Introduction
With a clear analysis of the court system and the civil rights act, it is evident that the Court has left many natives employees with no redress for any case of harassment that occurs in their employments. For instance, there are many prevailing cases of discrimination in the employment sector that the Court has not fully or rightly addressed. However, with the political and public response of the civil rights in 1991, the decision by the Court was reversed, and foreign employees in the United States have something to smile about. After the Civil War, Congress passed many laws that aimed to guarantee the newly-freed slaves the same rights as white Americans (Ressein, 2017). During this period, discrimination by the states was vividly presented by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments. However, there was still a huge spread of discrimination cases against the African Americans by the White Americans.
Among the key laws that Congress passed was the Civil Rights Act of 1981, which claimed that “provided that all citizens, regardless of race, shall have the same right… to make and enforce contracts… as is enjoyed by white citizens (Refsin, 2019).” Despite Congress passing laws that prohibited all acts of discrimination within the employment sector of the United States, the Supreme Court later in 1981 explicitly held the section that covered discrimination acts by private persons. According to the case filed by Runyon versus McCrary, the Supreme court claimed that section 1981 prohibited pure private discrimination.
Presentation of the Problem
Brenda Peterson case versus McLean Credit Union was spurred up amid a suit for typical fair rights for Peterson. However, the case became one of the critical cases that aimed at rallying for the civil rights of advocates. According to the case, Peterson, who served as an African American bank teller, filed a case to suit the McLean Credit Union for what she termed as discrimination against being promoted in her professional ladder despite the promotion of her white American colleagues. She also claimed that she was subjected to patterns of harassment by her supervisor for ten years that she was working in the bank (Refsin, 2019). However, the trial court ruled in favour of McLean Credit Union, claiming that the job contract did not cater to harassment and could not be enforced in the contract. Despite efforts by Peterson to appeal in the Court of appeals, the decision by the district court was upheld. She then sought to appeal in the Supreme court using a procedure termed a writ of certiorari, a case that saw both parties arguing on 29th February 1988.
The research questions that this case study aims at discussing entail: How do you think this case squares with the Court’s statement “Neither party would be likely to conciliate if there is the possibility of the employee recovering the greater damages permitted by section 1981?” and Why did the Congress want to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision by enacting the 1991 legislation? In this paper, the key emphasis will be on analyzing the section 1981 civil rights act and evaluate the Supreme court decision on Peterson’s case against McLean Credit Union.
Literature Review
According to section 1981, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts… as is enjoyed by white citizens (Refsin, 2019).” However, according to the article that was composed by Fagel (2018), there have been many plaintiffs who have successfully relied on the statute in the suit for racial discrimination in their areas of work, with most of them claiming that they have been facing harassment and racially denied promotion benefits despite having the required merits. Similarly, according to Ressein (2017), the Supreme Court rejected the section 1981 expansive reading by a vote of 5-4 in a poll conducted in 1989. After the Civil War, Congress passed many laws that aimed to guarantee the newly-freed slaves the same rights as white Americans. During this period, discrimination by the states was vividly presented by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments.
In an article titled Washington and Lee Law Review, the authors present a discourse that the scope of the section 1981 first appeared in the Civil Rights act of 1844 within section one. The authors also claim that Congress believed that the thirteenth amendment had accrued the Congress with powers to pass the act that defines the employees’ civil rights (Refsin, 2019). Plaintiffs, in most cases, take advantage of section 1981 by failing to comply with the administrative requirements of title VII (Fagel, 2018). According to the administrative requirements of Title VII, a plaintiff is required to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within a period of one hundred and eighty days amid the execution of the discriminatory offence, of which most of the time it does not happen.
Methodology
This case study incorporated various qualitative methodology paradigm that entailed critical concepts to address the Peterson versus McLean case. The study involved collecting various sources of evidence through evident quantitative means such as key research methods; among them were interviews, observations, use of surveys, and analysis of secondary and primary sources such as newspaper articles and journals.
Findings and Discussions
Section 1981 of the US constitution claims that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts… as is enjoyed by white citizens (Ressein, 2017).” However, with a clear analysis of the court system and the civil rights act, it is evident that the Court has left many natives employees with no redress for any case of harassment that occurs in their work environs. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor section 1983 may be used for discrimination by private employers (Fagel, 2018). They both redress actions by government personnel. The government may not be sued without its permission because of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, so it is brought against the government official in its individual and official capacity.
Compensatory and Punitive Damages
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 permits recovery of compensatory and punitive damages squares with the Court’s statement on conciliation upon employee recovering of the greater damages permitted by section 1981. The fact is evident as the Civil Rights Act of 1991 provides the jury trial on all claims concerning discrimination that would help eliminate possibilities of limited amount that the jury can award and emotional distress (Refsin, 2019). According to the act, women have been given the right to sue and collect their punitive and compensatory damages in harassment or sexual discrimination in their places of work (Ressein, 2017). These aspects are also following the Supreme Court statement on the fact that “Neither party would be likely to conciliate if there is the possibility of the employee recovering the greater damages permitted by section 1981 (Fagel, 2018).
Congress would want to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision by enacting the 1991 legislation to uphold all the tainted policy considerations. Usually, this arises due to innocent miscommunication or temporal coincidence between the two branches (Refsin, 2019). In addition, with how the 1991 legislation rule was reached, the miscommunication between the two critical branches may have been fuelled by critical philosophical differences on the scope of roles of the federal government on policy matters.
Conclusion
In summary, the paper has demonstrated that section 1991 claims that all people within the jurisdiction of the United States have equal rights against discrimination and harassment. Still, the Court system in the US has not often upheld this. The Court has left many natives employees with no redress for any case of harassment that occurs in their employments. Despite Congress passing laws that prohibited all acts of discrimination within the employment sector of the United States, the Supreme Court later in 1981 explicitly held the section that covered discrimination acts by private persons. There is a need for future research to determine ways that can be used to solve the misunderstanding and miscommunication within Congress and the Supreme Court.
References
Fagel, M. J. (2018). Section 1981 Promotion Claims after Patterson v. McLean Credit Union.U. Chi. L. Rev., 57, 903. Web.
Refsin, B. (2019). The Lost Clauses of Section 1981: A Source of Greater Protection after Patterson v. McLean Credit Union. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138(4), 1209-1246. Web.
Rossein, M. T. (2017). Patterson v. McLean Credit Union.NYL Sch. J. Hum. Rts., 7, 95. Web.