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, Volume 4 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
adverse impact affirmative action alleged applicants AT&T Technologies attorneys bill burden of persuasion burden of proof business necessity CHAIRMAN challenge City of Birmingham Civil Rights Act 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 factor fair federal fees filed Firefighters goals Griggs harassment hearing hiring intentional discrimination intervene issue Jefferson County judgment Justice labor market lawsuit legislation liability litigation Lorance Martin McLean Credit Union ment minorities motive nonparties parties Patterson percent persons plaintiff Price Waterhouse procedures promotion proposed protected prove punitive damages qualified question quotas race racial reason relief remedy result reverse discrimination rule S.Ct Section Senator HATCH Senator METZENBAUM settlement standard statute tion Title VII U.S. Supreme Court violation Wards Cove Wards Cove Packing Wilks women workforce workplace
Popular passages
Page 317 - ... bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise...
Page 27 - ... well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation...
Page 278 - 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 340 - 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 30 - Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter of March 25, 1987.
Page 99 - Sadly, even after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965...
Page 210 - 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.
Page 66 - If an employer does then meet the burden of proving that its tests are "job related," it remains open to the complaining party to show that other tests or selection devices, without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in "efficient and trustworthy workmanship.
Page 20 - He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Page 287 - ... whether a challenged practice serves, in a significant way, the legitimate employment goals of the employer. The touchstone of this inquiry is a reasoned review of the employer's justification for his use of the challenged practice. A mere insubstantial justification in this regard will not suffice, because such a low standard of review would permit discrimination to be practiced through the use of spurious, seemingly neutral employment practices.