Misplaced Pages

#592407

46-657: The Ives–Quinn Act of 1945 (sometimes referred to as the Quinn–Ives Act ) is a landmark anti-discrimination law in New York, United States. The Ives–Quinn Act was based on guidelines laid out by the Fair Employment Practice Committee , an anti-discrimination program established by Franklin D. Roosevelt 's administration. The act was designed to prevent discrimination in employment, specifically naming "employment without discrimination" as

92-558: A civil right. It created the State Commission against Discrimination (later renamed to the New York State Division of Human Rights ) and allocated funding for the board of commissioners. The commission was given policy-making power in the area of civil rights, granted the ability to investigate claims of discrimination, and a process was outlined for complaints to be made to the commission. The Ives–Quinn Act

138-523: A particular action or policy constitutes discrimination. Equality and freedom from discrimination are outlines as basic human rights by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). While the UDHR is not binding, nations make a commitment to uphold those rights through the ratification of international human rights treaties. Specific treaties relevant to anti-discrimination law include

184-502: A ripple effect on industries with national reach. Branch Rickey , general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers , used the signing of the bill to plan a racial integration program for his team and went on to sign Jackie Robinson , breaking baseball's color barrier . Anti-discrimination law Anti-discrimination laws are rooted in principles of equality, specifically, that individuals should not be treated differently due to

230-545: A vote by the Church synod in 2012. Selection of teachers and pupils in schools for general education but with a religious affiliation is often permitted by law to be restricted to those of the same religious affiliation even where religious discrimination is forbidden. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) is an Act of the Australian Parliament , which

276-625: Is against the law to discriminate in areas such as: In Bligh and Ors v State of Queensland [1996] HREOCA 28 , the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (precursor to the Australian Human Rights Commission) found in favour of a number of Aboriginal applicants who had worked on Great Palm Island Aboriginal reserve and were underpaid between 31 October 1975 (the Act's start date) and 31 May 1984. A$ 7,000

322-540: Is in force, exceptions are sometimes included in the laws, particularly affecting the military and religious organizations. In many nations with anti-discrimination legislation, women are excluded from holding certain positions in the military, such as serving in a frontline combat capacity or aboard submarines. The reason given varies; for example, the British Royal Navy cite the reason for not allowing women to serve aboard submarines as medical and related to

368-480: Is that the ADA has created the opportunity for legal recourse for those with disabilities, less than 10% of ADA related cases find in favor of the plaintiff. David Neumark and Wendy Stock found evidence that sex discrimination/equal pay laws boosted the relative earnings of black and white females and conversely reduced the relative employment of both black women and white women. Where anti-discrimination legislation

414-439: Is too low, courts have consistently shown that this is not the case, and to fall within 18C the speech must have "... profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights." Exemptions are provided in section 18D, including acts relating to artistic works, genuine academic or scientific purposes, fair reporting, and fair comment on matters of public interest. Cases and determinations in relation to section 18C include

460-536: Is validated, the commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the Federal Court of Australia or through the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia . The commission also attempts to raise awareness about the obligations that individuals and organisations have under

506-576: The 2004 Palm Island community riot , sparked by the death in custody of an Aboriginal man, were found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act with $ 220,000 in damages awarded in 2016. Police actions were described in the judgement as "unnecessary, disproportionate" with police having "acted in these ways because they were dealing with an Aboriginal community." Dozens of police officers in riot gear wearing balaclavas with no identification and carrying large guns had marched into

SECTION 10

#1732783298593

552-560: The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 ), age (the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 ), and religion/belief ( Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 ). In 2010, existing anti-discrimination law was combined into a single Act of Parliament, the Equality Act 2010 . The Equality Act contains provisions forbidding direct, indirect, perceptive and associative discrimination on

598-877: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination . In addition, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10 and Goal 16 also advocates for international efforts towards eliminating discriminatory laws. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975

644-629: The New York Senate on March 5, 1945, with 49 in favor and 6 opposed. During the vote, members of both the Democratic and Republican parties praised the governor for his support of the bill. Dewey signed the act into law on March 12, 1945. At the time of its passing, the bill was the most comprehensive ban on racial and religious discrimination in the United States. Because the act banned employment discrimination in New York, it had

690-484: The Race Relations Act 1965 and the Race Relations Act 1968 . In the 1970s, anti-discrimination law was significantly expanded. The Equal Pay Act 1970 allowed women to bring action against their employer if they could show that they were being paid less compared to a male colleague for equal work or work of the same value. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 forbade both direct and indirect discrimination on

736-624: The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) to cover all Australians and provide protections based on sex, relationship status, and pregnancy. Additionally, the SDA has been expanded to include gender identity and intersex status as protected groups. Discrimination based on disability status is also prohibited by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 . The first Belgian anti-discrimination law of 25 February 2003

