The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin in public places, schools, and employment. However, discrimination based on sex was not initially included in the proposed bill, and was only added as an amendment in Title VII in an attempt to prevent its passage. Congressman Howard Smith (D-VA), Chairman of the Rules Committee and a staunch opponent of civil rights, had let the bill (H.R. 7152) go to the full House only under the threat of a discharge petition. During the floor debate, he offered an amendment that added sex to the four original categories, but only in Title VII (equal employment opportunity). Although Smith had supported the idea of an Equal Rights Amendment for women for nearly 20 years at that point, his amendment to the civil rights bill was likely intended to kill the measure. His plan did not have the desired effect, however, and the bill was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. After the bill was passed, the government began work on policies that would enforce the new laws. As a result, Executive Order 11246 was issued on September 24, 1965, to address compliance with civil rights regulations. However, it made no mention of discrimination based on sex. The omission of women’s rights did not go unnoticed. Many women and advocacy groups wrote to President Johnson, expressing the need to expand Executive Order 11246 to include enforcement of discrimination against women. Following are samples of letters sent to President Johnson. The president of the District of Columbia State Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs called the omission of sex in Executive Order 11246 to the White House’s attention several months later, as would other women’s advocates. The National Organization for Women (NOW), formed in October 1966, lost no time in pressing President Johnson to realize the promise of equal employment opportunity for women contained in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While praising him for his efforts to promote the advancement of women as employees of the Federal government and of Federal contractors through his Executive Order 11246, the new organization’s leaders also pointed out the omission of sex in its wording, and expressed disappointment that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) did not seem willing or able to carry out that part of the law’s mandate. Among the emphases in President Johnson’s omnibus 1967 Special Message to the Congress on Equal Justice was the need to continue to expand opportunity in the areas covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His remarks about addressing employment discrimination were framed solely in racial terms, however, so the leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) took the opportunity to remind him that those concerns applied to sex discrimination as well. They zeroed in again on the omission of sex from Executive Order 11246 and urged him to correct it. The omission of sex in Executive Order 11246 was finally rectified in Executive Order 11375 on October 13, 1967. In a letter to President Johnson, the leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) hailed the correction, but remained unsatisfied with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) performance in making the new order effective. The letter was signed by Kathryn Clarenbach, Betty Friedan, and Caroline Davis, officers of NOW from its inception, as well as Aileen Hernandez, who had announced her resignation from the EEOC over its lack of attention to women’s issues a year before Executive Order 11375 was issued. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) also applauded the belated inclusion of women in Executive Order 11375. Praise for the inclusion of women as beneficiaries of the Federal government’s ban on employment discrimination also came from black women’s groups such as the National Association of Media Women. Frankie Freeman had been appointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by President Johnson and expressed her appreciation as president of the black women’s service sorority Delta Sigma Theta for the explicit addition of women to those protected from bias in employment. - Allen Fisher, Archivist, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum Featured Documents:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal employment law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), and national origin. Title VII gives employees a private right to action. However, such claims cannot be brought against a specific individual, such as a supervisor. Rather, employers are subject to vicarious liability to violations caused by its managing employees. Adverse employment actions and hostile work environments are examples of circumstances that can support a claim under Title VII. Adverse employment actions are actions that cause a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, and reassignment with significantly different responsibilities. For example, an employee's reassignment to a more arduous and less prestigious position, due to her gender, constitutes an adverse employment action. Under Title VII, a hostile work environment exists when the workplace is "permeated with discriminatory, intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." For example, evidence of sexual harassment is sufficient to show a hostile work environment. Title VII also imposes an obligation to employers to reasonably accommodate employees, such as leaves for religious observance or practice. The standard for such accommodations is a reasonable one, and the employer may refute accommodations that impose undue hardship on the employer's business. For example, the Supreme Court has held that unpaid leave for religious absences constitutes a reasonable accommodation to refute a claim under Title VII. However, it is also noted that unpaid leave would not be a reasonable accommodation if paid leave is provided for all purposes except religious ones. Title VII is not the exclusive authority on employment discrimination law. Indeed, the Equal Pay Act (EPA) is another federal employment law giving employees a private right to action for discriminatory pay. However, Title VII cover types of wage discrimination not actionable under the EPA. A plaintiff may bring a claim under both the EPA and title VII so long as the plaintiff does not receive duplicative relief. Moreover, many states have their own employment discrimination laws. For example, in New York, the Human Rights Law prohibits employers from refusing employment or fair compensation because of (among other characteristics) race, creed, color, national origin. Title VII does not preempt such state laws so long as they do not allow for acts that would be illegal under Title VII. As a result, state laws may supplement and even cover some shortcomings of Title VII. Nonetheless, concurrent with the preemption clause, Title VII may preempt state laws where those laws frustrate the purpose or execution of the federal law. [Last updated in October of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team] |
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on all of these except
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 IlerngutCOM Inc.
