After the decision in Wards Cove Packing Co Vs Atonio (4) which weakened the scope of effectiveness of federal civil rights protections, the civil rights Act 1991 amended the Act of 1964 and introduced ceratin changes in Federal Rights Law. It mainly intends to provide damages in the cases of intentional employment discrimination and to clarify provisions regarding disparate impact actions. (5) The Act of 1991 enunciates apprppriate remedies,mainly for intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the workplace and to provide adequate protection to the victims of various discrimination .
(6) National Origin Discrimination Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibits any kind of national origin discrimination, which covers employers with 15 or more employees. The employees are, irrespective of their nationality, ethnicity or accent, entitled to the same employment oppertunities as others. National origin discrimination also includes treatment of someone less favorably at work because of marriage or other association with someone of a particular nationality. The title includes the violation of any kind of employment decisions,harrasment and language.
The safeguards under this Act extends to foreign nationals also. (7)(Grofman,2000) 4. Wards Cove Packing Co Vs Atonio, 490 U. S. 642 (1989) 5. SEC. 2, 42 U. S. C. 1981 The Civil Rights Act 1991 6. Sec. 101, sec 102, sec 103, The Civil Rights Act 1991 7. Grofman, Bernard Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Race, Ethnicity, and Politics) Publisher: University of Virginia Press, ISBN-10: 0813919215 June 2000
Equal Employment Opportunity 4 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Here the Act prohibits any kind of discrimination of the women employees because of pregnancy, childbirth any other unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, which includes employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. As per the Act the pregnet women must be treated as other employees with similar abilities or limitations. The Act covers those employees in the employment agencies, labor organizations and federal government.
Like other statutes, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act set the rules gaginst the violation of the equality while hiring, training, classifying etc. The Act directs the employer to treat the pregent woman as other temporarily disabled employee if she is unable to perform her job due to pregnancy. Employers must hold open a job for a pregnancy-related absence the same length of time jobs are held open for employees on sick or disability leave.
Here the employer has the power to require his employee to submit the doctor’s statement regarding their ability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits. (8) The employer must ensure that any health insurance of the employee may cover expenses for pregnancy-related conditions. Moreover, the pregnancy-related expenses should be reimbursed and the Employers must provide the same level of health benefits for spouses of male employees as they do for spouses of female employees.
In Christina Hackett Vs Clifton Gunderson (9) the court has confirmed that women affected by 8. The Act is amendment to Title VII of Civil Rights Act 1964 9. Christina Hackett Vs Clifton Gunderson 2004 U. S. Dist. CaseNo. 03C6046 Equal Employment Opportunity 5 pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.