Comparison Of Title Vii To Section 760.10 Of The Florida Civil Rights Act Of 1992

Comparison of Title VII to Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992

Did the Title VII section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (updated in 1991) go far enough and provide adequate protection for the U.S. workforce? For the vast majority of states, the answer is a resounding yes; most states defer to the federal legislation for employment-related discrimination laws. There are, however, a handful of states that have enacted their own versions of Title VII; in doing so, they are effectively saying that no, Title VII does not meet the needs of our state. One state that has enacted its own form of employment discrimination laws is Florida; in 1992, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Section 760.10 specifically addresses many of the same issues covered by Title VII protections. What is the same, and what is different, between the two Acts? This paper will summarize the two sets of laws, describe the similarities, and detail the distinct differences between Title VI, the federal law, and Section 760.10 of the Florida law.

Both Title VII and Section 760.10 are sections of anti-discrimination laws that specifically address employment practices; some portions of the Florida law are lifted virtually verbatim from the federal Title VII version. For example, the following is an excerpt from Title VII regarding labor organizations and training programs:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint laborÐ'¬-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on Ð'¬the Ð'¬job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1964)."

On the same subject, section 760.10 of the Florida law states that "It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training (Florida Senate, 1992) ."

Another example of the replication of the federal statute to the Florida state statute is the paragraph addressing employment agencies; the federal law states that "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1964) . The paragraph in 760.10 is virtually identical; it reads "It is an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status" (Florida Senate, 1992).

When the state law so closely aligns with the federal statute, is there a need for a state to enact its own laws? In the case of Florida, there are distinct differences between the two which indicate why Florida legislators enacted its own version of Title VII; they were seeking to expand the protections covered by Title VII beyond what the federal law affords.

The first difference is the groups the laws seeks to protect; in Florida, the law encompasses the same groups as