lets mix included with this. 50 years ago, congress passed title vii. and set us off on a journey in which sex would not be taken into account in the workplace just as race, religion, national origin color would not be permitted to be taken into account. the journey has not been a simple one and it is not over yet. over time, the law has been understood to cover many forms of discrimination that in the 1964 congress could not have anticipated. it has generated policies on the ground to have advanced gender equity and the law has both shaped and been shipped by social norms. we all need to remain part of this great journey. and to do our bit in bringing complete equity to our places. thank you so much for your attention. your engagement and your scholarship. all of it makes a huge difference. thank you so much. [applause] >> ok, if there are questions, you will have to come toy microphone -- come to a microphone. just come to this >> thank you for that address. want to go talk -- i want to go back to the talk from yesterday. we were talking about the deb

it was this court that gave that interpretation to title vii. to try to look back and say, did they mean disparate impact in 1964 it is a little artificial don't you think? >> the court has to construe the plaintext. >> the text in 19 -- it has to construe the plaintext of the law. the law consists not just of what congress did in 1968, but also what it did in 1988. you look at the whole law and you say, what makes sense, and if you read those provisions together, it seems to be anyou look at the whole law and you acknowledgment that there is such a thing as disparate impact. however, it will not apply in these areas. we don't just look at each little piece when it was enacted and say, what did congress think in 1968, 1972? we look at the law. the law includes the 1968 act and the 1988 amendments. i find it hard to read those together in any other way than there is such a thing as disparate impact. >> the 1988 amendments don't refer to disparate impact. this is not like the title i amendment. >> it makes no sense unless there is such a thing as

once it is clear that an employee needs accommodation of that rule that is what title vii requires. was a neutral pulled that you have to work on the sabbath. >> the supervisor did not have that knowledge? >> that is not correct. i took from justice ginsburg what we believe indicates cook conferred, conveyed to the supervisor johnson it was for religious reason. there is a disputed testimony about this. summary judgment has been granted against us. i told johnson was for religious reasons and johnson said of we allowed this someone will paint themselves green and college of religion we can't allow it. the court decides the question on the decisionmakers, the solution you suggested some doubt the employer should get a dialogue, that may promote stereotypes to a far greater degree, an interview with the beard and the employer like abercrombie and fitch don't like beards, don't like their models having beards. it doesn't matter of the beard is there for religious reason. if he starts asking this applicant questions you would not ask anyone else about religion while you wearing a beard?

thirteen years 13 years later title vii is introduced, no sex discrimination provision. the national women's party saw this as an opportunity. let's get a sex discrimination provision added. they asked congressman howard smith who opposed the civil rights act generally, generally, voted against it, to offer the amendment partly because he was the congressman who had been introducing the era into the house for the past number of years. now as a political matter they assumed he might bring along votes of other members of congress but at least a number of other members voted to add sex because they felt it was the right thing to do. eleven out of 12 then women members of congress -- there were only 12. eleven out of the 12 voted to have the sex is cremation provision. again not only yesterday but in her book she does an excellent job of unpacking and building upon the work of other scholars the totally racist rationale that was often used. if you pass this without gender it means white women we will have less protection than black men and women. how horrible would that be?

lets mix included with this. 50 years ago, congress passed title vii. and set us off on a journey in which sex would not be taken into account in the workplace just as race, religion, national origin color would not be permitted to be taken into account. the journey has not been a simple one and it is not over yet. over time, the law has been understood to cover many forms of discrimination that in the 1964 congress could not have anticipated. it has generated policies on the ground to have advanced gender equity and the law has both shaped and been shipped by social norms. we all need to remain part of this great journey. and to do our bit in bringing complete equity to our places. thank you so much for your attention. your engagement and your scholarship. all of it makes a huge difference. thank you so much. [applause] >> ok, if there are questions, you will have to come toy microphone -- come to a microphone. just come to this >> thank you for that address. want to go talk -- i want to go back to the talk from yesterday. we were talking about the deb

religion according to johnson. >> title vii you provided all of the title vii discrimination but it makes a religious practice a refusal to accommodate a religious practice is itself a violation of title vii. and that was done deliberately wasn't not so religious practices would have to be accommodated. >> yes your honor two points in response to that by me. one we are not contending religious practices don't have to be accommodated. what we are contending as an initial matter is the employer did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of a religious practice by enforcing a religion neutral dress code. >> the thing about my question was that what the statute does is to say that if you are in fact wearing a headscarf for religious reasons that your neutral policy doesn't matter. it only matters if there is an undue burden and you can't have an accommodation but except for that it doesn't really matter. you just have to hire me even if i'm wearing a headscarf. so the fact that you don't know that i'm wearing a headscarf for religious reasons and if you only assume that because most peop

