Discrimination Law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to
refuse to hire, fire or segregate any person from the privileges of
employment, because of the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.

Generally, Title VII
states: a) 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 that individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(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. (b) It shall be an unlawful
employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer
for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual
because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to
classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or
national origin under any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance. Employment discrimination is covered by Title VI
if the primary objective of the financial assistance is the provision
of employment or education. Title VII prohibits discrimination in
employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national
origin. In certain instances, differential treatment is allowed for
religion, sex, or national origin if it is a bona fide occupational
qualification. Sexual harassment is also prohibited under this law as
are all forms of harassment based on membership in a protected class.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also outlawed discrimination in voter
registration, voting rights, and in public accommodations and/or
businesses; gave the federal government jurisdiction over cases to
enforce desegregation; and prohibited businesses with 25 or more
employees from basing hiring decisions on race.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals
who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based
on age. The ADEA’s protections apply to both employees and job
applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a
person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or
privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff,
compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing
employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an
age discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in
an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA.

The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including
state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and
labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. ADEA
protections include:

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act forbids discrimination by
employers based on age when providing employee benefits, like
severance. The OWBPA also ensures that no employee is coerced or
pressured into signing legal waivers of rights under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The OWBPA was enacted to “protect the rights and benefits of older
workers” who are being laid off. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted
the statute as requiring “‘strict, unqualified statutory stricture on
waivers’” executed by these workers in exchange for compensation and
benefits. The party defending a release’s validity bears the burden of
proving compliance

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her
pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the
prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related
medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title
VII, which covers employers with more than 15 employees, governments
and Labor Unions. Women who are pregnant or affected by
pregnancy-related conditions must be treated in the same manner as
other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.

Pregnancy and Maternity Leave

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special
procedures to determine an employee’s ability to work. However, if an
employer requires its employees to submit a doctor’s statement
concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick
benefits, the employer may require employees affected by
pregnancy-related conditions to submit such statements.

If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job because of her
pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other
temporarily disabled employee. For example, if the employer allows
temporarily disabled employees to modify tasks, perform alternative
assignments, or take disability leave or leave without pay, the
employer also must allow an employee who is temporarily disabled
because of pregnancy to do the same.

Hostile Work Environment

Unlawful harassment is a form of discrimination that violates Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Federal and State laws.

Unwelcome verbal or physical conduct based on race, color, religion,
sex (whether or not of a sexual nature, including same-gender
harassment and gender identity harassment), national origin, age (40
and over), disability (both physical and/or mental), sexual
orientation, or retaliation (sometimes collectively referred to as
“legally protected characteristics”) constitutes unlawful harassment
when:

The conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment; or
A
supervisor’s harassing conduct results in a tangible change in an
employee’s employment status or benefits (for example, demotion,
termination, failure to promote, etc.).

Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or
conduct based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics
unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates
an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Anyone in the
workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official,
co-worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The
victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual
at whom the offensive conduct is directed.

Whistleblower Claims

People who report corporate corruption are entitled to enhanced
protections from retaliation and discrimination. Federal and State laws
also provide that people who “blow the whistle” on companies that have
defrauded the Government are entitled to a percentage of all monies
recovered in the legal action. Furthermore, both State and Federal law
allow private citizens to sue corporations on behalf of the government
when a corporation is committing fraud on the taxpayers. Under these
laws, the citizen, known as the “qui tam” plaintiff, is entitled to a
percentage of any recovery obtained from such a lawsuit.

Becoming a “whistle-blower”
and actually blowing the whistle on a company or government entity can
be an emotionally demanding and career altering step. However, many
whistleblowers who have tried and failed to stop the defrauders short
of litigation believe that pursing a qui tam action as their civic duty
and only ethical choice.

The law rewards whistleblowers with a reward and the payments can be
substantial. Over the last 10 years, qui tam whistleblowers under the
Federal False Claims Act have recovered almost $10,000,000,000 (ten
billion dollars) for the United States, and have received over
$1,600,000,000 (one billion six hundred million dollars) for themselves
as a reward. These staggering sums do not even count the hundreds of
millions of dollars whistleblowers have recovered under similar State
false claims statutes.

Share and Enjoy: