ipl-logo

Case Study The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

771 Words4 Pages

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents people from certain classes being discriminated against. The protected classes under the federal antidiscrimination statutes include: race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age-40 and older, citizenship, Military service, pregnancy, and physical or mental disability (Walsh, 2012). It is important for employers to understand what discrimination against these groups entails. Employers who do not understand discrimination against a protected class may find themselves making good faith mistakes regarding an employee’s conduct (Lidge, 2011). If a case goes to court, the employers will bear the responsibility to show proof of their actions were not discriminatory actions. It is important that employers …show more content…

The first act of discrimination is gender discrimination. The attorney in this case is female, which should not matter. However, when the partner made statements comparing men and women and the difference in commitment, this is blatant discrimination (Walsh, 2012). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave women the rights to be treated equal to men and the right to be free from discrimination due to gender. Prior to this Act, women and minorities were treated unequal and were segregated. The next act of discrimination deals with this female attorney having a child. The partner was upset this attorney did not tell him during the interview, she had a child. Employers can not ask potential employees about their familial status. Familial status means having a child under the age of 18 in the household (Merriam-Webster, Inc, 2012). This is a clear violation of Title VII if used to deny or limit employment …show more content…

Employees are prohibited from being punished for exercising their rights to be free from discrimination. This can be seen when the attorney reported her concerns to several people in the firm and they did nothing. When she discussed it with another attorney, her partner decided to withhold her annual pay increase because of the situation. This is retaliation. When her company refused to do anything about harassment, it is her right to seek legal consult. Human Resources must protect employees and have an effective response to allegations of harassment (Lockwood, & Marda, 2014). When her partners gave her negative evaluations, but others gave her positive reviews, it is apparent they are judging her based on what they think of her personally. Job evaluations should be based on job performance and not personal opinions. This is the reason employers must document facts when making employment

Open Document