It also outlawed blacklisting, intimidation, and industrial spies. Another law that came into effect and was passed even after veto by President Truman is the Taft-Hartley Act. The Taft-Harley Act contained a number of laws and had numerous benefits for employers. It banned the closed shop, where only union members could be hired. It allowed states to pass a right to work law that instituted open shops, where workers did not have to join a union if they chose not to.
Historical Significance of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 In 1964, the United States passed one of its strongest civil rights laws in history, the Civil Rights Act. The act bans discrimination because of a person's color, race, national origin, religion, or sex. It primarily protects the rights of African Americans and other minorities. Major features of the Civil Rights Act include the freedom to vote and use hotels, restaurants, theaters, parks, and all other public places. The law also encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the withdrawal of federal funds from programs practicing discrimination.
As a result, President Kennedy in an exceptional message to Congress on February 28, 1963, declared “the democratic principle that no man should be deprived of employment commensurate with his abilities because of his race or creed or ancestry” (Dirksen Center, 2006). After over one year of debate in the U.S. Congress, on July 2, 1964, President Kennedy signed into the bill containing the Title VII provisions “defining unfair employment practices and providing for their prevention” (Vass, 1966). After the Act’s passage in 1964, subsequent amendments were added to further support the law such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Apollo Library, 2008). All of these amendments acknowledged additional areas of workplace discrimination and empowered the EEOC to provide remedies to workers who had experienced workplace discrimination based on age, pregnancy, or disability while the Civil Rights Act of 1991 included provisions for jury trials, compensatory and punitive damages (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2007). For example, the ADEA had employers from refusing to hire or discharge on the bases of age while the PDA prohibits employers from “using pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” as a reason for treating an employee differently than other employees.
If a woman chooses not to seek medical attention for her unborn child, is that not the same as a mother not seeking medical attention for her baby’s aliment? In fact I believe it is and we as a society consider that negligence. So we must decide that a fetus is not a part of the mother’s body but a person, and that her right to freedom of choice must be weighed against the fetus’s right to be born in a healthy state. Against: Are we as a society ready to demand more of an expectant mother than anyone else? If we are sincerely committed to equality then the answer must be no.
In the case, International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 499 U.S. 187 (1991), the court affirmed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act grants all women the right to work in any job they choose even if the job exposes them to harmful chemicals. The court also stated that a fetal-protection policy (like ours) excluding persons based on sex is discriminatory. (Jennings, 2006). It is my recommendation that based on the given facts and past court decisions it will be best to seek negotiation or settlement if a sex discrimination suit is brought against us by
Government rules and legislation is here to protect and help people in the workplace. 3. Sex Discrimination Act 1984 The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 states that it is against the law to discriminate against people based on their gender, marital status, potential pregnancy, pregnancy or having children. It also sets out laws against sexual harassment in the workplace. Example When a young women goes to a job interview she cannot be asked about her future plans regarding starting a family.
Evidence showed that she had several promotions while being employed and that her job performance were averages. The court did not hold the Paper Magic Group liable because the plaintiff could not provide adequate evidence of age discrimination. A case similar to ours, Goldmeier v. Allstate refers to constructive discharge regarding religious beliefs. The plaintiffs claim that Allstate violated their religious beliefs after the company announced that offices would remain open Friday evening and Saturday mornings (Goldmeier, 2003). Evidence showed that Allstate offered the plaintiff’s time to observe their holy day but they would have to work another day.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1974, which defined “sex” discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and child birth (Jennings, 2006). Because Paula is not pregnant, she has the right under the Equal Employment Opportunity and cannot can not be treated less equally which would be disparate treatment. Management should grant the transfer, make sure Paula is aware of the chemicals in case she does get pregnant and place Sam on probation excluding him from being around Paula. If his action occurs or he continually harasses Paula, Sam should lose his job to prevent the harassment from going to court. Newcorp would face the charges and pay Paula if she wins the case in
Presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnston helped use their executive powers to help civil rights in America. JFK helped pass laws that gave blacks equality to vote and get a good education. He passed the CEEO, which gave all Americans an equal opportunity to get a good job in America. Lyndon also passed laws to help the Civil Rights movement. He passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places.
Finally, the act was enacted by United States Congress on July 2, 1964. Wondering what was the act all about? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 laid the groundwork for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by outlawing certain discriminatory voting practices(Title I); it opened up places of public accommodation for people of color(Title II); it gave the federal government additional tools to wage the school desegregation battles(