the point is true enough but they were also true with respect to title vii, weren't they? >> i don't believe so. section 482 to ban the act of limiting segregating class line, and then checking for a certain result -- something which would deprive, tend to deprive her adversely affect -- results a fact checking language that gave rise to disparate impact -- >> it answers the phrase "on the basis of race, sex" -- whatever. it is adversely affected on the basis of a category. >> that was the interpretation that we come to in section 482. in section 481 race appears and you have active verbs there -- refuse and otherwise discriminate. in section 481, it only requires intentional discrimination. >> to you take into account at all that in both title vii and the fair housing act there was a grand goal that congress had in mind. it meant to undo generations of discrimination. what was the phrase this court used? its objective was to replace ghettos with integrated living patterns, to undo a legacy of discrimination. so doesn't that purpose give a clue to what congress -- >> justi

i'm margaret i'm a third generation title vii family member in the san francisco unified school district i i am an enrolled member i have two daughters my oldest is in private school 12 years old in 6th grade and my youngest is in kindergarten good evening, everybody i'm melanie gordon i'm a third generation family involved with the title vii indian education program my children represent marina middle school and a fourth gardener at sanchez school. >> so the foundation of our program is knowledge cultural and pride some of the part of our program that we offer for our community is weekly academic support with after school tutoring this is critical for the academic success we also offer monthly family night for writing to connect the students and community members we also a critical piece of our programs families are able to come together at least once a month to connect in a safe place that promotes education and cultural needs for our students to offer the tours we've been uc berkley and davis and there's other students that are successfully achieving they're higher education we also h

>> not under title vii. it requires applicants or employees that violate workplace rules to be given a chance to explain themselves before adverse actions are taken. >> what i don't understand with respect to this particular case as i understand it they do not have a policy that an interviewee must comply with the look policy. >> the look policy itself does not apply the interview. >> so there would be no reason for not hiring an individual involved unless you assume that she was going to wear a scarf every day. >> just because she wore a headscarf on the one-day would it mean that she was necessarily going to wear it the other days. maybe she was having a bad hair day and she comes in with a headscarf. but she didn't have any religious reason for doing it. would you reject or for that? no. the reason she was rejected is because you assumed that she was going to do this every day. the only reason why she would do it everyday is because she had a religious reason. >> justice, that has not been the theory of t

and, therefore, currently prohibited by title vii. now as you heard i was one of the original drafters of the employment nondiscrimination act in 1993. students in the room might be interesting know that the first draft was written off a law school exam because i've been hired as a consultant to work on this. there was a meeting the next day and i knew going to know if they had already developed the paper but i knew the best way to affect me is to come in with paper. and i had in my computer and send had written the previous year was a bill that would based on sexual orientation. it's a legislation class, had a bunch of mistakes obviously so there will be questions but i went in to fix the mistakes, printed it out and that's what i brought. so here's the thing. it's what i call a funny thing happened on the way to non-passage of enda. i often say i don't have kids biological or adopted kids. i have lost the instead it's a boy or it's a program it is a law. laws have lots of parents and they often take more than nine months. but in a w

. >> my name is fy lemon flores i'm with the indians education program title vii welcome to san francisco welcome to the revolution >> (speaking foreign language.) >> welcome to the revolution >> (speaking foreign language.) >> all my relation thank you. (clapping.) >> >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering) i'm with came on house. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering). >> i'm emily from the san francisco dependent on the status of women. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering). >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering). >> (speaking foreign language.) >> filipino and san francisco. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> >> (speaking foreign language.) >> freedom free. >> i'm from san francisco. >> hi. >> my name is merriam. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my name is north america did care with the foundation welcome to the san francisco revolution push on. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that was just a small and beautiful sampling of over one hundred and 20 languages spoken in san francisco so thank you any sisters i really appreciate it (clapping) and when we

however if they wish what they said is a bilateral dialogue is what title vii will accomplish commentsdea. >> can you do it? that the only religious preference that has to be honored? you know really i would like not to for religious reasons, i guess that i could take off my headscarf or whatnot, but it would be very inappropriate and religiously uncomfortable so are you acknowledging that the only accommodation has to be made is an accommodation for somebody who actually cannot do this? >> no, no, that is not what this case is that all. >> you are telling them to ask can you do it. >> that is the exact dialogue that is supposed to happen. that's the bilateral dialogue. what they wanted when they passed reasonable accommodation is where the employee -- so she says yes but i could, in and then later she said i could, but it's really uncomfortable for me to do that for religious reasons. would she still have a lawsuit? >> she wouldn't have a lawsuit. >> welcome if she could when she was hired, she says actually it's quite uncomfortable, she and the employer need to go into a discussion t

there's been several title vii cases that seem to be chipping away a lot of the legislation that wasassed during the civil rights era. should we be worried that all of those great achievements of the civil rights movement are being rolled back? >> the congress in 1991 took a look at some of this court's restrictive interpretations of title vii. they passed a bill that changed all of those. at the moment our congress is not functioning very well. >> yeah. >> for example, the voting rights act was renewed by overwhelming majorities on both sides of the aisle. but the current congress is not equipped, really to do anything. some day, we will go back to having the kind of legislature that we should. where members, whatever party they belong to want to make the thing work and cooperate with each other to see that that will happen. i mean it was that way in 1993 when i was nominated for this good job. there were only three negative votes. and my hope and expectation is that we will get back to that kind of bipartisan spirit. >> and when the time comes, what would you like to be remembered

