This is an accepted version of this page
.svg) | |
| Long title | An Act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. |
|---|---|
| Enacted by | the88th United States Congress |
| Effective | July 2, 1964; 61 years ago (1964-07-02) |
| Citations | |
| Public law | 88-352 |
| Statutes at Large | 78 Stat. 241 |
| Codification | |
| Acts amended | |
| Titles amended | Title 42: Public Health and Welfare |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| Major amendments | |
| United States Supreme Court cases | |
TheCivil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enactedJuly 2, 1964) is a landmarkcivil rights andlabor law in the United States that outlawsdiscrimination based onrace,color, religion, sex,[a] and national origin.[4] It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements,racial segregation in schools andpublic accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".[5]
Initially, powers given to enforce the act were weak, but these were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of theUnited States Constitution, principally itsenumerated power to regulate interstate commerce under theCommerce Clause ofArticle I, Section 8, its duty to guarantee all citizensequal protection of the laws under the14th Amendment, and its duty to protect voting rights under the15th Amendment.
The legislation was proposed byPresidentJohn F. Kennedy in June 1963, but it was opposed byfilibuster in the Senate. AfterKennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, PresidentLyndon B. Johnson pushed the bill forward. TheUnited States House of Representatives passed the bill on February 10, 1964, and after a 72-day filibuster, it passed theUnited States Senate on June 19, 1964. The final vote was 290–130 in the House of Representatives and 73–27 in the Senate.[6] After the House agreed to a subsequent Senate amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Johnson at theWhite House on July 2, 1964.
In the 1883 landmarkCivil Rights Cases, the United States Supreme Court had ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector, thus stripping theCivil Rights Act of 1875 of much of its ability to protect civil rights.[7]
In the late 19th and early 20th century, the legal justification for voiding the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was part of a larger trend by the United States Supreme Court majorities to invalidate most government regulations of the private sector, except when dealing with laws designed to protect traditional public morality.
In the 1930s, during theNew Deal, the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector under the Commerce Clause, thus paving the way for the federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.
Influenced in part by the "Black Cabinet" advisors and theMarch on Washington Movement, just before the U.S. entered World War II, PresidentFranklin Roosevelt issuedExecutive Order 8802, the first federal anti-discrimination order, and established theFair Employment Practices Committee.[8] Roosevelt's successor, PresidentHarry Truman, appointed thePresident's Committee on Civil Rights, proposed the 20th century's first comprehensive Civil Rights Act, and issued Executive Order 9980 andExecutive Order 9981, providing for fair employment and desegregation throughout the federal government and the armed forces.[9]
TheCivil Rights Act of 1957, signed by PresidentDwight D. Eisenhower on September 9, 1957, was the first federal civil rights legislation since theCivil Rights Act of 1875 to become law. After theSupreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in 1954 inBrown v. Board of Education, Southern Democrats began a campaign of "massive resistance" against desegregation, and even the few moderate white leaders shifted to openly racist positions.[10][11] Partly in an effort to defuse calls for more far-reaching reforms, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill to increase the protection of voting rights for African Americans.[12]
Despite having a limited impact on African-American voter participation, at a time when black voter registration ranged from 0% (in 11 counties) to less than 5% (in 97 counties) despite being majority-Black counties,[13] the Civil Rights Act of 1957 did establish theUnited States Commission on Civil Rights and theUnited States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. By 1960, black voting had increased by only 3%,[14] and Congress passed theCivil Rights Act of 1960, which eliminated certain loopholes left by the 1957 Act.
