HR 5117 ELL Chapt 6

Outlawed the discrimination in terms and conditions of employment based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin

aimed at discrimination in a number of area in society: housing, public accommodation, education, and employment

- to tax-exempt bona fide private membership clubs

-not required if the compliance would force the employer to violate the law of the country where the workplace is located

governs the enforcement of Title VII

5 member commission appointed by the President

Works with the Office of General Counsel

responds to complaints by individuals and initiates action on its own if it finds a "practice or pattern" of discrimination

When an employee is treated differently from others due to race, color, religion, gender, or national origin

An exception to the civil rights law that allows an employer to hire employees of a specific gender, religion, or national origin, when business necessity-the safe and efficient performance of a particular job-requires it

Employer convenience, customer preference, or coworker preference will not support the establishment of a BFOQ

act provides that race and color can never be used as a BFOQ

The safe and efficient performance of the business or performance of a particular job requires that employees be of a particular sex, religion, or national origin

The discriminatory effect of apparently neutral employment criteria

• Griggs v Duke Power Company
• test administered should be related to the job
• otherwise could serve to freeze the status quo of previous discriminator practices

Employer must show that any given requirement must have a relationship to the employment in question

Regulations adopted by the EEOC and other federal agencies that provide for methods of demonstrating a disparate impact and for validating employee selection criteria

requires that the plaintiff demonstrates that the employer uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact

Nothing in Title VII prohibits an employer from hiring only those persons who are capable of doing the job

Watson vs Fort Worth Bank

a mathematical formula developed by the EEOC to demonstrate a disparate impact of a facially neutral employment practice on selection criteria

A method of demonstrating that an employment selection device reflects the content of the job for which employees are being selected

A method of demonstrating that an employment selection device selects employees based on traits and characteristics that are required for the job in question

A method of demonstrating that an employment selection device correlates with the skills and knowledge required for successful job performance

an employer's act of racial discrimination in promotions - by using an examination having disparate impact-would not render the employer liable for the racial discrimination suffered by employees disqualified from consideration for promotion by the examination if the "bottom-line" result of the promotional process were an appropriate racial balance 

Connecticut vs Teal - bottom line not a feasible defense

Examination must be related to job

The length of Service on the job

a bona fide seniority system is not in violation of Title VII, even though it may cause a disparate impact

SC held that when a plaintiff shows that the employer has considered an illegal factor under Title VII in making an employment decision, the employer must demonstrate that it would have reached the same decision if it had not considered the illegal factor.  If the employer can show this, the employer can escape liability under Title VII

prohibits retaliation by an employee, union, or employment agency against an employee or applicant because that person has opposed any practice that is prohibited by Title VII (known as opposition clause)

they were engaged in an activity or activities protected under Title VII

they suffered an adverse employment decision or action

there was a casual link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision

..in employment involve giving some kind of preference in hiring or promotion to qualified or minority employees

Title VII does not require employers to enact affirmative action plans; however, the courts have often ordered affirmative action when the employer has been found in violation of Title VII

United Steel Workers of America vs. Weber

a plaintiff challenging an employment decision based on an affirmative action plan has the burden of showing that the affirmative action plan in invalid

was held to be unconstitutional in Wygant vs. Jackson Board of Education p 311

• must pass the strict scrutiny test under the US Constitution
• 1 - affirmative action plan must server a "compelling governmental interest"
• 2 - it must be "narrowly tailored" to further compel the interest

1. show an imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories

• 2 - it did not necessarily trammel the interests of non-prefered employees
• 3 - if a specific number of positions are set aside must have an end date to the program unless its implemented in a case by case approach 

as in the case of Johnson vs Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County