The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a milestone in United Stated labor law. It was the first comprehensive piece of legislation to prohibit employment discrimination by race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It also prescribed the allocation of federal funding to any discriminatory program at the State level. Additionally, it created the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was mandated with enforcing anti-discrimination federal laws in the workplace as well as legislation that prohibit punitive measures against employees who complain about the treatment. The EEOC can also file a lawsuit against employers on behalf of victimized employees.
The passage of the Civil Rights Act was mostly driven by the African American civil rights movement. Although slavery had been abolished and all former slaves made citizens, many States continued to enforce segregation, which essentially locked African Americans out of many forms of employment. Labor unions were racially segregated at the time, which deprived African Americans of the power of collective bargaining, particularly in regions where they were a small minority. While the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 had given private sector workers the right to join a union, it did not cover occupations such as domestic work or farm work which was the predominant form of employment among African Americans (Wiececk & Hamilton, 2014). The employers were allowed to implement a different working and pay conditions for minorities.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) had established minimum wage rights of the private sector workers, but many labor rights laws such as pension and workplace safety rights were passed in the period after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Congress has also passed related legislation dealing with age discrimination, disability, and immigration. The Civil Rights Act has further been the subject of various amendments. A 1972 amendment granted the protections enshrined in the Act to governmental employers while a 1981 amendment, which proscribed pregnancy as a basis for discrimination (Green, 2013). Since the Civil Rights Act requires States and local governments to pass additional legislation, there are some variances across States over how expansive the anti-discrimination provisions than others.
One of the biggest present day contentions regarding the law, concern the interpretation of “sex” as a proscribed basis for discrimination (Green, 2013). The issue plays out on two fronts; firstly on the issue of gender wage inequality and secondly on the rights of lesbian, gay and transgender people in the workplace. Wage disparity is a major issue because, in numerous occasions, organizations have been remunerating their employees in a discriminative manner.
Wage Equality
The federal employment discrimination laws make it illegal to deny an individual a job or promotion opportunity or equal pay based on sex. However, in 2012 the difference between male and female wage earnings stood at an average of 23% (Armani, 2013). The figure was higher when gender intersects with race and age, with older minority women earning substantially less than their male counterparts. It has been argued that the wage disparity is a function of the types of work that women tend to favor. However, Armani 2013 claims that the extreme barriers often dictate women's work choices in certain occupations (Armani, 2013). For instance, although the provision that prohibits discrimination based on sex has been applied to mean that a woman must not be discriminated against because of her maternal role, there is still evidence that mothers face discrimination during salary and promotion negotiations. Studies also show that even where factors such as job choice, qualifications, and flexibility are held constant, women still earn an average of between 5 and 12% less than their male counterparts (Armani, 2013).
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 which preceded the Civil Rights Act by a year, dealt with wage discrimination based on gender. Reading alongside the Civil Rights Act, it makes practices that have the effect of sex discrimination based on sex illegal. There have also been attempts to shore up the wage discrimination legislation by sealing the loopholes that allow for discriminatory compensation. The laws include the Fair Labor Standards Act, which ensures standards for equal pay for equal work irrespective of gender. The individual States are tasked with legislating on terms of pregnancy leave, but the Federal Family Care and Medical Leave Act allows an employee twelve weeks of unpaid leave, which may give new mothers additional time off following maternity leave enabling them to maintain their career track rather than having to resign (Armani, 2013). However, in spite of the existing legislation, the wage gap persists, which may prove that even federal legislation is insufficient in overturning long-held social and cultural practices.
Sexual Minorities
The EEOC’s official position on anti-transgender discrimination such as termination of employment over the individual’s decision to undergo gender transition is that it falls under the “sex” protection. There are litigation cases aimed at getting the courts to extend this meaning to apply to gender identity as well as sexual orientation. Traditionally, the courts have read the provision to mean that members of one sex must not be exposed to prejudicial conditions of employment that members of the other sex are not exposed (Herz, 2014). However, the litigation around the “sex” clause has led to the courts holding that discrimination based on gender non-conformity contravenes the Civil Rights Act. As such, this is viewed by some as a step forward in moving gender identity and sexual orientation under the Title VII umbrella. However, a gay or transgender person would need to establish the discrimination he has suffered fits under this particular formulation (Herz, 2014). In other words, the facts of the case have to involve discrimination based on gender nonconformist behavior.
A 1998 Executive Order made the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation a federal government policy but could not create any enforceable rights. Likewise, a 2010 Executive Order declared gender identity a protected class. These executive orders allow the EEOC begin action against federal government agencies for sexual orientation and gender identity-related discrimination. The EEOC considers both forms of sex discrimination. Attempts to pass a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would prohibit employers in the private sector from discriminating based on sexual orientation has repeatedly failed, often over the issue of whether it should contain an exemption clause for religious employers (Herz, 2014). The efforts have been focused towards ensuring just systems where discrimination does not take place and all people are accorded the same opportunities. It is essential to note that the majority of the laws that have been adopted and implemented have roots in the civil rights Act.
In summation, the passage of the Civil Rights Act ushered a new era in workers’ rights. The subsequent amendments and related laws at federal and state levels have improved the working conditions for employees, including those who are members of minority groups. The courts have also played a critical role in this process. However, there remain areas that many argue should fall under the application of the legislation more thoroughly. The meaning of the “sex” protected class is a focal point of this debate with some arguing that it should be interpreted to include sexual and gender identity minorities. There are also debates over whether practices that effectively lead to lower wages for women should be addressed through further legislation or social restructuring measures. In spite of these challenges, the Civil Rights Act remains a key piece of legislation in combating employment discrimination.
Reference
Armani, S. (2013). The Gender Wage Gap in the United States: Current Policy and an Improved Approach for Closing the Gap. Inquiries Journal, 5(6).
Green, T. K. (2013). Discrimination in Workplace Dynamics: Toward a Structural Account of Disparate Treatment Theory. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 38, 92-157.
Herz, Z. R. (2014). Price’s Progress: Sex Stereotyping and Its Potential for Antidiscrimination Law. The Yale Law Journal, 124(2), 248-275.
Wiececk, W. M., & Hamilton, J. L. (2014). Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Confronting Structural Racism in the Workplace. Louisiana Law Review, 74(4), 1096-1160.
