Civil Rights Act of 1990: Hearing Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session, on S. 2104 ... February 23, 27, March 1, and 7, 1989 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
adverse impact affirmative action alleged applicants AT&T Technologies attorneys bill burden of proof business necessity CHAIRMAN challenge Circuit City of Birmingham Civil Rights Act civil rights laws claims collateral attack Committee Congress consent decree consent judgment defendant denied discriminatory disparate impact district court due process EEOC employer employment decision employment discrimination employment practices facie fair federal fees filed Firefighters goals Griggs harassment hearing hiring intentional discrimination intervene issue Jefferson County judgment Justice labor lawsuit legislation liability litigation Lorance Martin McLean Credit Union ment minorities nonparties parties Patterson percent persons plaintiff prepared statement Price Waterhouse procedures promotion proposed protected prove punitive damages question quotas race racial reason relief remedy requirement result reverse discrimination rule S.Ct Section Senator HATCH Senator METZENBAUM settlement standard statistical statute tion Title VII U.S. Supreme Court victims violation Wards Cove Wards Cove Packing Wilks women workforce workplace
Popular passages
Page 331 - ... bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise...
Page 21 - ... (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Page 276 - The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.
Page 202 - The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate...
Page 350 - Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. More than that, Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question.
Page 20 - It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...
Page 28 - Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter of March 25, 1987.
Page 326 - ... in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.
Page 97 - Sadly, even after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965...
Page 198 - In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.