| OCR Text |
Show CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There was considerable debate on the provisions in title VII. I know, be sex cause I participated in it personally. I be making such a ridiculous argument if force. The EEOC could do a the EEOC had not been shilly-shallying too its their anti and wringing its hands women to any shall be glad to make available provision. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and the commit tee reports which carry this legislative ployed by the airlines the EEOC official the page reference to But there is history. even legis more whole debate and The lative history. struggle to enact the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is part of the legislative background which led to the enactment of the sex provisions in title VII of the Civil Rights Furthermore, there is the Act of 1964. long background of the efforts to elimi nate job discrimination based on sex by means of the proposal to incorporate an equal rights amendment in the Consti There is, indeed, much legis tution. lative history showing that Congress in tended to put and men on women an equal basis in searching for and keep ing any job for which they were quali fied, except in those few cases where sex clear-cut constitutes difference "bona fide occupational qualification." In any event, however, I remind those who resort to the excuse of "no legis lative history" that such history is perti nent only where the statutory language There is unclear. nothing is unclear about the statutory language of title VII. It says plainly that sex discrimination is forbidden, just on race or as color discrimination based religion or national or origin is forbidden, unless the factor of about the sex Since both and men women are em unlawful to notice ment ... or ... print advertisement or publish any relating to employ indicating any preference, limi tation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is impossible to be explicit, and it is sheer be argued that the employment of can it either sex alone is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of the airlines? How would such "bona fide occupa a tional qualification" exception apply to airline that had been employing only an stewardesses, or to an airline that had employing only men, been or to those that had been employing both men and women? The so-called "BFOQ" exception is ap plicable only to "those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is bona a occupational qualification fide necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise." Can any Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner seriously believe that the business of the airlines would suffer if all of them hired flight attendants on the their of basis one individual qualifications Do they really think for and ability? moment that men or women make plane trips for the sole purpose of having female-or a male-flight attendant lunch them serve or them give an Does anyone at the EEOC be aspirin? lieve that persons will travel by bus, train, private automobile in preference to a or clear and doubletalk for the EEOC to contend that this prohibi tion does not mean on having- what it female-or male-flight at a If any EEOC official believes this kind of foolishness, then the head quarters of EEOC, at 1800 G Street NW., I urge the EEOC to reflect on the fol lowing so plainly says. statement symposium on made at a recent title VII-Cooksey, "The EEOC officials talk about the "lack of legislative history," is the effort by some airlines to obtain a "bona fide occupa tional qualification" exception for the hiring Commercial L. 417, 428-29, Rev. Spring, 1966: One would hope that the Oommission and the courts will confine the "bona fide occupa qualification" exception to narrow If the exception is used simply to confirm the culturally accepted standards Of what work a woman or man should be doing, tional prohibition against discrimination on the basis Of sex will be rendered meaning A particular individual applying for a less. job should be Judged on his or her merits, the not on the basis of fancied sexual character attendants-stewards istics attributed to the group to which he or and stewardesses. This is a totally she warranted request. It is an excellent ex- of flight ample of how the EEOC brings own problems. 222-168-3703 on un- its The airlines would not go away. belongs." Wisconsin prohibiting sex and Hawaii enacted laws discrimination before the Federal law because came of into It is quite evident tha-t some at the EEOC officials simply refuse, or can not, accept the fact that sex discrimina tion in employment is as immoral and as prevalent as discrimination because of Once these gentlemen face race. up-'to the moral issue and the facts of women's employment, they won't have very much with the lack of legislative trouble history. Third. The third excuse I often hear is that sex discrimination cases take too much time and thus interfere with the EEOC's "main" business of eliminating discrimination. racial if it even problem, This exists, could be substantially reduced if EEOC acted vigorously to en force the law as prescribed by Congress. employers understand that EEOC to enforce the law, there will be fewer violations by employers and fewer petitions from employers for BFOQ ex Once means ceptions. the There is no rational reason for sex cases to take disproportionate a Of course, if the Execu amount of time. tive Director and a majority of the Com missioners continue to wring their hands and discuss the motives the of per petrators of this law in every case, the discrimination cases will continue to sex increase and to create further difficul But that is ties. a problem internal to them-not one they should blame on the Congress. A little honest introspection, professional with perhaps assistance, would do more to help some of the EEOC staff than all the legislative history in the --- world. Employment Op portunity," 7 Boston College Industrial limits. One of the much-vaunted problems of the EEOC, with reference to which some difficulties with interpretation and lack Role of Law in Equal and more bias. of legislative history are internal to those should be called "Fantasyland." ... good job officials who wish the sex provision would tendant? It says that it is- discard ants, how in the name of commonsense qualification. most clear. officials flight attend as plane solely because they cannot count question of the guidelines for advertising the statutory language is if It is my firm belief that the EEOC's sex-or religion, or race, or national ori gin-constitutes a bona fide occupational On the _,7 SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION I suggest the following action: First. The EEOC should conform with guideline on immediately law by revising its advertising to read subthe - stantially as follows: Advertisers covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 jobs may not advertisements place in columns classified the basis of sex, unless a for by publishers on bona fide occupa qualification approved by tfie Com mission makes it lawful to specify sex in the advertisement. The placement by an adver advertisement for a job in a tiser of an tional column Which is headed by a word or words indicating sex will be considered.-as indicat ing a preference, limitation, speciftcatton, or discrimination based on sex. Second. If the EEOC does not promptly adopt the foregoing suggestion, I hope |
