Supreme Court & Job Discrimination
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against employees based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. In the three and a half decades since, there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court which have helped reinforce the protection of individuals against employment discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 was another important piece of legislation protecting individuals against employment discrimination. This analysis will look at some of the decisions of the Supreme Court over the past three decades, decisions which appear to be aimed at further diminishing employment and workplace discrimination. The main focus of the analysis will revolve around efforts aimed at reducing employment and workplace discrimination against women and minorities. A conclusion will address the impact of recent efforts to dissolve Affirmative Action as a means of redressing employment and workplace discrimination against women and minorities.Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has rendered decisions which appear to diminish the potential for employment and workplace discrimination against women and minorities. In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Mrs. Ida Phillips, a women who alleged she was denied employment because of her sex (1971, 2). Mrs. Phillips contended that she was not hired by Martin Marietta because she
. . .
discrimination, before 1991 they were only able to sue for back pay, lawyer’s fees and possible reinstatement. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 “put teeth into discrimination and harassment lawsuits, allowing recovery of up to $300,000 in punitive and compensatory damages” (Dobie, 1998, 1). Another change in strategy designed to help employees who file lawsuits alleging discrimination is a change in EEOC process. The EEOC has reverted to its policy of filing class-action suits against firms where groups of employees are represented instead of single-worker cases. This strategy of filing class-actions suits was followed during the 1970s, but the 1980s Reagan administration corporate-friendly policies abandoned the strategy. It is back in full force. Recently, Publix Super Markets, Inc., felt the bite of the new strategy. In a case where more than 200 female employees of the super market chain filed discrimination complaints because of being unfairly denied promotions, the firm agreed to settle the case out of court in one of the largest discrimination settlements ever “The private suit was joined by the EEOC and pressured Publix in January to agree to an $81.5 million settlement. The settlement, a testament to strengt
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Rights Act, Affirmative Action, Publix January, Chandler Roudebush, District Court, Operations Inc, Title VII, Opportunity Act, Supreme Courts, supreme court, employment workplace, workplace discrimination, employment workplace discrimination, title vii, women minorities, civil rights, rights act, civil rights act, sexual harassment, discrimination women minorities, act 1964, discrimination women, rights act 1964, vii civil rights,
Approximate Word count = 1957
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Supreme Court & Job Discrimination
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
