14th Amendment Vs Title Vii

There are two routes to addressing racial discrimination under the law, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. These routes both intend to eliminate the threat of racial discrimination, but do so through different means and criteria. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law in order to “prevent official conduct discriminating on the basis of race” (Han, pg. 63), but does not explicitly define discrimination. Claims brought under the 14th amendment apply specifically to public institutions and must include evidence of both malicious intent and the discriminatory effects that resulted partially ‘because of’ this intent (Han, pg. 64). Title VII acts as a supplement to the 14th Amendment by using statutory law to prohibit overt discrimination or business practices with discriminatory effects (Tara, Study Group, 2/13/17). Racial discrimination under Title VII applies to private employers and emphasizes cases with an

On the other hand, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act attempts to remedy the “structural imbalance of the court system” by regulating private employers (Han, Week 3 Lecture, 1/23/17). Title VII uses statutory laws to regulate private employers from discriminating against characteristics like race and sex in the workplace by threatening the profits of these private entities (Han, Week 3 Lecture, 1/23/17). Unfortunately, these Title VII claims face their own barriers in court, making it difficult to use subtle discrimination to prove inequality. The limitations of these approaches are evidenced in cases like Washington v. Davis Sup. Ct. (1976), Griggs v Duke Power Co Sup. Ct. (1971), and St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks Sup. Ct.