How Does The Civil Rights Act of 1991 Changes the Workplace - Research Paper Example

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Workplace I. Introduction The federal laws covering civil rights are many. Based on figures provided by the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, at least two public laws on civil rights were enacted in the 1950s, five in the 1960s, eight in the 1970s, one in the 1980s, and three in the 1990s. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 are among the most prominent. As described in the law itself, , the United States Congress crafted Public Law 102-166 or The Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by providing for damages in intentional employment discrimination and by clarifying some provisions of the 1964 civil rights law. As noted by the US Congress, other than the unlawful harassments and intentional discriminations as reasons, there was a need to strengthen civil rights laws because the decision of the Supreme Court in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) weakened the scope and effectiveness of Federal civil rights protection (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). To address other challenges in civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act codified the concepts of “business necessity” and “job related” acts that can amount to discrimination (Section 3, Civil Rights Act of 1991). Further, the law confirmed the statutory authority as well as provided guidelines on adjudication of suits under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further, as response to the Supreme Court decisions that emaciated the civil rights laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the scope of civil rights laws. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covered not only enforcement of the constitutional right to vote but also the following: Conferment on the district courts of the United States the provision of injunctive relief against discrimination Authorization for the Attorney-General to sue guilty parties for the purpose of protecting every American’s constitutional rights to use of public facilities and acquire education Provision of mandate to the US Commission of Civil Rights to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, and Establishment of a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity. In other word, given the limited scope of the Civil Rights of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 broadened the scope of upholding and defending American civil rights. II. Specific Provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 The key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 include the following: Section 102 elaborated on the rights of recovery of damages resulting from discrimination and the right to jury trial seeking compensatory or punitive damages. Section 106 prohibited the discriminatory use of test scores. Section 109 broadened the coverage of the laws to US citizens employed abroad. Section 112 expanded the laws on civil rights to cover discriminatory seniority systems. Section 117 broadened the coverage of the civil rights laws to employees and instrumentalities of the US House of Representatives. Section 118 broadened the means of dispute resolution. Title II sets up a “Glass Ceiling Commission” to conduct studies related to artificial barriers against women and communities. Section 302 prohibits discriminatory practice in the US Senate based on race, color, religion, gender, national origin, and handicap/disability. Section 321 expanded the application of section 302 to all employees of the federal government. Other sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, particularly section 303 through 322, strengthened the sections mentioned above. III. Intended Effects in the Workplaces of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Almost twenty years after the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it becomes possible to assess how the legislation contributed to the realization of non-discrimination in the workplaces. In this section, we assess employment figures for possible traces of discriminations in the workplace and interpret possible improvements in the workplaces as the achievements of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 even as we are aware that the legislations related to civil rights are not limited to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. Table 1. Percentage Composition of Occupational Groups in Year 2000 Source: US 2007 Report to the UN Committee on Racial Discrimination, 76 Table 1 on the earlier page shows that whites in management, professional, and related occupations compose about 33.6% of these occupations. In contrast, Table 2 shows that the whites who are no Hispanics in the US population are roughly 65.1% as of 2010. The data indicate that discriminations based on race are no longer as strong during the time of Martin Luther King, Jr. Table 2. US Actual and Projected Population, by race and Hispanic Origin Source: US 2007 Report to the UN Committee on Racial Discrimination, Table 1a Meanwhile, Table 3 on the next page is from a report of the Bush administration with regard to its civil rights record. The nonminority refers to the whites among the population and those that are non-hispanic. Among senior pay federal employees, from 1992 to 2002, the share of nonminorities decreased from 91.9% to 86.4%, compared to the projected whites who are nonhispanics in the population who are estimated to be about 65.1% of the population based on the figures of Table 2. The figures can be interpreted as indications of an improvement in the efforts towards eliminating discrimination based on race. In fact, in all grade or salary levels, there is a reduction in the share of nonminorities except for the lowest grade, indicating that work against eliminating discriminations based on race has been working. Unfortunately, however, there seems to be no significant reduction in the share of non-minorities in the lowest employment grade. Further, the non-minority share in federal work ranging from 56.8 to 86.4% compared