Paul S. Greenlaw

Race-Norming and the Civil Rights Act of 1991

Race-norming, i.e. the adjustment of test scores on the basis of race or ethnicity, has been a widely used, yet little debated practice during the past decade. It was originally adopted by federal employment services as a means of correcting allegedly racially biased aptitude tests and meeting equal employment opportunity and affirmative action goals. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, race-norming and any other means of changing or modifying employment related tests on the basis of race or ethnicity became illegal. This arricie provides a description and analysis of the practice of race-norming—what is it, what is the justification behind it and where and to what extent has it been applied. Furthermore, it provides an outline of the legislative process and the history behind the 1991 prohibition, outlining the basic arguments for and against. Finally, it provides a discussion of the potential implications for recruitment and selection procedures and points to possible future areas of litigation and legislation.

Three Decades of Experience with the Equal Pay Act

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 deserves some stock-taking after having been in operation for thirty years. The law, which requires equal pay for equal work among men and women, provides a mechanism for aggrieved workers to present prima facie cases of discrimination before courts after which accused employers have an opportunity to provide affirma tive defenses, showing that no discrimination exists. This article ecamines how courts have interpreted the Equal Pay Act and discusses the current status of the law, including areas that remain unsettled and need the attention of the Supreme Court.

The Divisive Issue of Comparable Worth: and the Hospitalify Industry

The practice of segregating certain jobs by sex, a long-accepted tradition in many in dustries, has recently come under fire from civil-rights proponents who maintain that jobs should be compared across categories when wages are determined. Their cause was fueled by a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that opened the way for discrimination suits based on job comparability. As more women seek to close the male-female wage gap through the courts, hospitality firms present a highly visible target for comparable-worth advocates

The Complexities of Human Behavior Recent Instances of Alleged Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT, ONE OF THREE TYPES OF SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, ENTAILS SUPERVISORS MAKING SEXUAL ADVANCES OR DEMANDS FOR SEXUAL FAVORS ON THEIR SUBORDINATES. A FIVE- ELEMENT TEST USUALLY IS APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER QUID PRO QUO HARASSMENT AS PROHIBITED BY TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 HAS OCCURRED. THREE OF THOSE FIVE ELEMENTS PRESENT MAJOR HURDLES FOR LITIGANTS. BURDEN-OF-PROOF REQUIREMENTS PRESENT ADDITIONAL MAJOR CHALLENGES. DESPITE THESE PROBLEMS, PLAINTIFFS CAN BE SUCCESSFUL AND CAN WIN SUBSTANTIAL REMEDIES. SEVERAL DIFFERENCES, HOWEVER, EXIST AMONG THE FEDERAL CIRCUITS, AND THESE PROBLEMS NEED TO BE RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND/ OR CONGRESS. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, BY BECOMING AWARE OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS ASSOCIATION WITH QPQ SEXUAL HARASSMENT, CAN TAKE STEPS TO AVOID THE OCCURRENCE OF SUCH HARASSMENT AND THEREBY AVOID BEING SUED BY THEIR WORKERS.

The ADA: Public Personnel Management, Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990. This article reviews and summarizes the impact of the ADA on the public sector, and discusses two key concepts of the law, “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship.” These two concepts impact all management functions, including personnel management, and are the most troublesome of the Act to interpret and apply.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Hospitality Manager

Many hospitality managers are unaware of their rights and obligations concerning pregnant employees under current law. This article clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, assesses its implications for the hospitality industry, and shows what steps managers can take to avoid liability

Civil Rights for Americans Working Abroad

Abstract The purpose of U.S. civil rights legislation in the 1960s was to prevent discrimination against employees working within the United States. A 1991 Supreme Court decision and subsequent legislation extended many civil rights protections to Americans working abroad. This article reviews the results of that legislation, and discusses what American firms must do when U.S. law conflicts with local laws and customs. Finally, the article considers the costs of extraterritoriality of United States laws for overseas employers.

Title I of the Americans with Diabilities Act: The Anatomy of a Law

anatomy. 1: a branch of morphology that deals with the structure of organisms 2: a treatise on anatomic science or art 3: the art of separating the parts of an animal or plant in order to ascertain their position, relations, structure, and function 4: a body dissected or to be dissected 5: structural makeup esp. of an organism or any of its parts 6: a separating or dividing into parts for detailed examination.1 Public sector actions have been increasingly affected by civil rights laws. The primary purpose of this article is to show how one important act impinges on public personnel management. Since little has been written on how such laws are constructed, this article will deal with the anatomy of a basic civil rights law, and will show how Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is constructed in terms of definitions, rights, responsibilities, exceptions and defenses. Research methodology will involve the analysis of primary sources: (1) the ADA of July 26, 1990 itself, and (2) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions “Equal Employment Opportunity with Individuals with Disabilities; Final Rule” of July 26, 1991. The introductory sections of the article will also provide a brief overview of several structural aspects of Title I, and a comparison of this law with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA).

The equal pay act: Responsibilities and rights

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) requires that men and women receive equal pay for equal work. Plaintiffs who claim discrimination on the basis of the EPA may settle out of court, or may bring legal action in the courts. Employers possess specific rights under the law, and can defend themselves against charges of discrimination through a number of “employer defenses.” These defenses involve providing that pay differences are based on seniority systems, merit systems, production systems, or “any other factor other than sex.” This article will also discuss the impact of court decisions that have further honed the responsibilities and rights of both employees and employers under the EPA.

The civil rights act of 1991: Legislative responses to judicial decisions

The Civil Rights Act of 1991, among other things, responded to nine different Supreme Court decisions. Seven of these dealt with issues of statutory construction, while one was concerned with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and still another with a judicial response to yet another judicial decision. With one exception, the decisional subject matter varied widely. Some of the responses bestowed employee rights directly (as with Americans abroad), while others were more remedial, dealing with court situations in which employees sought rights such as expert fee shifting. Overall, the 1991 Act importantly perpetuated an already established recent trend adding a new interactive dimension to thede jure granting of employee rights by the branches of the Federal Government.