Developments in the Law: Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

1971 ◽  
Vol 84 (5) ◽  
pp. 1109 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin S. Pandya ◽  
Marcia McCormick

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-334
Author(s):  
Kelli Rodriguez Currie

This article provides necessary context to adequately engage in a discussion about transgender and nonbinary individuals, including defined terms. It then provides a brief history of Title IX, articulates the requirements for compliance with the statute, and discusses its application to transgender athletes. Next, this article provides an overview of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the recent statutory analysis of its prohibition on employment discrimination because of sex in Bostock v. Clayton County extends that analysis to the statutory language of Title IX, and summarizes the recent interpretation by the Department of Education applying that analysis to Title IX. The article then discusses the implications of the persistent misgendering of transgender nonbinary athletes and argues that only by allowing all athletes to compete as their true gender will the inclusive goals of Title IX be realized. The article concludes that the requirements for Title IX compliance are not inclusive of transgender nonbinary athletes and contradictory to the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex articulated by the statute itself. The article proposes several necessary changes to the language of those requirements for compliance and argues that the Department of Education must make changes in its interpretation toward more inclusive language to truly achieve the goals of Title IX.


Author(s):  
Rahul Chakraborty

Social science has predominantly discussed accent bias against non-native speakers, although not always. In this paper, positive consequences and favoritism of non-native accent will be reviewed along with the legal provision available in the USA to counter accent based discrimination. Specifically, this paper will present how listeners exhibited preferential treatments towards speakers with non-native accent and how some non-native speakers are more immune to negative discrimination. Brief introduction to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act will also be presented as a potential legal provision available to employees, students and to anyone if they are discriminated against due to their non-native accent.Crossing the Border: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 5(2) 2017: 3-14


1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-347
Author(s):  
Edith F. Canter

AbstractThe emergence of genetic screening techniques will permit employers to exclude hypersusceptible individuals from potentially hazardous workplace environments. The denial of employment opportunities to these individuals, however, may constitute discrimination. This Note analyzes genetic screening cases with respect to currently available remedies contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Note concludes that Title VII claims may succeed but only in limited circumstances and that Rehabilitation Act claims will encounter numerous obstacles to relief. Additionally, the Note discusses some of the implications of the use of genetic screening in the workplace.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Skrentny

AbstractThe federal government created America's historic 1964 Civil Rights Act during a period of low immigration. The primary goal was to create equal opportunities for African Americans by ending Jim Crow discrimination in the South. Focusing on the issue of employment discrimination, and specifically employer preferences for immigrants, this article shows how the current period of high immigration from Latin America and Asia has created new challenges and dilemmas for Title VII, the employment discrimination title of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, sociological evidence indicates that U.S. businesses are engaging in race-conscious employment focused on the perceived value of racial skills (special abilities of certain racial groups at particular jobs) and racial symbolism (organizational benefits from displaying certain races on the work force). Businesses hire Asians and Latinos, and especially immigrant Asians and Latinos, because of the perceived racial skills of these groups at low-status jobs that require strong work ethics and obedient attitudes. Corporate employers seeking skilled workers do not necessarily prefer immigrants. Instead, they seek minorities for the symbolic value of their diversity, for their general racial skills at bringing new ideas to the workplace, and for their racial marketing skills for growing non-White markets. I assess these developments from a legal perspective, showing that a combination of a lack of litigation and some key court decisions have prevented Title VII from regulating racial skills and racial symbolism and/or from offering protection for immigrants themselves.


Author(s):  
John D. Skrentny

This chapter focuses on low-skilled employment. It shows that employers have a racial hierarchy of preference and that they rely on word-of-mouth hiring to attract Latino and Asian workers with the racial and/or immigrant abilities they prize. The chapter gives special attention to meatpacking, a sector that has been racially remade in the past few decades. It then explores the ways Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should prevent this kind of hiring and shows how judges have created new opportunities for employers to use word-of-mouth hiring to build and maintain their Latino and Asian workforces without running afoul of the law. This chapter also shows how two other laws, the Immigration Reform and Control Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, would seem to prohibit immigrant realism but have nonetheless failed.


Hypatia ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-121
Author(s):  
Camille Monahan

Knowing the theory of gender that a court is using to understand and assess the issues in a case is vital to ensuring that women are afforded their full rights under the law. Unfortunately, courts often do not explicitly state what understanding of gender is informing their decisions. An exception is found in employment law: specifically, the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which allows employers to engage in sex‐based discrimination in those instances in which the sex of the employee is a reasonably necessary qualification for the job. In these cases, because the court must analyze how “manness” or “womanness” impacts one's qualification to hold certain kinds of employment, the court must articulate its understanding of gender. This paper examines two BFOQ cases in the cross‐gender prison guard context, those cases in which an individual of one sex seeks to guard inmates of the opposite sex. In these cases the courts created a theory of gender that posits men and women as different in kind. The theory developed in this line of cases is an attack on Title VII protections and a potential barrier to women's equality under the law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document