to the 65.1% of whites who are nonhipanics in the population also support the view that discrimination at work based on race has been continuing despite the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Table 3. Minority and Nonminority Federal Employment in 1992 and 2002 Source: Redefining Rights in America, 31 One of the goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 is to provide the option of jury trial for civil rights cases that covers violations of civil rights in employment. Figure 1 next page indicates that the percentage of jury trial over bench trial has been increasing from 1990 to 2006. Thus, figure 1 can be used to support the view that justice in the workplace has improved because for civil rights cases in employment, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 provided the use of jury trial as an option among regardless of race and color. Figure 1. Jury vs. Bench Trial, 1990-2006 Source: Figure 1, Kyckelhahn and Cohen Figure 2 indicate that civil rights cases have a declining share in the proportion of federal civil case caseloads in recent years. Of course, the caseloads include employment issues or discriminations in the workplace. The figure can be used to support the view the discriminations or civil rights issues in the workplaces have also been decreasing in recent years. Figure 2. Civil rights cases, 1990-2006 Source: Figure 2, Kyckelhahn and Cohen As shown by Figure 3, the civil rights cases involving employment discrimination has been following the trend of Figure 2. Again, the figure and the statistics implied by Figure 2 can be used to argue that the civil rights cases or discriminations in the workplaces are decreasing. Figure 3. Civil rights cases involving employment discrimination, 1990-2006 Source: Figure 3, Kyckelhahn and Cohen Table 4. Civil rights complaints involving employment and non-employment issues Source: Table 2, Kyckelhahn and Cohen Table 4 of the earlier page confirms that civil rights cases involving employment have been decreasing from 1990 to 2006. This confirms the trends implied in Figures 2 and 3 that we have discussed earlier. Meanwhile, Figure 5 indicates that the number of cases in which the US government is the plaintiff in civil rights cases involving employment has been decreasing lately. Similarly, the civil rights cases in which the US government is the defendant has also been decreasing lately. The trends can also be interpreted to mean that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 has improved the situation in the workplaces. Table 5. Employment/non-employment civil rights cases involving the US government Source: Table 3, Kyckelhahn and Cohen IV. Negative Aspects Unfortunately, Figures 4 to 5 of the next page do not adequately support the view expressed in the earlier section that the civil rights record of the US government has been improving with regard to employment. Figures 4 to 5 indicate a mixed trend: there are employment areas in which discriminations are indicated to be being eliminated but there are also employment areas in which the view is not supported. Worst, Figure 6 even contradicts the view that employment discrimination based on gender has improved. Figure 4. Black share of employment before and after the 1991Civil Rights Act Source: Oyer and Shaefer, 44, Figure 1 Figure 5. Percentage of black and white males fired, 1987-1994 Source: Oyer and Schaefer, 46, Figure 3 Figure 6. Female share of employment before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Source: Oyer and Schaefer, 45, Figure 2 Meanwhile, the Council of American-Islamic Relations complained that workplace harassment based on race/religious grounds are taking place: In March 9, 2006, a male employee of Iranian descent was harassed at work using slurs such as “terrorist” and “camel jockey” while intentionally being tripped. In April 13, 2006, a female Muslim employee was told she cannot go to work with her Muslim headscarf. In December 5, 2006, a Muslim employee was not allowed to work because of henna in her hands in celebration of Islamic religious feast known as Eid-ul-Fitr. December 14, 2006, a female Muslim was denied her right to pray during her break periods. As discussed earlier, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 also covered prohibitions on discriminations at work based not only on race but also on religious grounds. V. Conclusion Data indicate that while there have been significant improvements in the workplaces as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, work has to continue to defend and uphold civil rights in the workplaces. In particular, discriminations based on race have not been fully eliminated. There are also symptoms that discriminations based on gender and religions have worsened. Work Cited Council on American-Islamic Relations. The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States: Presumption of Guilt. Washington: Council on American-Islamic Relations, 2007. Judiciary Committee. Legislative History of the United States Civil Rights Commission. US House of Representatives: Judiciary Committee, March 2005. Kyckelhahn, Tracey and Thomas Cohen. Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990-2006. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Special Report, August 2008. Orfield, Gary and Chungmei Lee. Historic Reversals, Accelerating Resegregation, and the Need for New Integration Strategies. UCLA: The Civil Rights Project, August 2008. Oyer, Paul and Scott Schaefer. The Unintended Consequences of the ’91 Civil Rights. Regulation, Summer 2003, 42-47. US Commission on Civil Rights. Redefining Rights in America: The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration, 2001-2004. Office of Civil Rights Evaluation, 2004. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 9 July 2010 < http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/vii.htm>. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Civil Rights Act of 1991. 9 July 2010 < http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/cra91.html>. US 2007 Report to the United Nation Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Read More