Analysis of the regulations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is Pulic Law 82-352 was passed by Congress was intended to protect African American by outlawing racial discriminations in public places and privilege them with rights such as freedom of speech, right to vote and most importantly right to equality. This act also spoke against illtreatment of children or any individual based on grounds of race, religion, age and any such factors. Segregation in public places such as Schools, libraries, malls and others were banned. The bill also included the interest for protection of women.

Civil Rights Act of 1991 was an addition of few rules from Civil Rights Act 1866 which is better recognised by Section 1981 to Civil rights Act 1964 so as to deter further harassments and discriminnations. The concepts of business and job related decisions were codified. The statutory guidelines of Civil Rights Act 1866 were confirmed.

Laws covering Federal workers inclusive of affirmative action requirements

Affirmative actions based on Executive Order 11246 signed by President Johnson, are refered to the rules that were added to protect the designated classes from discrimination and harassment and provide a fair employment to them. According to Title VII of Civil rights act 1964 no employer has the right to discriminate any person on grounds of interracial relationship such as marriage, friendship so on. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) were entitled responsibilities of fulfilling this act.  They were assigned authority to lodge complaints, file lwasuits on behalf of the employees. The investigation of the complaint lodged will be carried out and will be presented on in the court.

Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding sexual harassment – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Any terminology related to sex or because of sex is included, but not limited to, used by the employer on an employee is deemed to punishment as per the section 2000e-2(h) under title VII.

A woman shall be treated the same for all job realted practices and should not be given a biased treatment or an ill-tretment on the basis of pregnancy, pregnancy related problems, childbirth, childbirth related medical conditions.

This section shall require an employer to provide health insurance benefits to a pregnant mother in case of any medical problems arisen due to an abortion, otherwise the employer is not deemed to pay any health insurance benefits in case of intentional or ordinary abortion.

This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

1991 Civil right act was considered a failure as it was believed to be too complex, ambiguous and controversial of its own rules. There were no ammendments concerned to discrimination based on sex.

1964 Civil Rights Act is considered more beneficial than the current act because of the straightforward and clear statements. It has so much to deal with affirmative actions and discriminations based on sex whereas the other one was not welcomed so much as it did not deal with sexual harassments. It would be apt to apply Civil Rights Act 1964 in the workplace than 1991 Civil Rights.

Source:

referenceforbusiness.com

archives.gov

auxillium.com

wikipedia.org

legalarchiver.org

eeoc.gov

topics.law.cornell.edu

Sarah from Law Aspect

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/9aavBA