TITLE VII, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 8
Running Head: TITLE VII, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
Title VII, The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Name
Institution
Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an essential legislation piece that has helped to shape the employment sector in the country. The law prohibits discrimination of persons based on their religion, gender, age, color, disability as well as the national origin (Casale, 2011). The force that moved to the creation of this law was pushed by racial discrimination that was affecting most operations in the country. Since the early settlement days, the rights of the non-whites people, some religious groups, women as well as specific nationalities had been abused. These classes of people had been discriminated against for a long time and in several ways particularly in employment.
The United States Constitution had initially been valued, who were predominantly black people, as a three-fifths people for representation. Until the amendments, women were not allowed to participate in voting (Casale, 2011). Women began enjoying the right to vote fifty years after the fifteenth amendment of the law. The change allowed all people, including black people, to vote. Religious discrimination was presented in places where the groups of people, such as Mormons, were unfairly discriminated against and they were forced to run out of towns as well as states. They ended up settling in territories.
The persons of foreign heritage at that time were from Japan, Germany, and the Middle Eastern countries. These people had faced prosecution in America due to international conflicts that happen during events such as World War 2 as well as post-war. Many prosecutions like these were still taking place at the workplace even after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After it was enacted, however, some of the discrimination acts stopped happening. It is landmark legislation that many people have termed as the most important in the history of America (Casale, 2011).
The legislation led to the establishment of a federal agency as well as giving the executive branch a power to protect the individual rights in schools, cities, voting booths as well as at the workplace. Cities and states were mandated to enact the legislation and to enforce it while addressing the various discriminations that affected the people in the specific cities (Casale, 2011). The courts were also dealing with individuals as they were reaching their attention. The federal politics, at that time, took the issue of discrimination into their own hands and there was the introduction of this specific legislation to deal with violence tides that rose amongst the civil rights movement.
The focus of this paper will be title VII that prohibits discrimination of employees based on the person`s characteristics. It allows employees to be treated fairly for the time that they are contracted to a particular work environment. John is the best parcel delivery employees in a specific company. Although he has never been a religious person, it does not mean that he cannot join any religious movement. It is wise that John informed his employer that he had jo9ined an active religious group and that it would affect the delivery of his service. The rights of John as the employee and his manager are protected under Title VII, The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Under the act, an employer is not allowed to make work-related decisions based on the religion of the employee. This is to mean that the employer should allow his employees to practice their faith at will and at whatever time. According to the law, employers could face a legal issued in case they refused the employees time off without a good reason. As such, the employees are protected under this law, and they cannot be fired from their jobs for attending religious holidays or activities. An employer, also, should not refuse to offer time off just because they do not believe in the religious beliefs.
A seesaw battle has been brought about by the Title VII, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 since it is not clearly stated the extent to which the law allows employers to change their work schedules because of the religious beliefs of an employee (Garland, Giacobbe & French, n.d.). In John’s case, the employer is faced by a dilemma since John is the best in his work and failure to deliver the parcels would bring about loses to the company. In most cases, employees have complained about whether they can watch their companies suffer loses and not fire the employees as they have been legally protected. Employees, on the other hand, complain that they deserve all the off time that they need for religious purposes (Garland, Giacobbe & French, n.d.).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also aims to prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy. By so doing, the act protects pregnant women from being discriminated against at the workplace. In section 701, the act was amended in such terms that there will be no discrimination at the workplace because of sex. As such, pregnant women who are employees of an individual private organization are protected. It stipulates that the women are not limited to the opportunities that the organization is offering due to pregnancy-related medical conditions, childbirth or pregnancy issues.
Besides, women are entitled to organizational benefits. Nevertheless, the employer is protected since they are not supposed to pay for the insurance or medical benefits fees for purposes of abortion unless the life of the mother in question is in great danger. If the mother carries her pregnancy to term, she is entitled to leave days that are paid. This is done for the mother to meet her basic needs and those of the child. By doing this, women feel welcome in the organization, and they are more likely to perform well like the male colleagues
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been put into place to deal with complains that arise during cases like the one in this paper. The goal of the agency is to enforce the laws that have been put into place to minimize discrimination at the workplace. The commission holds that it is legally wrong for an employer to discriminate against their employee. The commission carries out investigations regarding complains made by the employees on the problems they face at the workplace (Garland, Giacobbe & French, n.d.). In addition to enforcing and enacting the title VII, the commission also processes the payments that have been collected from the violators of the law, employers, to the employees.