Global media additionally played a major influential role across both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, in allowing for the eventual passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As the negative global attention that televised instances of Civil rights resistance received such as the 1957 Little Rock Crisis, challenging the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education ruling by the United States Supreme Court ruling which outlawed public school segregation, and the attack on the 1963 Birmingham campaign protestors, put major pressure on the executive branch of government to enact sweeping legislative reform.[15]
In winning the1960 United States presidential election, Kennedy took 70% of the African American vote.[16] But due to his narrow victory and Democrats' narrow majorities in Congress, he was wary to push hard for civil rights legislation for fear of losing southern support.[16] Moreover, according to theMiller Center, he wanted to wait until his second term to send Congress a civil rights bill.[17] But with elevated racial tensions and a wave of African-American protests in the spring of 1963, such as theBirmingham campaign, Kennedy realized he had to act on civil rights.[18][19]
Kennedy first proposed the 1964 bill in hisReport to the American People on Civil Rights on June 11, 1963.[20] He sought legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public – hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments" – as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". In late July,Walter Reuther, president of theUnited Auto Workers, warned that if Congress failed to pass Kennedy's civil rights bill, the country would face another civil war.[21]
Emulating theCivil Rights Act of 1875, which had been struck down by theSupreme Court in 1883, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations and enable theU.S. Attorney General to join lawsuits against state governments that operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. But it did not include a number of provisions civil rights leaders deemed essential, including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, and granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.[22]
On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later,Senate Minority LeaderEverett Dirksen andSenate Majority LeaderMike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Representatives drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".[23][24] The president's bill went first to theHouse of Representatives, where it was referred to theJudiciary Committee, chaired byNew York DemocratEmanuel Celler. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the1957 Act and1960 Act. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.[22]
Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by theLeadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyerJoseph L. Rauh Jr. andClarence Mitchell Jr. of the NAACP.[25]
After theMarch on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, on August 28, 1963, the organizers visited Kennedy to discuss the civil rights bill.[26]Roy Wilkins,A. Philip Randolph, and Walter Reuther attempted to persuade him to support a provision establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission that would ban discriminatory practices by all federal agencies, unions, and private companies.[26]
Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[27] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to theRules Committee, whose chairman,Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist fromVirginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.
Theassassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president,Lyndon B. Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with thebully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to ajoint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."[28]
Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed apetition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee;[22] it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially, Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many Representatives who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.
After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.[22]
Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that it would be quickly considered by theSenate.
Normally, the bill would have been referred to theSenate Judiciary Committee, which was chaired byJames O. Eastland, aDemocrat fromMississippi, whose firm opposition made it seem impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor.Senate Majority LeaderMike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the Judiciary Committee from keeping the bill in limbo: initially waiving a second reading immediately after the first reading, which would have sent it to the Judiciary Committee, he took the unprecedented step of giving the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, thereby bypassing the Judiciary Committee, and sending it to the Senate floor for immediate debate.
When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone RepublicanJohn Tower of Texas, led byRichard Russell (D-GA), launched afilibuster to prevent its passage.[30] Russell proclaimed, "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring aboutsocial equality andintermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states."[31][32]
Strong opposition to the bill also came from SenatorStrom Thurmond, who was still a Democrat at the time: "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals [sic], which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of theReconstruction proposals and actions of theradical Republican Congress."[33]
After the filibuster had gone on for 54 days, Senators Mansfield,Hubert Humphrey,Everett Dirksen, andThomas Kuchel introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would overcome it by combining a sufficient number of Republicans as well as core liberal Democrats. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version as to the government's power in regulating the conduct of private business, but not weak enough to make the House reconsider it.[34]
SenatorRobert Byrd ended his filibuster in opposition to the bill on the morning of June 10, 1964, after 14 hours and 13 minutes. Up to then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. The day before, Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded that he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never before in its entire history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to defeat a filibuster on a civil rights bill, and only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed tocloture for any measure.[35]
The most dramatic moment during the cloture vote came when SenatorClair Engle (D-CA) was wheeled into the chamber. Suffering from terminalbrain cancer, unable to speak, he pointed to his left eye, signifying his affirmative "Aye" vote when his name was called.[36] He died seven weeks later.
H.R. 1752 was brought to a floor vote in the chambers of the US House on February 10, 1964. The Republican Party voted 138 in favor, 34 against. The Democratic Party voted 152 in favor, 96 against. 5 members voted present, and 6 members did not vote.[37]
It was then brought to the floor of the US Senate on June 19, 1964 for a vote. The Republican Party voted 27 in favor, 6 against. The Democratic Party voted 46 in favor, 21 against.[38]
With amendments having been made to the bill, it was sent back to the US House for final passage. The House took H.R. 7152 on the floor for vote on July 2, 1964. Republicans voted 136 in favor, 35 against, 2 present, 5 not voting. Democrats voted 153 in favor, 91 against, 2 present, 12 not voting.[39]
Upon being passed by the US House, it was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on the same day.[40]
Totals are inYea–Nay format:
Original House version:[1]
Cloture in the Senate:[42]
Senate version:[2]
Senate version, voted on by the House:[3]
.png)
Note that "Southern", as used here, only refers to members of Congress from the 11 states that had made up theConfederate States of America in theAmerican Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of their geographic location including Southern states like Kentucky.[43]
House of Representatives:[3]
Senate:[2]
House of Representatives:[3]
Note that four Representatives votedPresent while 13 did not vote.
