Civil Rights Act of 1990: Hearing Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session, on S. 2104 ... February 23, 27, March 1, and 7, 1989, Volume 4
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990 - 1076 páginas
O que estão dizendo - Escrever uma resenha
Não encontramos nenhuma resenha nos lugares comuns.
Outras edições - Visualizar todos
action adverse affirmative allow American applied attorneys believe bill burden business necessity cause CHAIRMAN challenge City Civil Rights Act claim clear Committee concern Congress contract damages dealing decision decree defendant demonstrate denied Department discrimination discriminatory disparate impact effect employ employer employment equal essential establish evidence example fact factor fair Federal filed force going Griggs harassment hiring important intentional interest issue Justice labor legislation limited litigation means ment minorities motive opportunity parties percent performance persons plaintiff position practices Price Waterhouse problem promotion proof proposed protected prove qualified question quotas race racial reason remedies requirement response result rule Section selection Senator HATCH simply specific standard statement statute Thank tion Title VII U.S. Supreme Court United victims violation Wards Cove women
Página 289 - ... bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise...
Página 25 - ... well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation...
Página 244 - The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.
Página 302 - Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. More than that, Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question.
Página 28 - Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter of March 25, 1987.
Página 97 - Sadly, even after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965...
Página 186 - In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.
Página 64 - If an employer does then meet the burden of proving that its tests are "job related," it remains open to the complaining party to show that other tests or selection devices, without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in "efficient and trustworthy workmanship.
Página 18 - He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Página 249 - ... whether a challenged practice serves, in a significant way, the legitimate employment goals of the employer. The touchstone of this inquiry is a reasoned review of the employer's justification for his use of the challenged practice. A mere insubstantial justification in this regard will not suffice, because such a low standard of review would permit discrimination to be practiced through the use of spurious, seemingly neutral employment practices.