The EEOC provides that There are specific steps that an employer ought to undertake if they have a complaint regarding discrimination at the workplace (National origin discrimination in employment is unlawful, 2000). First, after the employer has filed a complaint, the commission will inform the employer that a complaint was filed against them. The investigation then commences to know the root cause of the problem and identify whether the employee claims are correct. There are different paths that the solution to the complaint can be sort. First, the commission could refer both the employer and the employee to a mediator who intervenes to get a solution to the problem if no settlement has been agreed upon by the parties, where the employer is private and the defendant, the commission will file a lawsuit in a court of law. If the charge is dismissed and the problem has not been settled, a notice is issued by the commission for the employee to sue in court. The notice is typically referred to as the right-to-sue letter (National origin discrimination in employment is unlawful, 2000).
As the manager of the company, I would do everything that I can to avoid denying John the right to enjoy his religious beliefs and practices. To start with, John cannot deliver the packages on the east side of town on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. According to the law, if an employee is not allowed to work on certain days of the week, the employer must make reasonable changes in the institution to accommodate the religious needs of the employees. As such, John`s rights should not be violated by being the right to worship and attend to the church duties and responsibilities. The first step to take would be to exchange that John carries out with a partner for his errands. I would train and induct another employee so that they can take up john`s position when John is absent.
It is unlawful, according to the act, to discharge any individual, discriminate or deny them the employment privileges because of his religious beliefs (“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Minority Group Entry into the Building Trade Unions”, 1970). Therefore, John should not be made to feel as though they are not wanted in the organization because he is not allowed to disseminate certain work procedures on specific work days. Having someone replace him when he is not doing the deliveries would ease the tasks. Meanwhile, when he does not deliver the packages, he could replace the other colleague that is delivering them on his behalf. By so doing, John will enjoy his rights in the organization as stipulated in the act (“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Minority Group Entry into the Building Trade Unions”, 1970).
John is a potential employee with his work. It is unlawful, according to the act, to deny a reliable employee a chance to show and exercise his skills in the organization. John should not be limited to do work in another department even though he does not deliver the good to clients on the days that his religion disapproves. Besides, John is protected by the EEOC as the title VII forbids the employers from retaliating against the employees whenever they file a complaint. The commission allows the employee to speak out against any discrimination that they face. It also protects the employee from retaliating in case they choose to participate in the situation`s hearing or proceeding on behalf of another co-worker whose rights has been violated. This allows the employees to speak up whenever they are discriminated against.
However, it is worth noting that the employer is also protected by the law. The employee must be sincere about his religious beliefs (“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Minority Group Entry into the Building Trade Unions”, 1970). The employer, in this case, could ask for more information from John requiring him to expound more about the religion that he has moved to. This can be done to avoid disagreements in the future regarding the roles that the employee is supposed to carry out. Also, the employer can decide and talk about it to the employee regarding the time that the changes can be made in the organization to accommodate the religious needs of John. John should know that the changes will not happen overnight as many details must be taken care of. However, both the employer and employee should agree on the issue.
Also, John should not use the opportunity to blackmail the employer. Doing this could result in the denial of the request made earlier. Many employees have been reported to offer blackmail to the employers requiring them to pay some large amounts of money so that the employee can agree to work before the decision has been made regarding the next step. The law protects the employer against such offenses. One can be tried in a court of law, and they could face prosecution if they are found guilty of such a crime.
When there is an agreement between the two parties, there will be fairness in the institution, and everyone will carry out their day to day activities without the fear of discrimination. When John is offered a partner in the organization, he will not feel like he has been demoted based on his religious beliefs. Being granted his wishes will improve his morale, and this will impact positively to his productivity thus improving the profitability margins of the institution.
Besides, coming together will reduce time wastage that is brought about by arguments while trying to come up with a solution that does not hurt anyone within the organization. This is because both John and the employer are protected by the act since John has to fulfill his obligation within the employee according to the contract. The employer, on the other hand, ought to listen to the needs and wishes expressed by John. Being the employer, in this case, I would not fire him but accommodate his wishes but in different circumstances.
In conclusion, the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have, for many years, protected employees under all their workplace circumstances (“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Know Your Rights”, n.d.). The best thing about the act is that it can only be changed through legislation. As time moves on, it still is the greatest thing that ever happened to all employees and employers. Besides, it has a broad scope of employment undertakings and does not only deal with employment hiring or firing. The act also ensures that the workers are paid their dues on time including for the hours that they have worked overtime. It provides that no one is denied a place in an organization just because their religious beliefs are demanding. An employer refers to the laws when making decisions regarding disciplining, promoting, firing or paying the employees.
References
Casale, G. (2011). The employment relationship. Oxford: Hart Pub.
Garland, H., Giacobbe, J., & French, J. Attitudes toward employee and employer rights in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities And Rights Journal, 2(1), 49-59. doi: 10.1007/bf01385028
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Minority Group Entry into the Building Trade Unions. (1970). The University Of Chicago Law Review, 37(2), 328. doi: 10.2307/1598893
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Know Your Rights. Retrieved from https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/title-vii/
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). National origin discrimination in employment is unlawful. Washington, DC.