Title VII Strategies by Minority Groups
(African Americans, Women, Mexicans and Jewish Americans)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal Law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the grounds of sex, race, color, national origin and religion (www.aauw.org). Thus far in our lectures we have discussed the strategies used by various minority groups who have been discriminated against in violation of Title VII. There has been land mark decisions made from the hard fought fights by, African Americans, Women, Mexicans and Jewish alike. Their challenges of non-compliance and enforcement of Title VII brought successes that didn’t come without sacrifice, division and in some cases physical harm.
There were some major struggles both with the individual groups and between the groups themselves. The groups inability to unit as one people was one of the main causes that made it easy for the US government and law makers to digress from their arguments and challenges. It was easier to fight an already oppress and down trotted group than it would be to fight the “American people”. I feel they needed to put aside identity politics because it just feed literally into the norm of stratification.
African Americans
The strategies used to oppose the noncompliant enforcement of workplace discrimination by the African Americans were a three prong approach;
1. Civil Disobedience (yet non-violent)
2. Grass-root Organizing and Voter Registration
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.
The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.
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
This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become
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 VII of the Civil Right Act of 1946 that is an important legislation which plays a significant role in defining the employment procedures in today’s workplace. Racial discrimination will continue to be prohibited by Title VII and it has sparked an increase in anti-discrimination awareness as it is designed to promote equal opportunities, equality, and promote fairness. As a federal law, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a prospective employee from being hired based on gender, race, national origin and religion.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. Title I of the act gives equal voting rights removing registration requirements and procedures against African American. Title II excludes segregation and discrimination in places of public and transportation. Title VII prohibitions discrimination by trade unions, schools, or employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government. The latter section also applies to discrimination based on sex The act also calls for the desegregation of public schools (Title IV),
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.
The Civil Rights act of 1964 along with Title VII gives employees the option to sue business owners based on color, race, sexual orientation, and religion. This act, rules on the fact, that individuals can take action if a discrimination or harassment issues happens at the employer’s workplace. It expands Civil Rights statues to provide more protection against people who are victimized due to discrimination. It sets the guidelines for job related issues due to disparate impact or treatment issues. However, this act does not assure that everyone who faces discrimination will be employed because frankly he is a minority. If it is felt that there is a possibility of
When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many
Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1946 is an important regulation that has raised awareness on anti-discrimination laws in today’s workforce. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the landmark legislation and noted that: “Our generation of Americans has been called on to continue the unending search for justice within our own borders. We believe that all men are created equal. Yet many are denied equal treatment. We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights. Yet many Americans do not enjoy those rights. We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. Yet millions are being deprived of that blessings-not because of their own failures, but because of the color of their skin. … But it cannot continue. Our Constitution, the foundation of our Republic, forbids it. The principles of our freedom forbid it. Morality forbids it. And the law I will sign tonight forbids it” (NYT, 1964). For that reason, political and executive leaders have made a commitment to educate their employees on equal rights and diversity the workplace. However, there are several organizations that are facing hardships because of their negative reputation on gender equality and racial bias. For instance, ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft are under fire for creating a toxic culture that