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
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990 - Age discrimination - 1076 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action adopted adverse affirmative allow American applied attorneys believe bill burden business necessity cause CHAIRMAN challenge City Civil Rights Act claims clear committee concern Congress contract damages decision decree defendant demonstrate Department discrimination discriminatory disparate impact effect employ employer employment employment practices equal essential establish evidence example fact factor fair Federal filed force going Griggs harassment hiring important individuals intentional issue Justice kind labor legislation liability limited litigation means ment minorities motive opportunity parties percent performance persons plaintiff position practices Price Waterhouse problem procedures promotion proposed protected prove qualified question quotas race racial reason remedy requirement result rule Section selection Senator HATCH specific standard statement statute Thank tion title VII U.S. Supreme Court United victims violation Wards Cove women workforce
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.