Civil Rights Act 1991 Research

The Civil Rights Act, 1991 (CRA) made key amendments in most of the discrimination legislations in the U. S including the Civil Rights of 1964 and 1866, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title VII. However, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was never included as part of the basis for discrimination proceedings. Therefore, the Civil Rights Act, 1991 is one of the U. S profound legislation protecting its citizens against discrimination on any basis as outlined. However, some of the important issues outlined by the CRA, 1991 included among others; mix motive, damages, jury trials, procedural and substantive laws changes, Americans abroad and the disparate impact analysis. The Civil Rights Act, 1991 was an amendment of the 1964 Act, but it was never enacted to replace the 1964 Act rather it was adopted in order to strengthen some of the provision enumerated in the 1964 Act.

More particularly, the 1964 Act improved the terms of liability upon the employers as well as their burden of proof. Secondly, the Act modified some of the substantive and procedural rights found under the federal laws in terms of the discrimination in employment. Moreover, victims of employment discrimination were also given the opportunity to receive damages for any emotional distress caused to them. Moreover, under the Act, the compensation for damages is dependent on the size of the employer. For instance, if the employer has contracted other employees exceeding 500, the damages that a party (employee) can receive may amount to $300,000. For employers engaging not more than 501 but not less than 201 are required to compensate any of the complaining party a sum of $200,000.

Jury trials as another important amendment by the CRA, 1991 provides employees to seek for a jury trial which was not available prior to the enactment of the 1991 Act. However, a jury trial should only be required by the plaintiff in cases where the case revolves around punitive or compensatory damages. Arabian American Oil Co. (1991) indicated that the provisions of Title VII never applied to extraterritorial regions but only within the United States territorial jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court directed the Congress to extend the scope of American employees abroad. A similar decision was given by the court in the case of EEOC v. Aramco (1991). However, other states have included anti-discrimination laws for companies employing more than one employee. Section 702 of the CRA, 1991 provides that the protection against discrimination of the employees does not extend to employers who have employed aliens outside any State in the U.

S. Moreover, section 109 of the Title VII while protecting the employees limits the discrimination of the extraterritorial coverage only to employees thus the status of the employees working abroad seems to be controlled by the decision offered in the case of EEOC v. Aramco (1991). With nothing else to do, I relented knowing that even with my merits surpassing that of my co-worker the choice was made in terms of race, and I wasn’t “White” enough to guarantee a position in the client's company. Importantly to note in this case, the client had not pointed out their choice on the basis of color or gender. Therefore, the discrimination, in this case, was specifically with my employer. References Bohlander, G. W. Livingston, D.