{"id":357683,"date":"2016-04-04T10:45:23","date_gmt":"2016-04-04T15:45:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/employment\/employment-discrimination\/civil-rights-act-of-1991.html"},"modified":"2025-04-24T10:47:15","modified_gmt":"2025-04-24T15:47:15","slug":"civil-rights-act-of-1991","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/employment\/employment-discrimination\/civil-rights-act-of-1991.html","title":{"rendered":"What Did the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Do?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

What Did the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Do?<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Balrina Ahluwalia, Esq.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was an important federal civil rights law passed by the United States Congress. It strengthened protections against employment discrimination. It also clarified the legal framework for civil actions. The Act was created in response to several Supreme Court decisions that made it harder for employees to challenge employers\u2019 discriminatory practices.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the \u201cAct\u201d) 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 <\/a>you understand your options.<\/p>\r\n

In many ways, the Act enhanced the remedies that may be available to you. To better understand this landmark legislation, let\u2019s take a look at the legal climate prior to its enactment.<\/p>\r\n

Background<\/h2>\r\n

The early 1960s marked a time of significant social change in the United States. It saw the rise of the civil rights<\/a> 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.<\/p>\r\n

For example, the Equal Pay Act of 1963<\/a> (EPA) addressed the longstanding issue of women being paid less than men. The EPA mandated equal pay for equal work.<\/p>\r\n

On a broader scale, Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964<\/a> (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<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967<\/a> (ADEA) also aimed to protect older workers from age discrimination in the workplace.<\/p>\r\n

Together, these and other laws marked important steps in the fight against discrimination and reflected the changing social attitudes of the time.<\/p>\r\n

Supreme Court Cases<\/h2>\r\n

However, several Supreme Court <\/a>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.<\/p>\r\n

Wards Cove Packing Co. vs. Atonio<\/h3>\r\n

For example, Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio<\/i> <\/a>(1989) made it more difficult for employees to prevail on disparate impact discrimination claims. The ruling put the burden of proof<\/a> on the plaintiff.<\/p>\r\n

Martin vs. Wilks<\/h3>\r\n

Martin v. Wilks<\/i><\/a> (1989) made it easier for non-parties to challenge existing affirmative action plans<\/a> through consent decrees long after implementation.<\/p>\r\n

Lorance vs. AT&T Technologies<\/h3>\r\n

In Lorance v. AT&T Technologies<\/i> <\/a>(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.<\/p>\r\n

The Civil Rights Act of 1991<\/h2>\r\n

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<\/a> in the workplace. It did this through several key provisions.<\/p>\r\n

Title I<\/h3>\r\n

Title I of the Act, in part:<\/p>\r\n