The Analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act - Essay Example

?  The impact of VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The impact of VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The 1964 Civil Rights Act refers to landmark legislation, in the US, which illegalized key forms of discrimination against women, racial, ethnic, religious and national minorities. These are the protected classes, which are covered with Title VII of the legislation (Loevy, 1997). The legislation protects these people’s rights to fair and equitable treatment, particularly within the workplace environment. Essentially, the 1964 legislation brought an end to unequal behaviors in various contexts, which included the workplace, in schools and public facilities. However, Title VII of the act focuses primarily on discrimination within the workplace. This paper will explore Title VII of the 1964 legislation providing incidences, which may be protected under the law. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a federal law, which deters discrimination in terms of employment on the basis of national origin, race, sex, color or religion. The law aims at protecting groups of people considered as vulnerable (Loevy, 1997). These groups include ethnic, racial, national, religious, and gender minorities within the workforce. The rights of these minority groups are protected to ensure that the groups attain similar treatment and rights as those in majority groups. The law typically applies to employers with at least 15 or more employees, consisting of local, federal and state employers. Notably, Title VII is applicable to institutions of higher learning colleges, labor organizations and employment agencies. Title VII essentially forbids discrimination in employment, specifically on the basis of religion, sex, color, national origin or race. Title VII outlaws not only premeditated discrimination, but also disallow a number of practices, which have the consequence of discrimination against individuals termed as protected. Employee discrimination typically takes place when an employer intentionally treats an employee differently on the basis of the employee’s religion, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, color, race, religion, gender or age. This discrimination may be either in the stages of recruiting, hiring, discipline, job performance or termination (Loevy, 1997). In order to provide proof of the incident of unlawful discrimination, employees should demonstrate that the action in question centered primarily on the fact that the employee belongs to a protected category instead of a legitimate business choice. This means that employment discrimination falls into two categories; firstly, disparate treatment signifies an employer’s intentional discrimination. On the other hand, disparate impact actions refer to employer’s procedures, as well as policies, which encompass unintentional discriminatory effects. Regardless of the form discrimination takes; Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits it and requires employers to find ways to deter its occurrence. Notably, however, even in case an employee provides evidence to show that the employer’s actions constitute discrimination, the employer can justify the actions by showing that there was an inherent business necessity. Employers may also justify their discriminatory actions were in relation t legitimate job qualifications. When employers make decisions on the basis of legitimate justifications, the burden of proof lies squarely on the employees to show that discrimination, rather than the employer’s justification was the basis of the action. Title VII affirms what constitutes unlawful employment practices, which include, among others, failure or refusal to hire or discharge an individual (Loevy, 1997). Alternatively, the piece of legislation also qualifies discriminatory actions as touching on aspects of an employee’s conditions, terms, privileges, compensation of employment as a consequence of such a person’s attributes. Discrimination also constitutes limiting, classifying and segregating applicants or employees for employment in manners in which deprive them of employment opportunities or injure the employees’ status as employees. The law protects against incidences of discrimination on the basis of gender. For instance, in a workplace with more than 15 employees and where several employees have approximately similar academic qualifications, but varying degrees of experience, an employer should not consider an employee’s gender when determining who to promote to a superior position. In such an instance, it would be illegal for the employer to consider male employees only for the promotion simply because the only qualified female is pregnant. If the employer based its promotion strategies on gender preferences, the actions would constitute discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically, such an action would constitute pregnancy based discrimination where employers deny women equal opportunities as men based on pregnancy. Title VII provides that pregnancy, as well as childbirth, should be considered in the same context as temporary conditions or illnesses (Loevy, 1997). Therefore, in such an instance, Title VII provides the affected female employee the remedy of filing a claim against her employer (Loevy, 1997). However, the act provides the specified timeframe of six months during which the affected employee should report the incident of sex discrimination from the date the discriminatory event occurred. Employers are instantly notified of the discrimination charges filed against them. Therefore, it is evident that Title VII acknowledges sex discrimination as a true form of discrimination that plagues the workplace environment. Title VII affirms that discrimination on the basis of sex creates a hostile work environment making it quite difficult for employees to perform their functions effectively or maximize their capacities. In addition, Title VII of the 1964 act also protects employees against discrimination on account of their religious affiliations. Although the law provides employers with the mandate to protect their business operations, the law disallows employers from instituting unjust policies and regulations that discriminate against employees on the basis of their religion (Loevy, 1997). For instance, Title VII disallows the actions of employers who discriminate against job applicants on the basis of their religion. The law acknowledges the significance of all religions noting that no religion is superior to other religions. Therefore, when an employer fails to offer equal employment opportunities to, say Muslim applicants, the employer’s actions are tantamount to breach of law. It is exceedingly vital for managers to know and comprehend the consequences of violations of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is primarily because employers suffer the consequences of discrimination since the law provides remedies to employees who undergo discrimination (Loevy, 1997). It is pertinent that employers realize that while the law allows employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of protected traits in instances where the traits are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). These qualifications represent those that are reasonably vital for the normal operation of a business or enterprise. However, employers should know and comprehend the implications of violating Title VII since they will be tasked with proving that their discriminatory tendencies were permissible by the bona fide occupational qualifications defense. This means that employers should be aware of the implications of discrimination, particularly taking note of the aspects needed for the bona fide defense. Employers should appreciate that they need to prove elements such as a direct link between sex and the capacity to perform work functions or duties. BFOQ focuses primarily on the essence or key mission of an employer’s business where there is no reasonable substitute. Managers should closely monitor their work environments since the firms could be held responsible for discrimination. Employers are eligible for litigation, which could ultimately result in hefty fines or even closure of the firm (Loevy, 1997). In essence, employers should take note of the consequences of violating Title VII of the act since the firm suffers the consequences of discrimination and shareholders could lose their investments. Despite the form of discrimination that occurs in the workplace, employers are susceptible to suffer serious repercussions that include hefty fines or business closure. This makes it immensely vital for managers to appreciate the consequences of violating Title VII in order to save the firm from incurring undue expenses and suffering profound adversities. Reference Loevy, R. D. (ed.) (1997). The civil rights act of 1964: The passage of the law that ended racial segregation. New York: State University of New York Press. Read More