Title VII
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The nation had been mired in peaceful and violent protests
against what has been called this nation’s quasi-apartheid system. It was a
doctrine of "separate but equal" which resulted in a lack of
opportunity for some citizens. James Meredith was admitted to a public
university in 1962 after the federal government sent federal marshals to combat
the mobs of ordinary citizens and state forces that attempted to stop him.
Non-violent students attempted to be served at a lunch counter and ride the
buses in the South, and were attacked. And how can we forget the four little
girls killed by a bomb in their church’s basement one Sunday morning? Racial
discrimination, and its inherent and overt injustices in our laws, compelled
good people to engage in civil disobedience and sacrifice their future and
safety for their children. The safety of young children was sacrificed for the
future of a nation. The 1963 March on Washington, attended by leaders such as
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, was one turning point in making the elimination
of racial injustice more than just a dream. From the streets to the White House,
many joined the fight against racial injustice.
President John Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon Johnson were
both in agreement as to what needed to be accomplished in the area of employment
discrimination, but the final resolution came with the enactment of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was effective one year after its enactment:
July 2, 1965.
United States Senator Chuck Hagel:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has played an essential role
in the growth of our nation both socially and economically. It changed modern
America by prohibiting social injustices and opened doors to millions of
Americans. For thirty-five years this Act has been an important weapon against
discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. Title
VII was a landmark in the effort to bring equality to all Americans in the eyes
of the law. This Act prohibited discrimination in the workplace, public
accommodations, and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This
law continues to be an important part of our society to this day."
"Regrettably, unlawful discrimination still exists in
our society. The best answer for all of us is to strive for equality of
opportunity so that what counts most is initiative, self-discipline,
preparation, and application. I will continue to work hard to ensure that all
people are judged on the basis of merit and not on factors such as race, sex,
color, religion, etc."
United States Senator Robert Kerrey:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on one of our
nation’s most important laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seeks
to protect employees against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion, or national origin. While the Civil Rights Act was passed long before
I was in Congress, its impact is felt every day for Americans in the workplace.
Particularly as a small business owner, I was able to see this law in action and
implement its principles. Equal opportunity for those seeking employment has
become one of our nation’s most cherished and defended cornerstones. This law,
which celebrates its 36th anniversary this summer, represents a significant
achievement by our government’s legislative branch in eradicating
discrimination in the work environment. Be assured that I will work diligently
to promote any laws that seek to advance the goals and objectives of Title VII.
Alfonza Whitaker, Executive Director:
This special edition of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity
Commission Update is designed to pay homage to the Civil Rights Act of
1964 which was the most important civil rights legislation of the century.
Title VII of that Act is the most important piece of the civil rights
puzzle. I chose the word "puzzle" because I am puzzled at how
prevalent racism and discrimination is in the 21st century. The articles
in this newsletter will point out some of the ironic facts about the
history of this legislation.
President Kennedy, who had been known to call out the
armed forces of the United States to enforce the rights of individuals in
regards to civil rights violations, demonstrated a presidential attitude
which was quite different from many of his predecessors. However, in early
1963 President Kennedy’s administration was opposed to the sponsorship
of major civil rights legislation. It was clear that the temper of the
country and of Congress was such that significant civil rights legislation
was sure to be defeated. However, this attitude suddenly changed in May of
1963 when trouble erupted in Birmingham, Alabama. For over the course of
this dramatic crisis, the people of the United States saw on their
television screen the Birmingham police and the senseless use of police
dogs, fire hoses, and other weapons against apparently well-behaved
demonstrators, many of them children protesting discrimination. As a
result of viewing the Birmingham events, people of the United States also
began to go through a metamorphosis of their attitudes. Somehow,
Birmingham made clear to the American people that there was something
radically wrong in this country: that intolerable injustices existed about
which something had to be done no matter what. Suddenly, literally
overnight, the time had come for consideration by the country and by
Congress of major civil rights legislation. Title VII of the Kennedy
administration bill dealt with discrimination in employment, but it bore
no resemblance to Title VII ultimately enacted. Initially, liberals and
archconservatives voted together to substitute the administration’s mild
Title VII provisions for a more ambitious bill which had been introduced
and advocated over many sessions of Congress by representative James
Roosevelt. The conservatives of course thought that by this move, they
would ensure the bill’s defeat. This strategy undoubtedly backfired.
