13th Amendmendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.
Passed by Congress in January 1865
and ratified by three-quarters of the
states within a year, the Thirteenth
Amendment irrevocably abolished
slavery throughout the nation - including
those areas in which the Emancipation
Proclamation had not applied. The
second section empowered Congress to
enforce the amendment; some
Republicans felt that this authorized
Congress to define the rights to which
former slaves were entitled.
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
The Enforcement Act of 1870
This Act was designed to protect black voters. Unfortunately, those who witnessed
such violations were usually unwilling to testify so further legislation was soon
necessary. There was a Second Enforcement Act in 1871(entitled everyone to full
enjoyment of public accommodations ) and a Third Enforcement Act, also in 1871,
which served the same basic purposes. This Third Act strengthened sanctions
against those who impeded black suffrage. It gave the President the right to use
federal forces to enforce the law. (These Acts were also known as the Ku Klux Klan
Acts)
Ku Klux Klan
attacking black
family inside their
home.
In 1883, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights act of 1875,
forbidding discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public spaces, was
unconstitutional and not authorized by the 13th or 14th Amendments of the
Constitution.
**NOTE**After 1875, Congress didn't pass another civil rights bill until 1957.
30-year-old Black shoemaker named
Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in
the "White" car of the East Louisiana
Railroad.
Plessy was only one-eighths Black
and seven-eighths white, but under
Louisiana law, he was categorized
Black and therefore required to sit in
the "Colored" car. Plessy went to
court and argued, in Homer Adolph
Plessy v. The State of Louisiana,
which the Separate Car Act violated
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution. In
1896, the Supreme Court of the
United States heard Plessy's case
and found him guilty once again.
The Plessy decision set the
precedent that "separate" facilities
for blacks and whites were
constitutional as long as they were
"equal."
Brown v.
Board of
Education of
Topeka (1954)
U.S. Supreme court
held that public school
segregation of races
violates the equal
protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
After Brown v. Board of
Education the Supreme
Court essentially told
lower federal courts
that they had to take an
activist role in society
“With All Deliberate Speed”
"School integration"
Alex Wilson
is kicked by a
school
integration
protester
after refusing
to run from a
mob near
Little Rock
Central High.
De Facto Segregation - segregation because of
previous conditions, not deliberate government
intention.
De Jure Segregation - racial segregation - that
occurs because of laws or governmental decisions.
During his signing of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964,
President Lyndon B. Johnson shook hands with the Rev. Martin
Luther King Jr.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The EEOC was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and can issue
regulations, but they do not have the force of law
Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Act eliminated discriminatory voter registration tests. As a result the number
of African Americans registered to vote climbed dramatically
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Followed shortly after King’s assassination and forbade discrimination in housing.
Alice Paul
Lucy Burns
Congressional Union for Women Suffrage
Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique described the
unequal status of women in the United States
After the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, various women’s groups
addressed the issues of domestic violence, abortion rights,
pornography, and state and national laws to guarantee the equality of
women all of the following issues
Concerning sexual harassment, the Supreme Court has
ruled that sexual harassment can occur when words or
actions of a sexual nature interfere with the employee’s
work or create a “hostile environment.”
Affirmative Action
In the mid 1970's Allan Bakke, a white graduate student, protested
his inability to enter medical school at the University of California at
Davis. He arugued that affirmative action programs prevented him
from entering and were denying him his rights under the 13th and
14th amendments of the Constitution. It was during the 1970's that
there were protests of "reverse discrimination" or giving of preference
to minorities over "whites" in many facets of life. The court case
reached the Supreme Court and was settled by a split 5-4 decison in
favor of Bakke. The court said racial quaotas must be eliminated but
as Supreme court Justice Lewis Powell commented the " ..race can
be a factor but only one of many to achieve a balance." In other
words race could not be a decisive factor in admitting or excluding
applicants. Affirmative action policies continued but was further
defined.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local
government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard
of "strict scrutiny," the highest level of Supreme Court review (such
classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures
that further compelling governmental interests).
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts hav
never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept general
refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.
Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not
violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If th
government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essentia
aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered
narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interes
More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the
compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another
method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least
restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court general
evaluates it as a separate prong.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
Affirmative Action Information
Supreme Court Decision
In a 5-4 opinion, the high court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's
policy of reviewing each application individually and considering race along with a
number of other factors. In a separate ruling, the court struck down the University of
Michigan's policy of giving undergraduate minority applicants extra points toward
admission because of their race.
The Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
Facts About the Americans with Disabilities Act
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which took effect July 26, 1992, prohibits
private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from
discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring,
firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of
employment. An individual with a disability is a person who:
Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
Has a record of such an impairment; or
Is regarded as having such an impairment.
A qualified employee or applicant with a disability is an individual who, with or without reasonable
accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job in question. Reasonable
accommodation may include, but is not limited to:
Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities.
Job restructuring, modifying work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position;
Acquiring or modifying equipment or devices, adjusting modifying examinations, training
materials, or policies, and providing qualified readers or interpreters.
An employer is required to make an accommodation to the known disability of a qualified
applicant or employee if it would not impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of the
employer's business. Undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or
expense when considered in light of factors such as an employer's size, financial resources and
the nature and structure of its operation.
An employer is not required to lower quality or production standards to make an accommodation,
nor is an employer obligated to provide personal use items such as glasses or hearing aids.
MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS AND INQUIRIES
Employers may not ask job applicants about the existence, nature or severity of a disability.
Applicants may be asked about their ability to perform specific job functions. A job offer may be
conditioned on the results of a medical examination, but only if the examination is required for all
entering employees in similar jobs. Medical examinations of employees must be job related and
consistent with the employer's business needs.
DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
Employees and applicants currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs are not covered by the
ADA, when an employer acts on the basis of such use. Tests for illegal drugs are not subject to
the ADA's restrictions on medical examinations. Employers may hold illegal drug users and
alcoholics to the same performance standards as other employees.
The Significance of the Stonewall Inn
Lawrence v. Texas
The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996