Senate:[2]
One year earlier, the same Congress had passed theEqual Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act byHoward W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate whether Smithcynically attempted to defeat the bill because he opposed civil rights for Black people and women or attempted to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.[45][46][47][48] Smith expected that Republicans, who had includedequal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944,[49] would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because labor unions opposed the clause. RepresentativeCarl Elliott of Alabama later said, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights", as "he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights",[50] and according to theCongressional Record, laughter greeted Smith when he introduced the amendment.[51]
Smith asserted that he was not joking and sincerely supported the amendment. Along with RepresentativeMartha Griffiths,[52] he was the amendment's chief spokesperson.[51] For 20 years, Smith had sponsored theEqual Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. For decades he had been close to theNational Woman's Party and its leaderAlice Paul, who had been a leading figure in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, co-authored the first Equal Rights Amendment, and had been a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category, and felt now was the moment.[53] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that that was unfair to white women. Black feminist lawyerPauli Murray wrote a supportive memorandum at the behest of theNational Federation of Business and Professional Women.[54] Griffiths also argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs.[55] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as JusticeWilliam Rehnquist wrote inMeritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives [...] the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.'"[56]
One of the bill's opponents' most damaging arguments was that once passed, the bill would requireforced busing to achieve certainracial quotas in schools.[57] The bill's proponents, such asEmanuel Celler andJacob Javits, said it would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[57] Humphrey said, "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."[57] Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," but two years later theDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[57]
The bill divided both major American political parties and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of the support for each. President Kennedy realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney GeneralRobert F. Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aideTed Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[58] SenatorRichard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election".[59] Johnson, however, went on to win the1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s.[60]
Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[61]Republican 1964 presidential candidate, SenatorBarry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the24th Amendment outlawing thepoll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty andstates' rights. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 60 working day filibuster, including SenatorsAlbert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) andJ. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as SenatorRobert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.[62]
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question [...] is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers".[63] Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of theFourteenth Amendment and also violated theFifth andThirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process".[63] InHeart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.
Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South.[64] When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina, attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre."[65] Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of theGreen v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.[66]
.jpg)
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (Bostock v. Clayton County,Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, andR.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, precluded employers from discriminating on the basis ofsexual orientation orgender identity.[67] Afterward,USA Today stated that in addition to LGBTQ employment discrimination, "[t]he court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit."[68]
Title I barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. This title did not eliminateliteracy tests, which acted as one barrier for black voters, other racial minorities, and poor whites in the South or address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification". It accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but would have to meet standards beyond citizenship.[69][70][71] TheVoting Rights Act of 1965 directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship, eliminating literacy tests.[69]
Title II outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; Title II defined "public accommodations" as establishments that serve the public. It exempted private clubs, without defining the term "private", or other establishments not open to the public.[72]
Title III prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Title IV enforced the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.
Title V expanded theCivil Rights Commission established by the earlierCivil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules, and procedures.
Title VI prevents discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funds. If a recipient of federal funds is found in violation of Title VI, that recipient may lose its federal funding.
General
This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs.Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.
Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
2019 Executive Order
The December 11, 2019,executive order on combating antisemitism states: "While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination againstJews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual's race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted inantisemitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI." The order specifies that agencies responsible for Title VI enforcement shall "consider" the (non-legally binding)working definition of antisemitism adopted by theInternational Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016, as well as the IHRA list ofContemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism, "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent".[73]
2025 Executive Order
In April 2025, President Trump issuedExecutive Order 14281 which orders, "the Attorney General shall initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for all agencies to the extent they contemplatedisparate-impact liability".[74]
Title VII of the Act, codified asSubchapter VI of Chapter 21 ofTitle 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[75]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of their association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[76] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (seePregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978,Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[77]Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait if the trait is abona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To make a BFOQ defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job; the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and that there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.,499 U.S.187 (1991), 111 S. Ct. 1196). BFOQ is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson,433 U.S.321 (1977) 97 S. Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a BFOQ (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School – Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).[78]
Title VII allows any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with theCommunist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to theSubversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[79]
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
TheBennett Amendment is a U.S. labor law provision in Title VII that limits sex discrimination claims regardingpay to the rules in theEqual Pay Act of 1963. It says an employer can "differentiate upon the basis of sex" when it compensates employees "if such differentiation is authorized by" the Equal Pay Act.
TheEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as certainstate fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs), enforce Title VII (see42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4).[75] The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on employees' behalf. Where a state law contradicts federal law, it is overridden.[81] Every state except Arkansas and Mississippi maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPAdirectory). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. They must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or they may lose the right to file suit. Title VII applies only to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e#b).
2025 Executive Order
In April 2025, President Trump issuedExecutive Order 14281 which orders, within 45 days, the Attorney General and the Chair of theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission, "shall assess all pending investigations, civil suits, or positions taken in ongoing matters under every Federal civil rights law within their respective jurisdictions, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that rely on a theory ofdisparate-impact liability, and shall take appropriate action with respect to such matters consistent with the policy of this order."[74]
In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis ofgender identity ortransgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.[82][83] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.[84] As of November 2014[update], CommissionerChai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[85][86][needs update]
On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued byAttorney GeneralEric Holder, theUnited States Department of Justice (DOJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DOJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees.[87] The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII.[88]
In October 2017, Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions withdrew the Holder memorandum.[89] According to a copy of Sessions' directive reviewed byBuzzFeed News, he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se."[90] Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DOJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action."Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DOJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is – it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court."[89] But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DOJ in certain cases.[88]
Title VIII required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.
Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from U.S. state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists[who?] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.[citation needed]
Title X established theCommunity Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination. It was originally an agency of the Department of Commerce, and later moved to the Department of Justice.
Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.
Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.
In 1972, Congress passed theEqual Employment Opportunity Act.[91] The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation.[92]
After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark caseHeart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the law's constitutionality, but did not settle all the legal questions surrounding it.
In the 1974 caseLau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled that theSan Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.[93]
InPhillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., a 1971 Supreme Court case about the Act's gender provisions, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless it did the same with potential male employees.[48] A federal court overruled anOhio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs that required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women but not men to take lunch breaks.[48] InPittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, the Supreme Court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women is illegal, ending that practice at the country's newspapers. TheUnited States Civil Service Commission ended the practice of designating federal jobs "women only" or "men only."[48]
Alandmark United States Supreme Court case on religion and business, holding that employers may fire employees who refuse to work on theseventh-day in observation of abiblical sabbath.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson,477 U.S.57 (1986) determined that sexual harassment is considered discrimination based on sex.[94]
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,490 U.S.228 (1989) established that discrimination related to non-conformity of gender stereotypical behavior is unallowable under Title VII.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.,523 U.S.75 (1998) further ruled that same-sex harassment is discrimination under Title VII.
On June 22, 2006, inBurlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the Supreme Court held that White's reassignment to from forklift operator to less desirable duties as a track laborer as well as her suspension without pay after complaining about workplace sexual harassment constituted retaliatory discrimination.[95] This was a landmark case because it clarified that Title VII's retaliation provision is not confined to harmful acts occurring at the workplace or are related to employment.[96] Title VII's anti-discrimination provision prevents actions including a hire, a discharge, a change in compensation, conditions, privileges, opportunities, or status of employment.[97] However, Title VII's retaliation provision contains no such limiting language.[98] The definition of retaliation against a complainant of sexual harassment was changed to encompass any unfavorable job decision or treatment that might deter a "reasonable worker" from filing a discrimination claim or from supporting one.[98]