782-616: The ALRC’s view, s 18C of the Act would benefit from more thorough review in relation to implications for freedom of speech. In particular, there are arguments that s 18C lacks sufficient precision and clarity, and unjustifiably interferes with freedom of speech by extending to speech that is reasonably likely to ‘offend’. In some respects, the provision is broader than is required under international law, broader than similar laws in other jurisdictions, and may be susceptible to constitutional challenge." In 2016, Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching , said she

828-435: The Act. Racial discrimination occurs under the Act when someone is treated less fairly than someone else in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. Racial discrimination can also occur when a policy or rule appears to treat everyone in the same way but actually has an unfair effect on more people of a particular race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin than others. It

874-458: The Convention applies, which concerns a prohibition on discrimination on the ground of sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Laws forbidding discrimination in housing, public facilities and employment were first introduced in the 1960s covering race and ethnicity under

920-540: The European Union to meet; however each member state is responsible for creating specific legislation to achieve those goals. The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets the European Union anti-discrimination law as substantive equality with equality of outcome for subgroups. All EU member states are also member states to the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, article 14 of

966-543: The Queensland State Government in May 2018. Section 18C of the Act makes it is unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics. While some conservative politicians have claimed the bar for breaching 18C

SECTION 20

#1732783298593

1012-530: The U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County , ruled that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act . In addition to federal legislation, there are numerous state and local laws that address discrimination that is not covered by these laws. Employment rates for all disabled men and disabled women under 40 have decreased since

1058-559: The appropriateness of section in its current form. In March 2016, the Australian Law Reform Commission called for review of section 18C, stating “In particular, there are arguments that s18C lacks sufficient precision and clarity, and unjustifiably interferes with freedom of speech by extending to speech that is reasonably likely to ‘offend’." The ALRC noted that it had received "widely divergent views" on whether s 18C should be amended but found as follows: "In

1104-710: The basis of age, sexual preference, marital status, birth, wealth, religion or belief, political or syndical opinion, language, current or future state of health, disability, physical or genetical property or social origin. The European Union has passed several major anti-discrimination directives, the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive, and the Equal Treatment Directive . These directives set standards for all member countries of

1150-411: The basis of sex, and the Race Relations Act 1976 expanded the scope of anti-discrimination law on the basis of race and ethnicity. In the 1990s, protections against discrimination on the basis of disability was added primarily through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 . In the 2000s, the scope of employment anti-discrimination laws were expanded to cover sexual orientation (with the passage of

1196-715: The basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion and belief, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. Employment law also protects employees from worse treatment based on being part-time workers, agency workers or being on fixed-term contracts. In 1868 after the American Civil War , the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, including the Equal Protection Clause . It

1242-515: The basis that it is inconsistent with the constitutional implied freedom of political communication . Section 18C of the Act has been a topic of debate, especially in recent years. While some conservative politicians have claimed the bar for breaching 18C is too low, courts have consistently shown that this is not the case, and to fall within 18C the speech must have "... profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights." In 1995, left-wing ABC journalist Phillip Adams argued against

1288-473: The characteristics outlined above. At the same time, they have often been criticised as violations of the inherent right of free association . Anti-discrimination laws are designed to protect against both individual discrimination (committed by individuals) and from structural discrimination (arising from policies or procedures that disadvantage certain groups). Courts may take into account both discriminatory intent and disparate impact in determining whether

1334-407: The community conducting early-morning raids on 27 November 2004. Residents reported officers kicking down doors, pointing guns at children's heads, and tasering residents. with one resident and his partner awarded $ 235,000 compensation for assault, battery and false imprisonment in a separate case. Subsequently, this led to a record class action settlement of $ 30 million and a formal apology issued by

1380-589: The external affairs power was a valid source of power for the Act in Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen (1982), and again in Mabo v Queensland (No 1) (1988). While the AHRC maintains that the Act provides an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial vilification, legal academics Forrester, Finlay and Zimmermann have suggested that section 18C of the Act, enacted in 1995, may be unconstitutional on

1426-551: The federal parliament's power to pass the Act is the external affairs power contained in section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution . Under that power, the federal parliament implemented international obligations arising under the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination , which Australia ratified in September 1975. The High Court of Australia confirmed that

Ives–Quinn Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

1472-577: The following: An aggrieved person may make a complaint of a contravention of the Act to the Australian Human Rights Commission. If the complaint cannot be resolved, then an application alleging "unlawful discrimination" may be made to the Federal Court of Australia or to the Federal Circuit Court. When such allegations are upheld, the court may make orders, including for compensation. The source of

1518-531: The implementation of the ADA. This effect is especially pronounced for those with mental disabilities and for those with lower levels of education. However, there is evidence to suggest that the decrease in employment rates is partially explained by increased participation in educational opportunities. These decreases can be attributed to increased costs for employers to remain in compliance with ADA provisions; rather than bearing increased costs, companies hire fewer workers with disabilities. While popular conception

1564-675: The presiding judge to the Australian Labor Party has also been raised as an issue (Justice Bromberg had once stood for Labor pre-selection). In 2013, members of the Abbott government proposed significant changes to section 18C in a draft bill put on public exhibition, which would have substantially limited the scope of the prohibition. The Attorney-General, George Brandis, defended the proposed changes, stating that people have "a right to be bigots". Trade Unionist Paul Howes argued that section 18C stretches out its fingers "into

1610-519: The provision, saying that a better response to expressions of racial hatred was "public debate, not legal censure". In 2011, the Federal Court ruled that commentator Andrew Bolt had contravened section 18C of the Act as he could not rely on the exemptions under Section 18D. Bolt said that the verdict was "a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves". The political allegiance of

1656-702: The realm of what Orwell might have called a Thought Crime". After public consultation and opposition by minority groups, the Government did not proceed with the proposed changes. More recently, members of the Turnbull government have proposed less significant and narrower changes to section 18C, and the Attorney-General, George Brandis , has asked for the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights to conduct an inquiry on

1702-514: The safety of an unborn foetus, rather than that of combat effectiveness. Some religious organizations are exempted from legislation. For example, in Britain the Church of England , in common with other religious institutions, has historically not allowed women to hold senior positions ( bishoprics ) despite sex discrimination in employment generally being illegal; the prohibition was confirmed by

1748-593: The way for other federal legislation, which expanded upon the protected classes and forms of discrimination prohibited under federal legislation, such as the Fair Housing Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act . These protections have also been expanded through the courts interpretation of these pieces of legislation. For example, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Second Circuits, and later

1794-510: Was "very surprised" when Justice Bromberg decided to hear the Bolt case given, “He was an active ALP person, he was active enough that he was in a faction, he ran for preselection... Obviously he would have had some views about [Andrew Bolt], and perhaps he was not the best person to hear [the] case.” Bromberg had run unsuccessfully for Labor preselection in Melbourne in 2001. In November, 2016,

1840-415: Was an effort by John Bingham and other Radical Republicans to protect formerly-enslaved people from discrimination. Nevertheless, the promises of this and other Reconstruction Amendments went largely unfulfilled for nearly a century thanks to the profusion of racist Jim Crow laws designed to oppress persons of color and reinforce racial segregation in the United States . The Civil Rights Act of 1964

1886-585: Was annulled by the Belgian Constitutional Court. The Court ruled that the law was discriminative since its scope did not include discrimination on the basis of a political opinion or language and thus violated the articles 10-11 of the Belgian Constitution, instituting the principle of equality before law. A new law came into force on the 9th of June 2007. This law prohibits any use of direct or indirect discrimination on

Ives–Quinn Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

1932-688: Was awarded to each applicant, although the evidence suggested that the loss of income A$ 8,573.66 to A$ 20,982.97 . Following this case, the Queensland Government settled 5,729 claims with a single payment of A$ 7,000 under the Award Wages Process, established in May 1999, to Indigenous people employed by the government on Aboriginal reserves between 1975 and 1986 (the date their policy of paying below-award rates to Indigenous Australians officially ended). In Wotton v Queensland (No 5) police raids and behaviour following

1978-609: Was enacted on 11 June 1975 and passed by the Whitlam government . The Act makes racial discrimination in certain contexts unlawful in Australia, and also overrides state and territory legislation to the extent of any inconsistency. The Act is administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The president of the commission is responsible for investigating complaints. If a complaint

2024-570: Was supported by a coalition of progressive activists and organizations, including the NAACP , ACLU , American Jewish Congress , Thurgood Marshall , and Mike Quill . Despite the strong liberal slants of those supporters, it also received bipartisan support from prominent government officials, including Thomas E. Dewey , then- Governor of New York . The bill was passed by the New York Assembly with 109 in favor and 32 opposed. It passed in

2070-556: Was the first major anti-discrimination legislation passed in Australia, aimed at prohibiting discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. Jurisdictions within Australia moved shortly after to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, through acts including the Equal Opportunity Act 1977 and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 . The Australian parliament expanded these protections with

2116-527: Was the next major development in anti-discrimination law in the US, though prior civil rights legislation (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1957 ) addressed some forms of discrimination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was much broader, providing protections for race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in the areas of voting, education, employment, and public accommodations. This landmark legislation led

#592407