Civil Rights Act of 1991, Essay Example

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act came to pass because of a series of Supreme Court decisions that hindered the rights of employees that filed for compensation. This was due to racial discrimination on the job. Employees were unable to sue employers for discrimination. Civil Rights Laws then needed to be modified to address these needs that employees now faced. Ultimately, the Civil Rights Law of 1991 had a positive impact on employer discrimination in American society; employers were no longer able to discriminate against their employees on the basis of religion, gender, and race.

In the times of the Civil Rights movement of the sixties, many laws were already set in place by the government that favored white citizens about colored or nonwhite citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was then established. This was modified to allow employees a right to a trial by jury on anti-discrimination claims. Individuals were also able to file for emotional distress damages.  Jurors however were limited with the amount of funds they could award. While this was an important development in the progress towards equal Civil Rights, it was not sufficient to enable diverse groups to have freedom with regards to work.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was an amendment of 1866 known as “Section 1981” that attempted to support the ability of a variety of populations to work without being discriminated against. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was also an amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which dealt with the employment related issues known as “title VII”. Section 1981 only banned discrimination based on race or color. On the other hand, Title VII included discriminatory prohibitions based on sex, religion and national origin.  These amendments were needed since Southern jurors were known to not give fair verdicts. Title VII was a significant improvement over Section 1981 because it allowed workplace rights for a greater number of people.

Title VII was put in place and this allowed trial by Court only.  This gave for the remedy such as back-pay, reinstatements and junctions against future discrimination acts. Ultimately, this allowed people who protested their workplace treatment on the basis of their race to be able to issue formal complaints in a manner that would also protect the employer against dishonesty. Section 4, A states that “… A complaining party demonstrates that an employment practice results in a disparate in part on the basis of race and respondent fails to demonstrate that such group of employment  practices is required by business necessity except that ….” (Civil Rights Act of 1991). This indicates that under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, employers must not be biased in the hiring and treatment of employees.

President George W. Bush used the power of his office at the time to veto a comprehensive Act of 1990. He had feared there would be racial quota imposed. In 1991, however, he approved the new version of the Bill. Four cases in particular lead to the Civil Rights Act of 1991. These are: Patterson verses Mc Lean Credit union in 1988, Wards Cove Packing Co. verse Antonio in 1889, Price Waterhouse verses Hopkins 1989, and Martin verses Wilks 1989.  These cases illustrate the need for civil rights in the workplace.

In the Patterson verses McLean Credit Union, employees were not allowed to sue for racial harassment on the job, due to the language of the law Congress choose in 1866.  The law starting that the wording indicated that employers did not deny whoever was hired to make and enforce contracts as enjoyed by white citizens. As a result, there was no prejudice. Wards Cove Packing Company nonwhite canner worker, Antonio, sued the Alaskan Salmon cannery for using discriminatory hiring practices. White workers were given permanent skilled job positions that did not involve working in the cannery. Nonwhite workers were only given unskilled seasonal cannery positions. The Act allowed for the plaintiff to show discriminatory practices without statistical evidence of discrimination.  The employee was now also able to sue for punitive damages which were awarded based on the company’s size (Oyer & Scheaffer, 2003). The success of these cases indicate how the Civil Rights Act of 1991 has supported the rights of diverse groups since its initiation.

Though the act seemed to have been a quota bill as stated by the editor of the New York Times after it was put into effect in November 21, 1991, it can generally make discrimination more difficult. Since the implementation of this law, employers have changed their hiring and firing behaviors. Instead of firing based on discrimination, employers now wait for a general layoff period to release employees. In this manner, it appears that individuals were not discriminated against. However, while it is possible for this to still be the case, it appears that firing practices in the modern era are more equal with regards to different races (Oyer & Scheaffer 2003). This is supported by the fact that a trial allows for the plaintiff to receive monetary compensation for the discrimination suit. Many employers want to avoid this happening to protect their public image and to save money.

While equal rights have been obtained in the workplace according to religion and race, there is an increase in gender discrimination cases. Unfortunately, many women continue to be discriminated against in the workplace. Employers are more knowledgeable not to fire or employ in a discriminating manner but, they are able to disguise layoffs before they are conducted. This is done for women more than for other groups. It is therefore necessary for women to continue to promote this struggle in a manner that will allow the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to benefit them just as it has for other worker groups. This demonstrates that workplace discrimination still exists and it will be necessary to modify societal beliefs to help facilitate this change.

References

Civil Rights Act of 1991. (2009). Civil Rights Act of 1991.1

Kahlenberg, R.D, & Marvit, M.Z. (2013). Make Organization a Civil Nation, 296(9): 12.

Oyer & Schaefer (2003). Retrieved from http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2003/7/v26n2-7.pdf