Treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation—subsequently enacted legislation —Civil Rights Act of 1964—Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Purpose: We explore whether certain employer characteristics predict Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) charges and whether the same characteristics predict receipt of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act charges.Method: We estimate a set of multivariate regressions using the ordinary least squares method.Results: Most employer-level characteristics that predict the receipt of ADA charges also predict the receipt of other types of discrimination charges.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that educational outreach efforts aimed at reducing the level of perceived disability discrimination in the workplace can be more efficient by targeting employer groups who are likely to receive charges under not only the ADA but also other statutes as well.

Download Full-text

Employer “Business” and “Job” Defenses in Civil Rights Actions

Public Personnel Management ◽

10.1177/009102609402300404 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 573-586

Author(s):

Paul S. Greenlaw ◽

John P. Kohl

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Prima Facie ◽

Employee Relations ◽

Equal Pay ◽

Prima Facie Case ◽

Civil Rights Act ◽

Legitimate Business ◽

Discrimination In Employment ◽

Equal Pay Act ◽

Merit System

In civil rights actions, employee-plaintiffs alleging discrimination must attempt to prove a prima facie case;1 and if accomplished the employer-defendant must attempt to rebut such cases with some type of defense. These defenses may be very narrow and specific in scope such as the seniority or merit system defenses explicitly provided for under the 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA). On the other hand, broader “business” and or “job” defenses (and the wording and meaning varies from situation to situation) have been both devised by the courts as standards of behavior for employers, and stipulated for employers by legislation. This article will analyze four important of these employer defenses: (1) the legitimate business reason and its antecedents in EPA litigation; (2) the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) “reasonably necessary” defense provided in both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; (3) the business necessity and job related standards promulgated in Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), as eventually codified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991; and (4) the job relatedness/business necessity/reasonable accommodation defense of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). All of the above defenses pose current challenges to employers except probably the BFOQ, so that their examination should be of value to all those involved in employee relations law.

Download Full-text

Privacy, Efficiency, and the Equality of Men and Women: A Revisionist View of Sex Discrimination in Employment

American Bar Foundation Research Journal ◽

10.1111/j.1747-4469.1981.tb00432.x ◽

1981 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

pp. 585-636

Author(s):

Mayer G. Freed ◽

Daniel D. Polsby

Keyword(s):

Sex Differences ◽

Los Angeles ◽

Civil Rights ◽

Sex Discrimination ◽

Men And Women ◽

Civil Rights Act ◽

Maintenance Of Sex ◽

Considerable Debate ◽

Discrimination In Employment ◽

Per Se

The Supreme Court's decision inCity of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manharthas engendered a considerable debate, much of which has appeared in the pages of thisJournal. Defenders of theManhartdecision take its critics to task for failure to appreciate the place of that decision in the overall jurisprudence of employment discrimination. In this article, the authors challenge the underlying conception of the law of sex discrimination that is said to dictate the result inManhart. Far from erecting a per se rule against all sex classifications, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is shown to recognize both the relevance of prevalent social norms about sex differences and the legitimacy of certain interests of employers as limited justifications for the maintenance of sex-conscious lines in some circumstances, a recognition that contrasts sharply with the statute's categorical prohibition on racial classifications. It follows from this discussion thatManhart'soutcome was not ordained by the ethos of the laws against sex discrimination.

Download Full-text

Racial Discrimination in Employment under the Civil Rights Act of 1866

The University of Chicago Law Review ◽

10.2307/1599024 ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 36 (3) ◽

pp. 615

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Racial Discrimination ◽

Civil Rights Act ◽

Discrimination In Employment

Download Full-text

A Primer on Equal Employment Opportunity Law and Contemporary Enforcement

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199363643.013.35 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Eric M. Dunleavy ◽

Lia Engelsted ◽

Alexander Morris

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

The United States ◽

Equal Employment Opportunity ◽

Age Discrimination ◽

Employment Opportunity ◽

Equal Pay ◽

Equal Employment ◽

Regulatory Frameworks ◽

Disparate Treatment ◽

Discrimination In Employment

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the legal issues that are most relevant to industrial/organizational psychologists in the United States. The chapter first reviews the legal process, describing laws and acts relevant to the workplace, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Executive Order (EO) 11246, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, American with Disabilities Act, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Next, it outlines the equal employment opportunity (EEO) enforcement agencies. It then describes the two broad theories of discrimination, disparate treatment and adverse impact, and the regulatory frameworks. The chapter provides basic primers for a set of contemporary EEO topics, including disability discrimination, pay equity, employer retaliation, and age discrimination. The chapter concludes with the notion that EEO law is constantly evolving, particularly as the scope of who is protected expands and the legal system clarifies ambiguities in the law.

Download Full-text