On June 15, 2020, inBostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Title VII protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex apply to discrimination againstLGBT individuals.[99] In the opinion, JusticeNeil Gorsuch wrote that a business that discriminates against homosexual or transgender individuals is discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Thus discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees is a form of sex discrimination, which is forbidden under Title VII.[100]
Bostock was consolidated withAltitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda.[101] Before the Supreme Court's intervention, there was a split in the circuit courts, including these two cases[102][103] as well asEvans v. Georgia Regional Hospital in the Eleventh Circuit.[104]
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that Title VII covers gender identity, includingtransgender status.[102][101]
TheAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964" – was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]". The Americans with Disabilities Act paralleled its landmark predecessor structurally, drawing upon many of the same titles and statutes. For example, "Title I of the ADA, which bans employment discrimination by private employers on the basis of disability, parallels Title VII of the Act". Similarly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, "which proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, tracks Title II of the 1964 Act while expanding upon the list of public accommodations covered." The Americans with Disabilities Act extended "the principle of nondiscrimination to people with disabilities",[105] an idea unsought in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
1. The 1st and 2d sections of the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1875, are unconstitutional enactments as applied to the several States, not being authorized either by the XIllth or XIVth Amendments of the Constitution. 2. The XIVth Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but is corrective legislation, such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts. 3. The XIIIth Amendment relates only to slavery and involuntary servitude (which it abolishes) ; and although, by its reflex action, it establishes universal freedom in the United States, and Congress may probably pass laws directly enforcing its provisions; yet such legislative power extends only to the subject of slavery and its incidents; and the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of public amusement (which is forbidden by the sections in question), imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party, but at most, infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the XIVth Amendment. 4. Whether the accommodations and privileges sought to be protected by the 1st and 2d sections of the Civil Rights Act, are, or are not, rights constitutionally demandable; and if they are, in what form they are to be protected, is not now decided. 5. Nor is it decided whether the law as it stands is operative in the Territories and District of Columbia : the decision only relating to its validity as applied to the States. 6. Nor is it decided whether Congress, under the commercial power, may or may not pass a law securing to all persons equal accommodations on lines of public conveyance between two or more States.
Despite these long-standing guarantees, the United States Commission on Civil Rights has found that racial denials of the right to vote occur in sections of eight states. In five of those states Negroes constitute more than a quarter of the adult population, but very few of these Negroes are registered to vote. For example, in Mississippi only five per cent are registered; in Alabama only fourteen per cent are registered; in South Carolina, sixteen per cent are registered; in Georgia, twenty-six per cent are registered; and in Louisiana, twenty-nine per cent are registered. Registration among adult whites invariably exceeds fifty per cent in the same areas, and Negroes are in the majority in ninety-one per cent of the counties where Negroes are in the majority. In ninety-seven counties fewer than three per cent of the adult Negroes are on the rolls. Indeed, in thirteen counties with sizable Negro populations the Negro voter rolls are significantly below the statewide percentage of eligible Negroes registered and in fifteen Negroes approaches the white voter percentage.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)Seconds before his name was called, Senator Clair Engle, of California, was pushed into the chamber in a wheel chair. He was smiling slightly. 'Mr. Engle', the clerk called. There was a long silence. Senator Engle, recuperating from two brain operations, tried to speak. He could not. Finally, he raised his left arm, as though trying to point toward his eyes. He nodded his head, signaling that he was voting 'aye'. He was wheeled out of the chamber minutes later and taken by ambulance back to his home here. It was Senator Engle's first appearance on the Senate floor since April 13.
Civil rights movement (1954–1968) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Events (timeline) |
| ||||||||
| Activist groups |
| ||||||||
| Activists |
| ||||||||
| By region | |||||||||
| Movement songs | |||||||||
| Influences | |||||||||
| Related |
| ||||||||
| Legacy |
| ||||||||
| Noted historians | |||||||||
| ||||||
| Presidency (timeline) |
|  | ||||
| Presidential speeches | ||||||
| Elections |
| |||||
| Personal life | ||||||
| Books | ||||||
| Death | ||||||
| Legacy | ||||||
| Memorials, namesakes |
| |||||
| Family |
| |||||
| ||
| Presidency |
| .jpg)  |
| Life | ||
| Legacy and memorials |
| |
| Elections | ||
| Public image | ||
| Family |
| |
| Initiated and co-strategized |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Main associates | ||
| Life | ||
| Legacy |
| |
| Related | ||
| History |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture | |||||
| Notable people |
| ||||
| Education, science and technology | |||||
| Religion | |||||
| Political movements | |||||
Civic and economic groups |
| ||||
| Sports |
| ||||
| Ethnic subdivisions | |||||
| Demographics | |||||
| Languages | |||||
| By state/city | |||||
| Diaspora | |||||
| Lists | |||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
