In interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the courts have gener
ID: 444465 • Letter: I
Question
In interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the courts have generally held that: ___________
1. Employers are guilty of discrimination even when they inform their employees that discrimination is
wrong
2. Employers are guilty of discrimination in the absence of intent when the effects are the same as if
here had been intent to discriminate
3. Employers can disregard anti-discrimination laws
when they become too inconvenient
4. Intent to discriminate is always necessary for there to be bona fide discrimination
Explanation / Answer
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.
The title considers both intentional as well as unintentional discrimination. Neutral job policies are also included. These neutral job policies do not have an intent to discriminate. In such cases, the intent to discriminate is not there, but the application or effect leads to discrimination.
So the answer is option 2 - Employers are guilty of discrimination in the absence of intent when the effects are the same as if here had been intent to discriminate.