When Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it did not extend the coverage of the Act to public employers. Consequently, the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. decision in 1971 created the anomalous situation that private employers were held to a tougher standard of scrutiny with respect to racial considerations in their hiring procedures under Title VII than were public employers under the Constitution. This curious development in the relationship between public employment and Title VII caused many courts to alter their standards for equal protection violations in the early 1970\u27s. In the realm of public employment, these courts began to permit a showing of the disparate impact of an employment test on a minority group to shif...
In the quarter century since its passage, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has left unmistakable evidenc...
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that it is an unlawful employment practice to dis...
For many years the brunt of racial discrimination was sorely felt in the area of employment. Today, ...
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment...
The United States Supreme Court has held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars racial ...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a broad remedial measure designed \u27to assure equali...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grants the federal courts jurisdiction in employment discr...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a non-discriminatory bottom line is no defens...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a non-discriminatory bottom line is no defens...
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an action seeking relief from racial discrimina...
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an action seeking relief from racial discrimina...
More than four decades ago, the Supreme Court concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19...
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has held that a white male is not a ...
Enacted for the purpose of battling workplace discrimination by targeting discrimination against min...
In the quarter century since its passage, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has left unmistakable evidenc...
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that it is an unlawful employment practice to dis...
For many years the brunt of racial discrimination was sorely felt in the area of employment. Today, ...
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment...
The United States Supreme Court has held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars racial ...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a broad remedial measure designed \u27to assure equali...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grants the federal courts jurisdiction in employment discr...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a non-discriminatory bottom line is no defens...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a non-discriminatory bottom line is no defens...
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an action seeking relief from racial discrimina...
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an action seeking relief from racial discrimina...
More than four decades ago, the Supreme Court concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19...
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has held that a white male is not a ...
Enacted for the purpose of battling workplace discrimination by targeting discrimination against min...
In the quarter century since its passage, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has left unmistakable evidenc...
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that it is an unlawful employment practice to dis...