Title Vii Paper

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.

Through the years, America has made an overall improvement in eliminating discrimination, inequality and slavery and focusing more on inclusion, equal rights, and equal opportunity. Despite a considerable improvement, there are corporations and individuals that often revert to archaic means of treating employees, creating hostile environments. Consequently, different advocacy groups and laws still remain in effect and continue to evolve to protect the citizens and non-citizens of the USA.

TITLE VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 law was what many civil rights activists had been lobbying for over many years. Title VI was made to end segregation and discrimination on the basis of color, gender, and nationality for employment. However, education was not included in TITLE VI, which caused Dr. Bernice R. Sandler, a senior scholar at the Women’s Research and Education Institute in Washington, DC, to still have to fight for her job at the University of Maryland. Dr.

Title VII applies to state and local governments with 15 or more employees and also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations including our federal government. Based on Title VII employment opportunities cannot be denied to any person based upon their race or perceived race or because of their marriage or association with a person or persons of a particular color or race. Title VII also prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions pertaining to the abilities, traits, or the performance of persons from certain racial groups. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate when recruiting, hiring, and promoting, transferring, also work assignments, performance measurements, the work environment, job training, discipline and discharge this also includes wages and benefits, and anything else including condition and the privilege of employment. Title VII not only prohibits intentional discrimination, it also covers neutral job policies that disproportionately affect any person of a certain race, color, nationality that are not related to the job and the needs of the

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.

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 today’s legal environment, individual civil rights have been affected considerably by recent Supreme Court activity. In most cases when trying to prove employer discrimination, there are two main theories “pretext” and “pretext-plus” (Bickham & Clark, 2005) that are used when impending burdens where employers are alleged of discrimination. These two discretions assist in the legal process to help determine ‘proof’ of Title VII violations.

Discrimination in the workforce is not only illegal, but it has been the center of controversy for multiple cases throughout its existence. The purpose of this writing is to reflect on particular personal circumstances based around actual events. First will be a clearly defined section of the Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed by a brief description of personal experiences involving discrimination, and concluding with a reflection as to how the American workforce is protected by law. The writing will cover any ethically related issues, personal thoughts and ideas, and illustrations of how the law pertains directly to personal events, as well as provide direct links to any and all reference material covered under the purpose of this writing.

Laws against discrimination- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that no person employed or seeking employment by a business with more than 15 employees may be discriminated against due to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Lee, 1998). This Act

In regards to the Critical Thinking case study “Are Dreadlocks Protected under Title VII?” Fed Ex employee Christopher Polk should not be allowed to wear dreadlocks (Bethel University, 2017). Title VII Civil Rights Acts of 1964 gleaned from the Department of Justice website, explains Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone based on race, color, national origin, or sex. This includes females who are pregnant, gender identity, and religion (Justice.gov, n.d.). Interestingly, Title VII states that by refusal or failure to reasonably accommodate an individual’s “sincerely” held religious observances or practices violate one’s civil rights. (Justice.gov, n.d.). Additionally, in the article “No Dreadlocks Allowed”

By presuming that she would not benefit from attending the Title VII seminar. This week’s assigned reading discusses this scenario on page 71. According to the text, conversations that take place during employment applications, screenings and interviews can easily cross the line for discrimination claims. Although this blunder typically takes place unintentionally, innocent questions such as “Your hair is so pretty. Is that your natural color?” “Tell me about your family.” or “What does your husband do?” may be interpreted as the employer digging for personal information that does not apply to the applicant’s potential to the company. Even if Jill feels like this information is common sense or something that she has already learned she may

Gender imbalance in the labor force has improved. On the other hand, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the proportion of minorities in the workforce has increased by 10 percent from 1996 to 35 percent in 2012 (Lytle). The above statistics show that the Title VII has contributed in preventing employment discrimination successfully. Yet, religion has made employers not being protected under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For instance, whenever a company has any religious beliefs, they are able to hire worker having the same religion values. Also, company can refuse hiring unmarried pregnant employees or people having tattoos because of the violation of religious values. The above are not prohibited under the Title VII. The effectiveness of the two acts mentioned are still

The effect that this has on employees will eventually work its way to the human resource department due to the safety issues in the workplace. When employees do not feel safe at work they can inform the human resource department to initiate an investigation but some employees do not do that because of the treatment that they may get after the fact. Instead, they take more time off, avoid the issues, performance goes down and it can cause

Discrimination in employment has been an issue that has plagued our society throughout history. At the turn of this century it was acceptable to advertise job openings and specifically state that people of a certain race, color, religion, gender, or national origin "need not apply". A lot has changed over the last 100 years. The proverbial "pendulum" has swung in the direction of federal protection of certain people, but the problem now is that it has swung too far.

i. Employees who are employed by business with ten employees –Title VII doesn’t apply to employees who are hired by employers with less than 15 employees; however state antidiscrimination statutes may apply for fewer than 15 employees.