Civil Rights Act and the Six Cases

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Ended segregation in public places and banned employment/labor union discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Independent federation of flight attendants v. Zipes

Flight attendants who became mothers were dismissed by the airlines. Supreme Court had to review whether or not timely filing was a statute of limitation

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

In 1974 the non-white cannery workers of Ward's Cove started legal action against the company. In 1989 the Supreme Court decided on the case in favor of Ward's Cove. This case prompted Congress to pass the Civil Rights act of 1991, which contained several important modifications to Title VII of the original act. Most importantly, however, the new Act shifted the burden of proof onto the employer by requiring that they must prove a close connection between disparate impact and the ability to actually perform the job in question.

Martin v. Wilks

In 1974, the Jefferson County, Alabama Personnel Board signed a consent decree that required them to hire and promote African-American firefighters. The accused, a white fireman, took issue with the agreement, claiming that he and other white firefighters (who were not parties to the original consent decrees signed in 1974) were more qualified than some of the black firefighters receiving promotions. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the appeal of the white firefighters in a 5-4 decision on the issue of whether the white firefighters have a constitutional right to challenge the previously established decrees and the CRA 1991 stated that consent decrees are constitutional and if everyone has a say in the decree then it is set in place and cannot be changed

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

A Supreme Court case in which Ann Hopkins sued her employer, Price Waterhouse, claiming that they had discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on the theory that her promotion denial had been based on sexual stereotyping. The Supreme Court accepted the argument that gender stereotyping does exist and that it can create a bias against women in the workplace that is not permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The 1991 Act reversed the decision and prohibits the consideration of race, gender, religion, color, and national origin when executing employment decisions, regardless of legitimate motives

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union

A decision wherein the Supreme Court barred a black employee who suffered racial harassment while working from suing for damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The CRA of 1991 reversed this and ensured that the statute recognized that discrimination applied not only to employment but also to on the job promotion

Lorrance v. AT&T Technologies

A group of female AT&T employees were demoted during layoff due to seniority plan between labor unions and employer. Supreme Court ruled that she would have to file grievance within 180 days. The CRA of 1991 now allows that in a case of reduction in force, sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination, the plaintiff has up to 300 days to file suit or the statute of limitation begins on the day the reduction in force affects plaintiff

The Civil Rights Act paved the way for two major follow up laws

Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Fair Housing Act of 1968

11 Titles

Voting, Injunctive relief against discrimination in all places of Public Accommodation, Desegregation of Public Facilities, Desegregation of Public Education, Commission on Civil Rights, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Registration and Voting Statistics, Intervention and Procedure after Removal in Civil Rights cases, Establishment of Community Relations Service, Miscellaneous

The CRA of 1991 was in response to

a 1989 decision of the Supreme Court that diminished workers' ability to sue employers for discriminatory reasons, so the 1991 legislation brought back this ability and added new methods

Civil Rights Act of 1991

amended the original civil rights act, making it easier to bring discrimination lawsuits while also limiting punitive damages that can be awarded in those lawsuits

Fair Housing Act of 1968

banned discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of property

The Civil Rights Act was later expanded to bring

disabled Americans, the elderly, and women in collegiate athletics under its umbrella

Other details of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

forbade the use of federal funds for any discriminatory program, authorized the Office of Education to assist with school desegregation, gave extra clout to the Commission on Civil Rights and prohibited the unequal application of voting requirements

More details of Civil Rights Act of 1991

modified some basic procedural and substantive rights under federal law in the area of employment discrimination, offers a trial by jury option in discrimination cases, and presented the first opportunity to collect emotional distress damages (limited how much juries could dole out)

Voting Rights Act of 1965

prohibited literacy tests and other discriminatory voting practices

The purpose of the CRA of 1991 was

provide suitable solutions for purposeful discrimination and illegal employment harassment, categorize the terms "job-related" and "business necessity" articulated by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co and in Wards Cove Packing Co v. Atonio, clearly state statutory authority and guidelines for disparate impact suit judgements under the 1964 CRA's Title VIII, and extend the range of civil rights statutes after recent Supreme Court decisions so that victims would get enough safeguards from discriminatory treatment

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

the power to file lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved workers