The Legislative History Of Title Vii

The Legislative History of Title VII

At the outset of the Eighty-eighth Congress various Senators and Representatives submitted a plethora of civil rights bills. Some included comprehensive provisions relating to all areas of civic and economic life where discrimination existed, including private employment; others dealt primarily with equal employment opportunity in both private and public employment. The proposed methods of enforcement ran the gamut--from those providing for a strong administrative agency, like the NLRB, with power to hold hearings and issue cease-and-desist orders enforceable in court, to those providing simply for conciliation and persuasion or merely further study and recommendations.

Among the bills dealing primarily with equal employment opportunity was H.R. 405 entitled "A Bill to Prohibit Discrimination in Employment in Certain Cases Because of Race, Religion, Color, National Origin, Ancestry or Age." H.R. 405 is the nominal ancestor of Title VII. It was introduced in the House by Mr. Roosevelt of California on January 9, 1963, the opening day of the 1st Session of the 88th Congress, and was promptly referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. Following extensive hearings, the Committee reported the bill, with amendments, and recommended its passage.

Following is a timeline of how and when Title VII was introduced.

1787 Article VI, U.S. Constitution prohibits religious discrimination.

1864 13th and 14th Amendments prohibited slavery and provided equal protection to all US Citizens.

1866 Civil Rights Acts which further defined protection embodied in the Constitution: the right to make and enforce contracts, the right to sue for damages, the right to be a party to litigation, the right of males to vote.

1883 Civil Service Act substituted merit for politics thereby abolishing the "spoils system".

1920 19th Amendment

1938 Fair Labor Standards Act covered minimum wages, overtime compensation, child labor, and other provisions of employment but did not cover Federal employees as enacted.

1940 Executive Order 8587, issued by President Roosevelt, stated the principle public employment could not be denied for reason of race, creed or color.

1940 Ramspeck Act provided a statutory ban on discrimination in the Federal Service based on race, color or creed.

1948 Executive Order 9980, issued by President Truman, established the Fair Employment board within the Civil Service Commission.

1955 Executive Order 10950, issued by President Eisenhower, directed that equal opportunity be afforded to all persons, consistent with the law, for employment in the Federal Government.

1955 Executive Order 10955, issued by President Kennedy, introduced the concept of affirmative action by directing "positive measures for the elimination of any discrimination, direct or indirect, which now exists".

1961 Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to prohibit discrimination in wages based on sex. Did not apply to Federal, state or local governments.

1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. Title VII of this Act made it unlawful for an employer employing fifteen or more employees to discriminate in any practices, conditions and privileges of employment because of race, sex, color, religion and national origin.

1965 Executive Order 11246, issued by President Johnson, placed EEO in the mainstream of Federal employment by barring discrimination based on race, color, religion, or nation origin and placing responsibility for Government-wide guidance and leadership under the Civil Service Commission.

1967 Executive Order 11375, issued by President Johnson, amended Executive Order 11246 to prohibit sex discrimination in Federal employment.

1966 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, prohibited discrimination against individuals 40 years of age and over in practices, conditions and privileges of employment because of their age. Did not cover federal, state and local governments.

Impact of Title VII in the work place

When the Civil Rights Act came into affect in 1964 there were changes that started effecting the work environment and how the employers treated the employees. It totally changed the workplace. These changes have continued from that time until now, ever changing as new courts made new judgments on how to interpret laws and protect the classes. In the following section three modern examples of the impact of Title VII on the workplace will be shown.

First, companies have had to change and adapt to Title VII as to be technically legal, but still fulfill the requirements of business. As seen in this first example companies have begun to change and become more specific with job descriptions. Eichner explains, "Job descriptions and structures that have been adapted to male incumbents continue to bar women from those sectors of the labor that they once were historically excluded from by intentional discrimination." (1988). Whereas, changing and making the job description suitable for men only has been ruled by the courts as technically legal, it is still a form of discrimination against a protected class. This can be seen as a needed discrimination because there are few women in the workplace capable of hard labor such as: logging, construction, and ditch digging.

Second, because of the affects of Title VII a new form of discrimination has begun to spring up. According to Greenlaw, "Courts may take affirmative action to correct discriminatory employment decisions. Reverse discrimination can be a facet of affirmative action, i.e., discriminating in favor of a protected class member at the expense of individuals not in a protected class." (1985). This is something that takes place in the work environment but is not illegal because Title VII only protects specific classes and therefore makes only specific class discrimination illegal. In view of this it is easy to come to the conclusion that true equality with no discrimination will always be unachievable.

Third, and finally, in more recent years the courts have ruled that language cannot be used to define national origin, but can be an issue of discrimination. "The EEOC published guidelines on so-called speak English-only rules." (Walden, 2002). In general these rules explain that companies cannot require all employees to speak English. But courts in cases have ruled this differently: Garcia verses Spun