The Civil Rights Act of 1991 Newell Canfield Janet Long Mark Norris Cynthia Spence

Background Information on The Civil Rights Act of Act combined elements from The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and The Civil Rights Act of Act combined elements from The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and The Civil Rights Act of CRA of 1866 prohibited discrimination based on race and color only. CRA of 1866 prohibited discrimination based on race and color only. In addition, the CRA of 1866 remained dormant and unenforceable for a century after its passage. In addition, the CRA of 1866 remained dormant and unenforceable for a century after its passage. CRA of 1964 included sex, religion, and national origin. CRA of 1964 included sex, religion, and national origin.

Background Information on The Civil Rights Act of 1991 The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States statute that was passed in response to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions which limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States statute that was passed in response to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions which limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided for the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided for the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award.

Famous Court Cases Case 1). Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,(1989), which held that an employee could not sue for damages caused by racial harassment on the job, because even if the employer's conduct were discriminatory, the employer had not denied the employee the "same right... to make and enforce contracts... as is enjoyed by white citizens," the language that Congress chose when passing the law in Case 1). Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,(1989), which held that an employee could not sue for damages caused by racial harassment on the job, because even if the employer's conduct were discriminatory, the employer had not denied the employee the "same right... to make and enforce contracts... as is enjoyed by white citizens," the language that Congress chose when passing the law in 1866.Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionPatterson v. McLean Credit Union

Famous Court Cases Case 2). Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, (1989), which made it more difficult for employees to prove that an employer's personnel practices, neutral on their face, had an unlawful disparate impact on them by requiring that they identify the particular policy or requirement that allegedly produced inequalities in the workplace and show that it, in isolation, had this effect. Case 2). Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, (1989), which made it more difficult for employees to prove that an employer's personnel practices, neutral on their face, had an unlawful disparate impact on them by requiring that they identify the particular policy or requirement that allegedly produced inequalities in the workplace and show that it, in isolation, had this effect.Wards Cove Packing Co. v. AtonioWards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

Famous Court Cases Case 3). Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, (1989), which held that the burden of proof shifted, once an employee had proved that an unlawful consideration had played a part in the employer's personnel decision, to the employer to prove that it would have made the same decision if it had not been motivated by that unlawful factor, but that such proof by the employer would constitute a complete defense for the employer. Case 3). Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, (1989), which held that the burden of proof shifted, once an employee had proved that an unlawful consideration had played a part in the employer's personnel decision, to the employer to prove that it would have made the same decision if it had not been motivated by that unlawful factor, but that such proof by the employer would constitute a complete defense for the employer.Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Famous Court Cases Case 4). Martin v. Wilks, (1989), which permitted white firefighters who had not been party to the litigation establishing a consent decree governing hiring and promotion of black firefighters in the Birmingham, Alabama Fire Department to bring suit to challenge the decree. Case 4). Martin v. Wilks, (1989), which permitted white firefighters who had not been party to the litigation establishing a consent decree governing hiring and promotion of black firefighters in the Birmingham, Alabama Fire Department to bring suit to challenge the decree.Martin v. WilksMartin v. Wilks

Five Important Points Five Important Points 1. The 1991 Civil Rights Act gives non-white citizens the same full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings as is enjoyed by white citizens. Such as, the right to make and enforce contracts, give evidence, and to sue for both compensatory and punitive damages. Attorney's fees may be awarded to the prevailing party.

Five Important Points 2. Since the law treats employment as a contract between the worker and the employer, the 1991 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of race, ethnic background or alienage. 3. Unlike the other federal laws, which usually apply to employers with 15 or more employees, the 1991 Civil Rights Act applies to all employers.

Five Important Points 4. Employers may no longer use discriminatory test scores as a bases for employment. 5. The 1991 act also includes U.S. Citizens who are employed abroad, Presidential appointees, and previously exempt state employees.

Anti-Discrimination PSAs featuring Wynton Marsalis The EEOC partnered with Wynton Marsalis and New York's Jazz at Lincoln Center to produce two public service announcements (PSAs) on workplace discrimination. Each of the 30-second spots aims to increase recognition and reporting of race discrimination at work by making viewers aware that it is against the law. The EEOC partnered with Wynton Marsalis and New York's Jazz at Lincoln Center to produce two public service announcements (PSAs) on workplace discrimination. Each of the 30-second spots aims to increase recognition and reporting of race discrimination at work by making viewers aware that it is against the law

Strategies for Managers 1. Collect and maintain applicant flow data. 2. Limit the pool of applicants. 3. Use written job descriptions. 4. Post promotional opportunities. 5. Use objective screening criteria at an early stage. 6. Maintain records of employment decisions.