Title VII has gradually forced the alteration of
employment practices of this nation in numerous ways. This is a law that
will affect the life of nearly every American alive today, and in many
ways, in manners that were never thought of when the legislation was first
proposed. While Title VII is by no means perfect, it is an illustration of
the power of the legislation and democracy at work when there is an
institution of laws by which men will seek to resolve human problems and
provide a standard for justice and constructive dialogue.
Courts have been conservative in their interpretation
of the law. If these laws are properly administered by people whose
actions and decisions determine exactly what the law means in practices,
the employment arena will be the better for it.
Maybe one day our society will conclude: the color of
an individual’s skin or his ethnic background will not make a difference
in employment decisions. However, until that day comes, Title VII will
continue to be a beacon of light that will be used to guide society and
show them the way toward the elimination of discrimination and inequality
in employment. I believe that someday it could happen.
As part of the commemorative issue of the Update
newsletter, various staff members wrote articles about the bases of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those articles
follow.
RACE
by Scott Redel
The protected classes of race and color, established in
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are often referenced simultaneously for good
reason. Often there is a clear link between one’s race and color, and it
may be difficult, in the face of discriminatory actions, to attribute the
discrimination to one of the two bases.
It can be said that the race/color discrimination
experienced by African Americans, especially southern blacks, was the most
visible form of discrimination in 1963 leading up to the passage of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, including Title VII that dealt specifically with
employment discrimination.
The overriding theme of the Act, and of Title VII, was
to promote equality for black African Americans. The treatment reached a
height in terms of awareness in May of 1963. Civil rights advocates in
Birmingham, Alabama were being brutally, repeatedly assaulted by
Birmingham police, all the while under the watchful eye of television
cameras.
Despite the overriding theme of equality for southern
blacks, and contrary to public misconception, Title VII does not allow
protection only to employees of a minority, or non-Caucasian race. It is
unlawful for an employer to subject an employee to a negative employment
action because of his or her race, regardless of what that race is
specifically. Persons of all races are protected under Title VII.
Although it is difficult to separate race and color, a
clearer distinction may be made between the protected classes of race and
national origin. National origin protection deals specifically with the
country in which an individual was born.
Color
by Ed Mims
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established
several protected classes: color was one of them. In the dictionary, color
is also defined as "color of face or skin." It was in this arena
that the elected officials in Washington, D.C. discussed color when
drafting the protected classes. Color, in the racially discriminatory
atmosphere, was having an impact among people. As the definition
indicates, color is easily identifiable and distinguishable.
Discrimination existed among people within a race or nationality based on
skin color, because people of many national origins come in various hues.
It should also be noted that people whose skin tones were lighter than
darker people sometimes looked down on darker people. Thus, the addition
of color as a protected basis earns its place in the law and history.
Religion
Authority: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended.
"In most cases whether or not a practice or belief
is religious is not at issue. However, in those cases in which the issue
does exist, the Commission will define religious practices to include
moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely
held with the strength of traditional religious views. ..The fact that no
religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group
to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief
will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the
employee or prospective employee. The phrase, "religious
practice" ...includes both religious observances and
practices..."
National
Origin Discrimination
by Martina Thompson
National origin as a basis for discrimination can be
traced to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which
states "No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the law." While this provision applies
only to state governments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
the same right…to make and enforce contracts…as is enjoyed by white
citizens," (42 U.S.C. Section 1981) applies to private and
governmental employers.
While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, it does not
define what the term "national origin" encompasses. The
legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress intended the term
to represent a broad category not tied to place of birth alone. The courts
have interpreted this to include cultural influences, family lineage,
language, and first-hand observations of appearance, speech and
mannerisms. For example, in Bennum v. Rutgers State University the
court found that the plaintiff was of Hispanic heritage even though his
father was a Sephardic Jew and his mother was Romanian. The plaintiff was
born in Argentina, where Hispanic culture is dominant. The Complainant
grew up immersed in and influenced by Hispanic culture. The court also
found significance in the fact the plaintiffs father traced his lineage
back to the Jews expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. The
court found the Plaintiff was Hispanic; literally, "of, or derived
from, Spain or Spanish."
The EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of
National Origin define national origin discrimination as
discrimination because of an individual’s place of origin, his or her
ancestors’ place of origin, or because the individual possesses the
physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin
groups.
