What Did the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Do?

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the “Act”) ensured many safeguards, the landscape surrounding a discrimination claim can still be tricky to navigate. If you suspect you may be facing some type of employment discrimination, please consider speaking with an experienced employment attorney who can help you understand your options.

In many ways, the Act enhanced the remedies that may be available to you. To better understand this landmark legislation, let’s take a look at the legal climate prior to its enactment.

Background

The early 1960s marked a time of significant social change in the United States. It saw the rise of the civil rights movement and a push for greater equality in American society. This is evident in the laws passed during this period. Those pertaining to employment discrimination are no exception.

For example, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) addressed the longstanding issue of women being paid less than men. The EPA mandated equal pay for equal work.

On a broader scale, Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to prohibit employment discrimination. The revolutionary law made it illegal for employers to discriminate against job applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) also aimed to protect older workers from age discrimination in the workplace.

Together, these and other laws marked important steps in the fight against discrimination and reflected the changing social attitudes of the time.

Supreme Court Cases

However, several Supreme Court decisions in the late 1980s weakened some of these protections. They made it harder for victims of discrimination to challenge and prove unlawful employment practices.

Wards Cove Packing Co. vs. Atonio

For example, Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989) made it more difficult for employees to prevail on disparate impact discrimination claims. The ruling put the burden of proof on the plaintiff.

Martin vs. Wilks

Martin v. Wilks (1989) made it easier for non-parties to challenge existing affirmative action plans through consent decrees long after implementation.

Lorance vs. AT&T Technologies

In Lorance v. AT&T Technologies (1989), the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for challenging a discriminatory seniority system began to run when the system was adopted, not when its effects were felt by individual employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

In response to these decisions, the federal government passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 as an amendment to Title VII. The Act enhanced the overall enforcement of civil rights laws in the workplace. It did this through several key provisions.

Title I

Title I of the Act, in part:

• Clarified that the rights protected under federal civil rights laws are safeguarded against impairment by state law
• Extended protections to American employees working for U.S. companies abroad
• Allowed victims of intentional employment discrimination under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and other federal anti-discrimination laws, to receive compensatory damages (excluding back pay) and punitive damages
• Gave Title VII plaintiffs the right to a jury trial in cases where they sought monetary damages
• Extended the right to jury trials to ADEA plaintiffs
• Prohibited employer use of seniority systems adopted with discriminatory intent
• Increased the time allowed for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimination charge in some cases
• Allowed reasonable expert fees as part of the attorney’s fees awarded to the prevailing party in employment discrimination cases
• Clarified employer obligations to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA
• Reduced the plaintiff’s burden of proof in mixed-motive cases

These measures aimed to provide stronger protections and remedies for victims of discrimination.

Title II

Title II of the Act sought to address and clarify certain legal standards. Amongst other features, it:

• Limited the ability to challenge consent decrees for individuals who had notice and a reasonable opportunity to present objections
• Shifted the burden of proof for disparate impact claims to the respondent/employer to show that the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity
• Clarified that the statute of limitations for filing a discrimination claim begins to run when the discriminatory act occurs and is communicated to the employee
• Established a commission to study barriers preventing women and minorities from workplace advancement
• Mandated creation of the Technical Assistance Training Institute to provide guidance about laws enforced by the EEOC

These and other provisions set out to streamline the relevant legal processes.

Title III

Title III focused on expanding protections against employment discrimination and harassment. It did this in various ways. These included:

• Extending the rights and protections of the Act and Title VII to instrumentalities of Congress
• Prohibiting discrimination in personnel actions affecting Senate and House of Representatives employees

These measures were largely designed to enhance the enforcement of federal civil rights laws.

Impact of the 1991 Civil Rights Act

The Act had a significant impact on workplace discrimination laws and practices. It raised awareness about workplace discrimination and the importance of equal treatment. It also made it easier for employees to file and win cases. This led to an increase in employment discrimination lawsuits. Many employers also improved their anti-discrimination policies and practices to avoid lawsuits.

Getting Legal Advice

Even with these stronger tools for combating employment discrimination, it still exists. If you’re experiencing discrimination in the workplace or as a job applicant, you’ll want to speak with a qualified employment attorney.

A trusted legal advisor can help you understand the range of options available to you. You can speak with them confidentially. They can explain the laws applicable to your situation so you can determine the best course of action. In many cases, you’ll need to file a charge with the EEOC or another government agency before bringing a lawsuit.

Employment practices that violate the Act and Title VII may also violate other federal and state laws. State laws can vary. But they often provide additional remedies and protections. So, you’ll want an advocate licensed in your state.

Findlaw’s directory of dedicated employment attorneys makes finding one easy. Just click on your state to view information for local experts. If you prefer, you can also narrow your search results by city. Either way, ensure you’re making informed decisions. Give yourself the peace of mind that comes with legal guidance.