Griggs Vs. Duke Power Company “Abdulrazak”:
Took place in 1970-79. Willie Griggs filed a lawsuit, on behalf of African- American workers, against the company Duke Power Company. Griggs stated that Duke's rule discriminated against African-American workers since it violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Question
Did Duke Power Company's violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Decision: 8 votes for Griggs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII
Yes. After observing that Title VII of the Act planned to attain equality of employment opportunities, the Court held that Duke's consistent testing requirement prohibited a number of African-American workers from being employed by, and proceeding to higher-paying divisions inside the company.
Employment Discrimination Based on Religion, Ethnicity, or Country of Origin “Abdulrazak”:
September 11 must not be misused against innocent people because of their religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. Companies and labor unions have a distinct role in protecting against illegal workplace discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. Companies and unions should be mainly thoughtful to possible harassment or discrimination against Muslim, Arab, Afghani, Middle Eastern or South Asian people.
The law's preventions include harassment or any other employment action like:
• Affiliation: Harassing or discriminating because an individual is associated with a specific religious or ethnic group. For instance, harassing someone because he is Arab or follows Islam, or not paying a worker higher since she is Middle Eastern.
• Physical or cultural traits a...
... middle of paper ...
...ous Discrimination “Abdulrazak”:
Religious discrimination includes treating an individual including worker or applicant negatively because of his or her religious beliefs. The law defends not only people who belong to specific religions like Islam, but also others who have openly held religious beliefs.
The law prohibits discrimination when it comes to any phase of employing someone, including hiring, firing, getting a raise, getting a promotion and other related stuff.
It is unlawful to harass an individual because of his or her religion. Title VII also forbids job discrimination based on religion, such as allocating a worker to a non-customer job because of customer disliking.
Citations:
"Religious Discrimination." Religious Discrimination. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
"GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER COMPANY." Griggs v. Duke Power Company. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that any program that receives federal funding and assistance may not discriminate based on race, national origin, or skin color. All students are allowe...
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. Race, color, national origin, gender, and religion are known as protected classes. The Supreme Court later established “several theories of discrimination that plaintiffs may purses based on the type of discrimination alleged.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015) The three most common theories are disparate treatment, mixed motives, and disparate impact. Aquino v. Honda is an example of disparate treatment as Aquino believe his was terminated, thus discriminated against, because of his race. Disparate Treatment is defined as “overt and intentional discrimination.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015)The burden of proof was on Honda to prove it had legitimate reason to terminate Aquino. The court ruled that Honda had met the burden of proof; the firing was not discriminatory as the accusations were not baseless nor did they amount to pretext. When the burned shifted back to Aquino to prove his firing was discriminatory in nature, he could not provide any
The ruling found that Duke Power Company had violated the Title VII because of their company discriminatory practices; the Supreme Court explains the case conclusion Title VII's purpose is not to restrict testing or diploma requirements for a company hiring or promotions, the act is here to stop segregation; Title VII in no way prohibits testing or diploma requirements for hiring or promotions. Indeed, when they are properly developed and used, tests and other employment criteria can be an effective, efficient means for employers to evaluate applicants. But as the Court explained in Griggs, “What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract.” (NAACP) CONCLUSION
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Plessy v. Ferguson." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 1991. Web. 24 Apr. 2014
Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted on July 2nd, 1964 as a mitigation strategy to prohibit any form of discrimination on grounds of a person’s religion, sex, color, race or their national origin. The law was originally meant to solve the problem of discrimination witnessed during voter registration. It was also expected to solve discrimination present at workplaces and schools where there was widespread racial discrimination. However, the law has become an even more relevant tool and has seen to it that hiring and firing processes by many companies are adherent to it.
The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." ():-. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm on Mar 17, 2014
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has grown over the past few decades to ensure that employees, as well as employers, are protected against all employment discrimination. It is extremely important that both employers and employees know and understand what the law means and how to handle such acts of discrimination. As more amendments are passed into law, employers need to have clear and concise policies to help fight against discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Bennett, Alexander, Hartman (2003), Employment Law for Business, Fourth Edition II. Regulation of Discrimination in Employment 3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Affirmative action policies were also in affect at this time. The term ‘affirmative action’ was initially used in Executive Order 10925 which encouraged employers to ensure nondiscrimination (Holzer &Neumark, 2006, p.463). It was later strengthened in Executive Order 11246 which required that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that all applicants have an equal opportunity employment” (Kravitz, 2008, p.174). Both the Civil Rights Act and the affirmative action policy sanction access to, equity in, and opportunities in the workforce for minorities. Their intent was to ensure equal employment opportunity as well as to identify and eliminate discrimination thereby guaranteeing fair treatment in the workforce.
According to Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, (2001) “the most important statue eliminating discriminatory employment practices, however, is the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act o 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” The appropriation section o...
Job discrimination has been a poison polluting the atmosphere of the workforce for a countless number of decades. Unfortunately, it is a poison that still lingers in today’s modern workforce. To combat this threat, and to aid those individuals affected, several Federal laws have been implemented to prohibit job discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as an example, is a Federal legislation that outlawed unequal opportunities and rights in the workplace. The purpose of this legislation is to prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ("Federal laws prohibiting," 2009). However, is it a justified action for a business to hire staff based solely on the fact that they are Christian? After all, Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based not only on color, race, sex, or national origin, but also based on religion. How should an employer respond that is proposing for their hiring policy to target dedicated Christians only?
Introduction- Discrimination affects people all over the world. People of all ethnicities and from all different walks of life are influenced in some way by workplace discrimination. "Discrimination" means unequal treatment. One of the most common elements discriminated against is a persons ethnicity, or their race. This is called Racial Discrimination. While there are many federal laws concerning discrimination, most states have enacted laws that prohibit it. These laws may have different remedies than the federal laws and may, in certain circumstances be more favorable than the federal laws.
Workplace harassment is unwelcome actions that are based on a person’s race, religion, color, and sex, and gender, country of origin, age, ethnicity or disability. The targets of the harassment are people who are usually perceived as “weaker” or “inferior” by the person who is harassing them. Companies and employers can also be guilty of workplace harassment if they utilize discriminatory practices against persons based on ethnicity, country of origin, religion, race, color, age, disability, or sex. These discriminatory practices have been illegal since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act of 1964), and have been amended to be more inclusive of other people who experience discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (The Civil Rights Act of 1991), and most recently, President Obama’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Stolberg, 2009).