Supreme Court Clarifies “Prevailing Party” Status under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Defers a Decision on the Latest Challenge to the Affordable Care Act's Birth Control Mandate

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Harold M. Brody ◽  
Rochelle H. Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Birth Control ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Civil Rights Act

Opening Up the Workplace

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Rosen ◽  
Joseph Mosnier
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Job Seekers ◽  
Disparate Impact ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employment Screening ◽  
Opening Up

This chapter describes the contributions of Julius Chambers and his partners, most particularly Robert Belton, to the LDF's national litigation campaign to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which new law outlawed racial discrimination in the workplace effective July 1965. In October 1965, Chambers filed the nation's first-ever Title VII suit, and soon after filed three additional cases which, when ultimately decided years later, substantially ended overt racial discrimination in American workplaces. These critical victories included Supreme Court triumphs in Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) and Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), and the Fourth Circuit's Robinson v. Lorillard Corp. (1971). Griggs, recognized as the era's landmark employment ruling, established the "disparate impact" standard for adjudicating employers' use of "intelligence" tests and other pre-employment screening mechanisms. Together, Griggs, Moody, and Robinson did much to define the federal courts' interpretations of Title VII in a fashion that both opened workplaces to black job seekers and offered some compensatory remedy to those who had suffered under racially discriminatory workplace schemes. By these efforts, Chambers, his partners, and the LDF would leave the American workplace forever changed.

DEFINING A "BONA FIDE" SENIORITY SYSTEM UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

1985 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. FOX JR. AND ALLEN R. NELSON
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Bona Fide

Women in Probation and Parole, 1974

1975 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meyressa H. Schoonmaker ◽  
Jennifer S. Brooks
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Probation Officers ◽  
State Agency ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Probation And Parole ◽  
Change In Practice ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Probation And Parole Officers

A 1970 survey of women in probation and parole showed that only 20 states mixed caseloads of parole and probation officers. A survey of state agencies by means of a questionnaire directed. to the director of each state agency in January 1974 showed dramatic changes. The number of states allowing probation and parole officers to supervise clients of the opposite sex jumped to 46, with only four states holding out. The questionnaire results also show, not surprisingly, the low ratio of women employed in probation and parole. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the need for more qualified employees, and the inefficiency of caseload segrega tion have influenced changes in use of personnel. Although the change in practice to integrated caseloads is selective in some states and made with reservations in others, the response of one director of parole operations seems to capture the mood of inevitable change in practice and attitude: Civil Service says that his agency cannot discriminate against women and that a woman can do a "man's job" in all respects.

GENDER, RACE, AND CLASS POLITICS AND THE INCLUSION OF WOMEN IN TITLE VII OF THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

1993 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
CYNTHIA DEITCH
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Class Politics ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Race And Class

scholarly journals 'Sex' and Religion after Bostock

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin S. Pandya ◽  
Marcia McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employer Discrimination ◽  
The U.S

This paper reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). There, the Court held that by barring employer discrimination against any individual “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bars employment discrimination because an individual is gay or transgender. The paper then speculates about how much Bostock will affect how likely lower court judges will read other “sex” discrimination prohibitions in the U.S. Code in the same way, in part based on a canvass of the text of about 150 of those prohibitions. The paper also discusses the religion-based defenses that defendants may raise in response under Title VII itself, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(Non)existent Laws of Workplace Cyberbullying

2021 ◽  
pp. 425-446
Author(s):  
Harrison M. Rosenthal ◽  
Genelle I. Belmas
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Workplace Harassment ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
History Of ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Affirmative Defense

This chapter chronicles the legislative and jurisprudential history of workplace bullying and analyzes new frameworks for applying employee harassment laws to the digital era. Part I considers the sociolegal underpinnings of workplace harassment found in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The authors discuss how Title VII and its legal progeny gave way to “hostile work environment” claims. Part II discusses leading U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the creation of an affirmative defense for employers, and the limitations of that defense, including those developing in state and local jurisdictions. Part III discusses prevailing solutions and raises questions not yet addressed in the legal literature. Findings reveal that American jurisprudence is ill-set to protect or compensate workers injured by bullying—either cyber or physical.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Prentice Baptiste ◽  
Elsa Q. Villa
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Civil Rights Act
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document