-- title vii wasn't on the books million the year after i started at rutgers but there was the equal pay act the very year i was offered this rather lavish salary. [laughter] so the women at the rutgers campus got together and brought an equal pay case which after many years was settled. the -- every woman got a substantial raise, i think 6,000 was about the lowest raise that people got and in those days in '63, that was real money. >> and did that experience cause you to focus in on gender equality cases when you, after you started teaching? >> no. i didn't set my own agenda at all. it was, there were two forces operating on me. one was the students. the women students wanted to to have a course on women in the law. and i thought that was a pretty good idea, so i went to the library, and in the space of a month, i think i read every federal decision that had ever been written involving women's rights or the lack thereof. that was no mean feat because there was precious little less than today would be generated in a month i think. so that, that was the women students pushing me in th

. >> my name is fy lemon flores i'm with the indians education program title vii welcome to san franciscome to the revolution >> (speaking foreign language.) >> welcome to the revolution >> (speaking foreign language.) >> all my relation thank you

first thank you to superintendent carranza and the members the board of education for giving title vii and our pack a voice here at your meeting i hope that what we've presented will permeate to promote a better understanding of who we are we've made process to establish our office at san she is school however, we need our continued support to he'd our top priorities that we provided to you for here tonight we need our commitment to help to help support our initiative i look forward to my personal goal to keep a 4.0 gpa i know that many families and students that are still struggling just to establish goals that need support and the guidance to chief their dreams our programs are what will make it happen we want to move the data and statistics and our collection of success and not failure so i ask you all for your continued commitment to support our program and make our priorities your priorities so thank you very much. (clapping.) >> we just wanted - we just wanted to quickly acknowledge the students and the other parents if they're not standing up if they could stand up please thank

that was not part of the resolution, the important chapter vii. there was serious and strong language. clearly there'll be people that say they did not go far enough. >> many thanks. gabriel elizondo in new york >>> the modern republic of yemen was formed in 1990 when western-leaning north yemen and communist south yemen merged after years of fighting. with the northern based shia houthis in control of sanaa, there are tensions with sunnis this the south of yemen. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, based in yemen has been capitalizing on the unrest. >> al jazeera's jamal elshayyal has more. >> more than a week after power was taken in a coup protests continued across the country. there are many cities that remain out of their reach. among them is aden in the south. a number of figures met on sunday to discuss ways to unify the efforts. members of the government forced to resign together with parliamentarians and governors agreed that they can, which includes setting up a joint body to govern the administrative security and political affairs of the

. >> congress began enforcing the title vii job discrimination laws. things did begin to happen.down, and it was real results. would you be willing to give up sharing your moments? sacrifice streaming all night long? is it okay to drop a connection, when you need it most? if you're not on the largest, most reliable network, what are you giving up? verizon. [alarm beeps] [ignition starts] ♪ go beyond utility. introducing the first ever nx turbo and hybrid from lexus. be seen. be heard. make some noise. ♪ mouths are watering, lemons are squeezing and stomachs are growling. or is it just me? every minute between you and red lobster's lobsterfest feels like an eternity. and who could blame you for craving our largest variety of succulent lobster dishes all year? dishes like dueling lobster tails. with one tail topped with creamy shrimp and a second tail stuffed with tender crab. i was hungry already and now you show me lobster lover's dream® let's make this dream a reality. a delicious, delicious reality. but one that won't last forever, so hurry in. sir, we're going to need you on t

a lower federal appellate court here ruled that abercrombie and fitch was not liable under title viiit failed to hire samantha elove, who is muslim and wears a head scarf, a what jeeb, because the appellate court said an employer can only be liable if the employer receives direct notice from the job applicant or the employee that there is a need for a religious accommodation. the equal employment opportunity commission brought the appeal to the supreme court challenging that rule, and that was the case that the court heard today. >> ifill: in this case, abercrombie and fitch this kind of caters to the youth market and has a certain look, said her hajib, or the way she was dressed for this job interview didn't match their look that they wanted their employees to have. did they say at any point that it was because of religion? >> no, abercrombie and fitch's lawyer today said the so-called look policy is a religion-neutral policy, and that she was not hired just because her hajib would violate the look policy. the arguments were very spirited today, and i would say that the abercrombie

unlike title vii where we have to have a charge come to us, or i can issue a commissioner charge if we hear about the termination. under equal pay we can go ahead and do the direct investigation. that is often how we get paid data -- pay data. but it is an open question of law to say, in your report you have to give us pay data and along those lines, we commissioned studies from the commission of science, if we decided to collect this data, clearly indicated that we may have that authority, what data do you recommend that we collect? how shall we collected? -- collect it? that came in some time ago and we have not done anything with it yet. one of the things i learned when i came into the federal government things move slowly. it moves slower than i would like. practically it is a different world. i should've gotten a passport and dictionary when i came into the government. and it is why i decided to give up my tenure at georgetown because there are things we started that needed more time. stay tuned and i hope the commission continues acting in a bipartisan way, as much as we have in