1 / 8

PURPOSES SEC. 3 [42 U.S.C. 1981 note]

PURPOSES SEC. 3 [42 U.S.C. 1981 note].

tommy
Download Presentation

PURPOSES SEC. 3 [42 U.S.C. 1981 note]

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PURPOSES SEC. 3 [42 U.S.C. 1981 note] The purposes of this Act are- (1) to provide appropriate remedies for intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the workplace; (2) to codify the concepts of "business necessity" and "job related" enunciated by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and in the other Supreme Court decisions prior to Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989); (3) to confirm statutory authority and provide statutory guidelines for the adjudication of disparateimpact suits under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); and (4) to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination. Earlier purpose statements: S. 1745: "...to overrule the proof burdens and meaning of business necessity in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio and to codify the meaning of business necessity used in Griggs v. Duke Power Co...." Previous job-relatedness definitions: First Danforth-Kennedy proposal (Spring 1990): "substantial and demonstrable relationship to effective job performance." S. 2104 (original bill in 1990): "essential to effective job performance." Bill passed by Senate in 1990: "significant relationship to successful performance of the job." S. 1208: "manifest relationship to requirements for effective job performance" and  

  2. DEFINITIONS SEC. 2000e. [Section 701] (m) The term ``demonstrates'' means meets the burdens of production and persuasion. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] Burden of Proof (k) (1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this title only if- (i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particularemploymentpractice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or (ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice. (B) (i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i), the complaining party shall demonstrate that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent's decision making process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decision making process may be analyzed as one employment practice. (ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall not be required to demonstrate that such practice is required by business necessity.

  3. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] Consent Decrees (e.g., Martin v. Wilks) (n) (1) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employment practice that implements and is within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order that resolves a claim of employment discrimination under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws may not be challenged under the circumstances described in subparagraph (B). (B) A practice described in subparagraph (A) may not be challenged in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws- (i) by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or order described in subparagraph (A), had- (I) actual notice of the proposed judgment or order sufficient to apprise such person that such judgment or order might adversely affect the interests and legal rights of such person and that an opportunity was available to present objections to such judgment or order by a future date certain; and (II) a reasonable opportunity to present objections to such judgment or order; or (ii) by a person whose interests were adequately represented by another person who had previously challenged the judgment or order on the same legal grounds and with a similar factual situation, unless there has been an intervening change in law or fact.

  4. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] Mixed-Motive Cases (e.g., Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins) (m) Except as otherwise provided in this title, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS SEC. 2000e-5. [Section 706] (B) On a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section 2000e-2(m) of this title [section 703(m)] and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court- (i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief (except as provided in clause (ii)), and attorney's fees and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to the pursuit of a claim under section 2000e-2(m) of this title [section 703(m)]; Essentially, this is a question of remedy, it does not pertain to the issue of legality

  5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS SEC. 2000e-5. [Section 706] Seniority System Challenges (e.g., Lorrance v. AT&T) (2) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to a seniority system that has been adopted for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of this title (whether or not that discriminatory purpose is apparent on the face of the seniority provision), when the seniority system is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to the seniority system, or when a person aggrieved is injured by the application of the seniority system or provision of the system. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS SEC. 2000e-5. [Section 706] (k) In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee (including expert fees)as part of the costs, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.

  6. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] Test Scores (l) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

  7. DAMAGES IN CASES OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION SEC. 102 "(b) Compensatory and Punitive Damages. - "(3) Limitations. - The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party - "(A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $50,000; "(B) in the case of a respondent who has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $100,000; and "(C) in the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $200,000; and "(D) in the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $300,000. "(c) Jury Trial. - If a complaining party seeks compensatory or punitive damages under this section - "(1) any party may demand a trial by jury; and "(2) the court shall not inform the jury of the limitations described in subsection (b)(3).

  8. Codify: n. To arrange and label a system of laws; to organize into a code or system, such as a body of law.  Codified [adj]: Enacted by a legislative body; "statute law"; "codified written laws." Punitive damages(a.k.a. exemplary damages): Damages awarded to punish the respondent and to deter future discriminatory conduct. They are not available against a federal, state, or local government, a government agency, or a political subdivision. Punitive damages are available only where the respondent acted with "malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual." Compensatory damages:Damages are awarded to compensate a complaining party for losses or suffering inflicted due to the discriminatory act or conduct. Damages recovered in payment for actual injury or economic loss, which does not include punitive damages (as added damages due to malicious or grossly negligent action). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damagesavailable under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

More Related