we were causing by segregating people. America has grown so much since the act was established, and with it by our sides everyone can be able to have the rights they all truly deserve. Without this act in effect, the impacts on our country would be dire. We needed this act in order to flourish as one nation and continue to build movements against any discrimination.

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address defined the American government as an institution “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people”. Lincoln had an idealistic view of the government as an instrument for societal change. He, as well as the founding fathers, intended for the government to act in support of the people’s will or the majority rule. This democratic definition of the government has remained true throughout the course of American history. By placing all of its power on its citizens, the government itself did not decide the course of history but rather followed it. This follower mindset is seen through the government’s positive interactions with marginalized groups’ who in their attempts to overcome exclusion gained

When we talk about caste system, one must talk about the southern and border states of the United States during the 1877 to mid-1960. These states primarily operated and upheld what is called Jim Crow laws. Under Jim Crow laws it legalized anti-black racism; it was a way of life for black citizens to live under a series of rigid anti-black laws. It was a system which was supported by beliefs that white citizens were superior to black citizens to include intelligence, morality and civilized behavior. Jim Crows laws suggested by mixing of the races would produce mongrel race that would destroy America, treating blacks equal would encourage interracial sexual relations and violence was the means to keep blacks at the bottom of the race hierarchy

Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ensure that all people who are seeking employment will not be discriminated against regardless of their race, national origin, color sex, or religious beliefs. In the four given examples of casting calls, it would seem that disparate treatment discrimination was blatant in the both the wording and premise of the casting notices. Since it seems to be common practice for agencies to create casting notices that openly call for certain races or colors of people, it would seem that any person who wasn’t hired for a certain part could file action with The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and have their case investigated, or be given a “right to sue” order that could possibly change the employment practices of the entertainment industry.

Necessary and Proper Clause: This is a clause within the United States Constitution specifically in Article I Section 8. It grants Congress the power to create laws or take certain actions that are not explicitly seen in the Constitution and allows flexibility within Congress. The Necessary and Proper clause allows Congress to use enumerated powers that are implied within the text of the Constitution.

Charges of workplace discrimination is said to be at an all time high. During the 2015 fiscal year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity released information that claims there were more than 89,000 charges filed for workplace discrimination. One of the top ten charges is said to be retaliation, which had an estimate 39,757 cases in 2015, which is 44.5 percent of all charges filed. Retaliation is said to be in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, For the purpose of this research paper I will provide the understanding of both Acts, while also taking a case that deals with to provide the basis of the case, the findings, and the outcome of the charges.

Under the first amendment right a person has the right to exercise whatever religion that they so choose. And that is why Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came along is there to protect all employees that are and may be discriminated by employers, which means that an employer should not refuses to hire a candidate based on their religious beliefs or practices, or they cannot refuse to promote an employee, or adjust their rate of pay on their religion, they must be treated exactly as any other employee within the company, they should not be discriminated or be segregated against. Title VII also protects employees against employers or employees making any prejudice remarks against them. Employees are protected by both Title V11 and

Title IIV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids the discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion by employers. So why it is that sex segregation is so rampant in the workplace still? Segregation is defined as the characteristic on which groups are sorted symbolized dominant or subordinate status and become the bases for differential treatment. It provides rewards for the dominating group in society and makes the minority group stay below. This process provides an illusion of equal but separate treatment for the people of the workplace. Making great strides since the 1960’s, woman to male inequality in the workforce has gone down, however it has not decreased enough. These laws have only been

The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).