National origin discrimination need not involve an
officially recognized nation, and can involve regional or ethnic
characteristics. Subgroups of a recognized national origin group can also
be protected, for example Dominicans and Puerto Ricans as subsets of the
Hispanic national origin group, because of certain distinctive
characteristics that set them apart from one another.
Title VII protection also extends to individuals associated with or
married to members of national origin groups, associated by membership
with organizations identified with or promoting the interests of national
origin groups, in attendance at or participating in schools or places of
worship associated with a particular national origin group, and
association by surname or spouse's surname.
Some exceptions to Title VII’s national origin
coverage exist. Title VII national origin protection does not include
adverse employment action based on failure to obtain a security clearance.
A very limited exception is made for bona fide occupational qualifiers
such as allowing a French restaurant to advertise for and hire exclusively
French chefs. Current employment issues in national origin law include:
-
Language: fluency requirements, English only rules,
disfavor toward accents. In failure to hire cases, fluency
requirements have been successfully challenged as pretext for illegal
discrimination; however some courts have held that lack of fluency is
a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, and some have held that no
inference of intentional discrimination can be drawn from fluency
requirements.
Sex
Researched by Melinda Hudson
Written by Gretchen Eure
Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex. Though sex
discrimination covers both males and females, its inclusion in Title VII
was based on the discriminatory treatment of women. Rosa Parks as a Black
woman was at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement that led to the
passage of Title VII. Women of all races and ethnicity who preceded her
built the platform for change. Parks’ contribution, refusing to stand up
so that a White male could sit, was the official start of the Montgomery,
Alabama bus boycott. As Sojourner Truth would ask, "...and ain’t I
a woman?" In polite societies of the north and south, as late at the
1960s’, a male would ordinarily yield his seat to a female. Yes, the
northern regions are not exempt from chastisement for its treatment of
women.
In the 60’s the movement of women to the workforce
was probably unparalleled since World War II. Currently, while the number
of women entering the workforce continues to increase, equality in
treatment on issues of pay, promotion, leave time, and other terms and
conditions of employment continues to lag behind. And now, males seem to
have forgotten the practice of relinquishing bus seats to persons they
perceive to have less strength than they do.
Sex discrimination as a protected class did not have
the same attention as race and color in the early 1960s. In fact, even as
the basis of sex was introduced as an amendment to Title VII on February
8, 1964, there was opposition from other women. The opposition was based
in part on the idea that the body of elected officials would defeat the
bill if it included sex as a basis. One even questions the sincerity of
the representative who introduced the sex amendment, recognizing that his
political affiliations and ideology were not synchronized with his
southern colleagues at that time. Perhaps inadvertently done by his
proposal, the bill passed with sex as a basis.
Discrimination
by Association
by Wanda Red Wing
I think a unique aspect of the Title VII law is its
ability to protect individuals from discrimination by association.
An individual who is not actually a member of a particular group, yet who
receives discriminatory treatment because they have an "ethnic
sounding" last name; associate with members of the targeted group;
are married to a member of the group in question; or attend school or
worship in a place associated with a particular racial, ethnic or
religious group, can file a charge of discrimination if they believe the
treatment they are subjected to is due to discrimination by association.
 |
The ideals that bind us together are as old as our
nation, but so are the forces that pull us apart. |
|
-President Bill Clinton |
Disability
and
Marital
Status
There have been many changes which broadened the scope and bases covered by
Title VII. Disability in employment is not a basis covered under Title
VII, but is covered under Title I of The Americans With Disabilities
Act. Disability is included in many comparable state and local
discrimination laws. In most states, as in Nebraska, disability has been added
to the state Fair Employment Practice Act, which also prohibits
discrimination against race, color, sex, religion, marital status, and
national origin.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is important to Title VII
because its enforcement agency, EEOC, was created through Title VII, and its
enforcement elements are patterned after Title VII. The Americans with
Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990. It prohibits
discrimination against persons with disabilities in public and private
employment. Persons with disabilities who have been discriminated against have
available to them all remedies described under Title VII, including compensatory
and punitive damages.
Next issue:
Posters and Essays from 2000 Millennium contests in Lincoln N.E.
High School, Omaha South High School, and St. Cecilia High School in
Hastings.
Picture by Erin Borg, 1st Place Winner
April 1999 Poster Contest, Falls City High School.
Everyone needs a place to live.
