Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964: Case Study

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.

First issue that Jim and his executive assistant had to deal with is firing one of his employee named Henry Jaques for “having problems interacting with his co-workers.” Henry was fired by his store manager because they stated that Henry Jaques was “he made the whole place poisonous.” Furthermore, Henry was also complaining about working conditions and was “irate” wanting to sue the company. They reason why Jim is involved in this because he has approved of Henry dismissal. In the article “8 Fedreal Laws that Protect Employees” by Daniel Kurt under the “Employment-Based Discrimination” stated that “It illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” In this case, Henry was discriminated because

"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.

School principals will find in the following lawsuits the legal framework to provide educational services to ELLs in public schools. Baker (1997) points out that a landmark case in favor of bilingual education in the United States was a lawsuit in 1970. The case was a class-action suit brought by the parents of nearly 3000 Chinese students against the San Francisco School District (Lyons, 1990). This case originated that in 1974 the Unites States Supreme Court handed down its only substantive decision regarding the responsibilities of school districts serving ELLs (Lyons, 1990). The court indicated that under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Chinese students were entitled to receive specific support to allow them full participation in the school program (Crawford, 1989). This case was known as Lau v. Nichols and its verdict outlawed English submersion programs for language minority students, and resulted in nationwide ‘Lau Remedies’ (Baker, 1997). Lyons (1990) writes that the ‘Lau Remedies’ specified how to identify and evaluate language minority students, determine appropriate instruction, decide when ELLs were ready for mainstream, and determine the professional standards expected of teachers serving language minority students. Under the Lau Remedies school districts were encouraged to provide

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.

The primary goal of any school district’s English Language Learner policy should be to ensure that all students receive equitable access to the curriculum. The Office of Civil Rights memorandum (May 25, 1970) requires school districts to take affirmative steps to provide equal access to instructional program for students with limited English proficiency. The Illinois Constitution guarantees every child from kindergarten through grade 12, access to a free public education; which means, regardless of a child’s home language, he/she deserves a free and appropriate education (Illinois State Board of Education, 1998).

Federal (Title VII) and State legislation prohibit intentional discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and prohibit both “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” discrimination.

Two employees of AAG, Rajid, a first generation American of Pakistani ancestry, and Sonja, a first generation American of Serb-Bosnian ancestry complained that two co-workers of Mexican ancestry made abusive, derogatory remarks about them in Spanish. There was some dispute about what was said, since everyone else who overheard the exchange speaks little or no Spanish. As a result, AAG adopted an “English only” policy at the workplace. Juan and Garcia, the alleged harassers, complained that the English-language-only rule discriminated against them because of their national origin.

This applies to employers with 15 or more employees as well public and private colleges. Section 2000E-4 created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Civil Rights plays a big role in the recruiting and hiring stages because it prohibits employers from asking for a educational background non related to the needs of the job applied for, giving test to applicants non related to what the job calls for, and only giving applications out to people of the same race or color. This makes it fair for qualified applicants to get a fair chance in job employment. We need to make workplaces more multi-cultural unit especially because we live in a multi-cultural nation of opportunities. I believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title

Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the law that prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, training, promotion, discipline, or other work place decisions of a person based on an employee’s race gender, color, religion, national origin. This is a law that protects certain class of people of being discriminated, because they are protected with the law. It protects the civil rights of people that did not have it before. Title VII gets many complaints or cases so they have a system. The law requires the case to go through the EEOC. The EEOC decides if it will take the case. Brokering will settlement brings more notice to a case. (Bennet- Alexander and Hartman)

A. female Hispanic applicant (Applicant A) meets all the other qualifications for the position (and she is really nice and works hard), but has difficulty with the English language, often needing help with translating sentences. Are you allowed to deny the job to her, because she is from Mexico and English is her second language?

Supporters of U.S. English argue we must all speak one language to understand one another and share both culture and country. But Dennis Baron argues that "their intention to legislate official English often masks racism and certainly fails to appreciate cultural difference" (Baron, 1991, p. 8). English-only legislation really intends to exclude anyone who is not like

According to Community Relations Service, (2002) a U.S. Department of Justice agency created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to resolve community racial conflict through non-coercive, third party intervention prior to 1985, a majority of the 50 states had laws that authorized the so-called “any-felony” policy that police could use firearms or any other means of deadly force to arrest a person suspected of committing any felony. Some states permitted police officers by law to shoot fleeing persons, including those suspected of such property offenses such as check forgery and auto theft. Nine states and Washington, D.C. have no laws on the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers: Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Ohio; South Carolina;

All of this talk about the employees, what about the employer? The employer has rights also, after all, it is his company. Should the employer be able to understand everything that is said at his company or is that an unreasonable assumption? I do not believe so, it is his company, he should be able to understand everything. If I were the owner of a company and I could not understand my employees, I would get very frustrated. The employer should have the right to dictate which language is spoken at his company.

American is diverse with people who speak different languages, and with people from different backgrounds, and countries. It important to embrace all cultures and provide a discrimination free workplace. The example provided in the case study highlights the issues of racial discrimination and equal employment opportunities with Hispanic workers. Pynes (2013) mentions the term disparate treatment. “Disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats an employee of a protected class differently from a non-protected class employee in a similar situation (Pynes, 2013, p. 84).”