Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was enacted 60 years ago, on July 2, 1964. This landmark law protects workers from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, and remains an important area of employment law today.
While many advocates and activists pushed for such legislation, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963 marked a turning point for employment protections.
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, approximately 250,000 Americans marched that day for racial equality and justice, making it the largest racial justice protest in the country to that point. Participants gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial and heard speakers including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered his historic “I Have a Dream” speech.
Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. speaks at Sproul Plaza at the University of California, Berkeley, in Berkeley, California, on May 17, 1967. Approximately 7,000 people attended the event.
Michael Ochs Archive via Getty Images
A close-up of a civil rights protest button at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, August 28, 1963, in Washington, DC.
Express Newspapers via Getty Images
A flyer promoting the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, created by the march’s national office.
Retrieved from the collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.
When the bill was introduced in Congress, it likewise set a record for the nation’s longest debate. According to an EEOC history, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 73 to 27 after 534 hours and nearly 500 amendments. Thirteen days later, the House of Representatives followed suit, sending the bill to President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the bill into law that same day, standing next to King.
President Lyndon B. Johnson shakes hands with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the signing of the Civil Rights Act in Washington, DC, as attendees look on.
Hulton Archive via Getty Images
Title VII created anti-discrimination rights and established the EEOC to enforce those rights. The EEOC opened on July 2, 1965, one year after the bill was signed, with a budget of $2.25 million and approximately 100 employees.
The act established the EEOC as a group of five commissioners, no more than three of whom could be from the same political party. Each commissioner would be appointed by the president to a five-year term and confirmed by the Senate. The commission said the EEOC chairman would appoint its general counsel. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. served as the first chairman of the EEOC, and Richard Graham, Eileen Hernandez, Samuel C. Jackson, and Luther Holcomb served as commission members.
First EEOC: Commissioner Richard Graham, Chairman Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr., Commissioners Irene Hernandez, Samuel C. Jackson, and Luther Holcomb.
The exterior of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission building seen from the ground on Sept. 7, 2022.
Caroline Colvin/HR Dive
EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows speaks in Washington, DC on May 10, 2022
Retrieved from Alyson Fligg/Department of Labor.
The EEOC expected to receive 2,000 charges in its first year, but instead processed 8,852, leading to a backlog of cases. “We’ve had thousands of charges since day one. This is a problem we’ve been dealing with since the beginning,” EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows told Federal News Network as the law neared its one-year anniversary. The problem has persisted throughout the agency’s history, and lawmakers have been pushing the commission to address the backlog.
The commission currently faces serious challenges to its hiring freeze and policy positions, including a lawsuit filed by 18 states alleging that its recently released harassment guidelines illegally expand Title VII.
However, enforcement authority under Title VII does not rest solely with the EEOC. On September 24, 1965, Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, establishing nondiscrimination hiring standards for federal contractors.
Under the agreement, the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor must collaborate on investigations of government contractors, and if the EEOC identifies Title VII violations but cannot reach an agreement, it will refer the case to the Department of Labor for enforcement action under the Executive Order.
A 1940s view of the Interstate Commerce Commission and Department of Labor in Washington, DC. The Department of Labor consolidated its offices into its current location, the Francis Perkins Building, in the mid-1970s.
Frederick Lewis via Getty Images
Title VII underwent several substantive revisions over the ensuing decades: After years of operating without litigation authority, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1972.
The act gave the EEOC litigation authority, extended Title VII coverage to educational institutions, local, state, and federal governments, further reduced the number of employees an employer needed to have to qualify for Title VII coverage from 25 to 15, and extended the period during which a complainant may file a complaint. The amendments also gave the president, rather than the EEOC chairman, the authority to select the agency’s general counsel.
President Jimmy Carter receives a standing ovation during a joint session of Congress in Washington, DC on September 18, 1978. President Carter signed the Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act of 1978 into law on October 31, 1978.
Picturesque Parade (via Getty Images)
Subsequent legislation over the years clarified what types of discrimination are covered by Title VII and resolved debates over the law’s interpretation.
The Pregnancy Non-Discrimination Act of 1978 amended Title VII by expressly providing that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or a related medical condition is considered sex discrimination.
Then, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on November 21, 1991, amended Title VII, along with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, to allow parties to demand jury trials and recover compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination lawsuits. The act also extended Title VII to Congress and high-ranking political appointees.
President Barack Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act surrounded by members of Congress in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on January 29, 2009. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act mandates equal pay for all women.
Mark Wilson via Getty Images
President Barack Obama then signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on January 29, 2009, overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The act amended Title VII to provide that all pay with discriminatory compensation is a separate violation, regardless of when the discrimination began.
More than 10 years later, on January 30, 2019, Lily Leadbetter, a women’s equality activist who was named as a plaintiff in the Supreme Court decision, gave a speech in Washington, DC in support of equal pay legislation.
Alex Wong (via Getty Images)
In addition to Ledbetter, numerous Supreme Court decisions have changed the landscape of Title VII over the years.
In one of its recent landmark decisions, the Supreme Court ruled on June 15, 2020 that employment discrimination based on a worker’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not permitted under Title VII. Prior to the ruling, federal courts and government agencies had been debating whether Title VII prohibited LGBTQ+ discrimination.
Crowds gather in Washington, DC on June 15, 2020. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
Brian Tucker/HR Dive
The case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , solidifies additional protections for workers and, along with two others, is one of several recent decisions that stakeholders hope will shape the future of Title VII.
In Groff v. DeJoy, the unanimous court struck down the “more than minimal cost” standard for determining whether a proposed workplace accommodation for an employee’s sincere religious beliefs or practices would cause an undue hardship, and in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the court ruled that an employee challenging a relocation does not need to prove that the relocation caused “significant” harm.
At the same time, the federal government shares concerns that emerging technologies, especially artificial intelligence, could undermine Title VII and its protections. The White House has made it clear that it will focus on the potential for AI to perpetuate bias and has urged federal enforcement agencies to take action. The EEOC has already warned that it will hold employers liable if Title VII violations arise from technology introduced into the workplace.
President Joe Biden hands Vice President Kamala Harris the pen with which he signed an executive order on artificial intelligence in Washington, D.C., on October 30, 2023. President Biden directed his administration to “employ AI and safeguard against its bias” and develop new safety guidelines and industry standards.
Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Sixty years later, Title VII remains a central tenet of employment law and the foundation for addressing discrimination in the workplace. The law has undergone many changes since it was enacted, and according to at least one EEOC official, it will continue to evolve as society changes and technology evolves.