If you believe that you have been treated unfairly because of
your race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, familial status,
or disability, contact
Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission
P.O. Box 94934 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4934
or call
1-800-642-6112
or 471-2024 in Lincoln
"...There is hereby created a Commission to be known as
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which shall be composed of five
members, not more than three of whom shall be members of the same political
party. Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate for a term of five years..."
Title VII Section 2000e-4
Department of Justice News
Issued March 21, 2000
| Statement by the Attorney
General on the Settlement
Agreement with Adam’s Mark Hotel
Chain |
 |
"In this democracy that we live in, we must constantly
rededicate ourselves to the principle of equal opportunity and justice for all
of the people in this country."
"Thirty five years ago, Congress passed civil rights
laws that were intended to make this principle a reality. And at the
Department of Justice, we have been vigorously enforcing these laws—and, as a
result, witnessing significant change in the way that Americans are
treated."
"That is why I am so pleased to announce a settlement
with a major hotel chain that will ensure that every guest is treated equally—and
fairly."
"As you recall, last December we sued the Adam’s Mark
Hotel chain for allegedly discriminating against African Americans. It was a
suit that stemmed from allegations made by a group of young African Americans
who checked into the Adam’s Mark in Daytona Beach last spring during the Black
College reunion."
"Today’s settlement, which is subject to court
approval, resolves not only the Justice Department suit, but also suits filed by
private class action plaintiffs and the State of Florida."
"Under today’s settlement with the Justice Department,
the 21-unit hotel chain has agreed to adopt a comprehensive plan which will
ensure that every hotel will be operated in a non-discriminatory fashion. Under
this agreement, Adams Mark will modify all hotel policies to ensure
non-discrimination. It will set forth steps to be taken concerning future Black
College Reunion events and other group events. It will create an effective
method for investigating and resolving complaints. It will retain an independent
monitor to ensure that the chain is complying with the agreement, and, it will
employ strategies to attract minority customers."
"In addition, as a result of the class action, Adams
Mark will pay $8 million in monetary relief—part of which will fund hotel
management programs at Florida’s four historically black colleges."
"This settlement is the product of a cooperative effort
between Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth and the State of Florida—John
Relman, who represents the plaintiff's attorneys —and Bill Lann Lee, the
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. This type of
cooperation, at the federal and state level, as well as between the public
sector and the private sector, should serve as a model for the future."
"Today, is not the time for rehashing facts or assigning
blame. Instead, today’s settlement is an opportunity—a time to look forward
and define what will be the future of our country. I am pleased that Adams Mark
chose to work with us to ensure that all guests will be treated fairly in the
future. And I am confident that non-discrimination will now define the policies
of Adams Mark. I would urge all members of the hospitality industry to review
their own operation to ensure that no discriminatory practices exist at their
hotels."
"Young adults served as the impetus for this change.
They came forward, and they represent our future. Their actions, their ideas,
their dreams and beliefs will shape this new century for our country, and if
other young people are like them, I think our country is in good hands."
 |
The United States
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
|
Released January 7, 2000
PHOENIX -- The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and the Arizona Center for Disability Law today announced a settlement of
a disability discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Under the
terms of a consent decree, approved by Judge William Browning, Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. agrees to pay $132,500 to Jeremy Fass and William Darnell, two applicants
who are deaf. Fass and Darnell, who applied for positions at a Tucson Wal-Mart
store, will also be offered jobs under the terms of the consent decree. Wal-Mart
also agrees to make corporate-wide changes in the hiring and training of new
employees who are deaf or hearing impaired.
EEOC Chairwoman, Ida L. Castro commented about the national
significance of this case:
"With this settlement Wal-Mart is opening doors to people with
disabilities throughout the country. These changes will have a significant
positive impact for applicants and employees who are deaf and apply to any of
the Wal-Mart stores throughout the nation."
The lawsuit was brought in 1997 under the Americans with Disabilities Act by
the EEOC and the Arizona Center for Disability Law.
William Darnell, one of the charging parties in the case
noted, "Deaf people can do anything in the workplace that hearing people
can do, except hear."
Some of the major provisions of the consent decree that apply
directly to Mr. Fass and Mr. Darnell are:
Each will be paid $66,250. plus his share of profit sharing
and reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses that would have been
covered by health insurance benefits had he been hired by Wal-Mart in 1995.
Wal-Mart will offer both young men jobs as a stocker or
unloader. Wal-Mart will provide a sign language interpreter for them during
their training and orientation; at any meetings to discuss evaluations of their
performance; and at scheduled meetings.
Wal-Mart will also provide other reasonable accommodations
based on their deafness, including giving them vibrating pagers for
communication at the store, installing a telecommunication device for the deaf
(known as a TTY or TDD), and revamping their safety and evacuation procedures to
ensure that deaf employees are safely evacuated during an emergency, and if not
present in the store where they are hired, install visual fire alarms.
Mr. Fass and Mr. Darnell will be awarded a corporate service
date of September 1, 1995, and this date will be used for decisions that are
made based on the length of an employee's service with the company.
Wal-Mart will pay the Arizona Center for Disability Law
$57,500 in attorney's fees and litigation expenses incurred in representing
Jeremy Fass and William Darnell.
"I feel good because I took a stand about what happened
to me and by doing that I also helped other people who are deaf, " stated
Jeremy Fass. His lawyer, Rose Daly-Rooney agrees, "Today it seems the
success of a lawsuit or a settlement is measured by how staggering the amount of
money obtained. The Center measures the success by the significance of the
changes that will lead to improved employment opportunities for people who have
disabilities, and in this case the changes that Wal-Mart agreed to make under
the terms of this consent decree in how it conducts its hiring and trains new
employees who are deaf and hearing impaired are staggering."
EEOC attorney David Lopez adds: "Messrs. Fass and
Darnell deserve special recognition for their courage and determination. Their
efforts demonstrate the indispensable role of individual action in shattering
stereotypes in the workplace."
EEOC's Regional Attorney in Phoenix, Richard R. Trujillo
stated, "Not only will Jeremy Fass and William Darnell benefit from this
consent decree, but other deaf and hearing-impaired Wal-Mart applicants and
employees living in any town or city where there is a Wal-Mart will gain by the
provisions related to training and orientation."
A major portion of the training Wal-Mart offers to its new
employees is an orientation and training program that is developed at the
corporate office and administered nationwide through computer-based learning and
videotapes. Under the terms of the consent decree, Wal-Mart will do the
following:
Encode with closed or open captioning all training videotapes
used by Wal-Mart to train employees in any entry level position;
Develop an alternative format for a sign language version of
the information in the computer-based learning modules;
Provide a corporate-wide electronic or written notice to all
of its stores to announce the availability of the alternative format videotapes
and computer-based learning modules for use by the deaf and hearing impaired;
and
Modify its existing corporate policy on reasonable
accommodations to include a procedure for an applicant or employee to follow if
she or he wishes to request an accommodation and the procedure for approval of
the accommodation request.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, January 15th of
each year is the actual birth date of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
Whereas, The State of
Nebraska officially acknowledges the "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr"
holiday each year; and
Whereas, The dream of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. is epitomized, in part, by the mission of the Nebraska
Equal Opportunity Commission; and
Whereas, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., gave his life in the struggle for equal opportunity for people of
color;
Now, Therefore, be it
resolved that on this 21st day of January, 2000, the Commissioners and Staff of
the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission hereby acknowledge the contributions
of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and enter this Resolution in the
minutes of the Commission meeting held in Omaha, Nebraska on this date.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, Each year, the
month of February is designated Black History Month in Nebraska and across the
country; and
Whereas, The Nebraska Equal
Opportunity Commission is a state agency committed to the elimination and
eradication of discrimination against all persons and particularly people of
color, and;
Whereas, Black History
Month seeks to recognize and acknowledge the historical contributions of Black
people to society and applaud their achievements, and;
Whereas, Black History
Month is a meager effort in an attempt to fill the void of information and
accurately depict the history of Black people which has been omitted from the
school history books, and;
Now, Therefore, be it
resolved that on this 18th Day of February, 2000, the Commissioners and Staff of
the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission hereby join in the recognition of
BLACK HISTORY MONTH in Nebraska and applaud the contributions of Black people to
society and the world. Be it further resolved that our support of this
resolution is hereby entered into the minutes of the Commission meeting held in
Omaha, Nebraska on this date.
The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission welcomes
your input about the NEOC UPDATE. We cannot publish or respond to
queries about particular cases that come before the Commission.
Copyright 2000, NEOC
Newsletter Editor: Gretchen Eure
Investigations Unit Director/Public Education and
Outreach
