Tag Archive for 'Civil Rights Act of 1964'

From the Archives: The NAACP Reviews Robert H. Bork

This post contains highlights of material from the Triangle Research Libraries Network’s CCC project, digitizing 40 archival collections related to the long civil rights movement from four area institutions. For more on this digitization project, click here.

Judge Bork's Views Regarding Racial Discrimination

Former Solicitor General and US Court of Appeals judge Robert H. Bork is remembered for his role in the Watergate scandal and his time serving as an advisor to Mitt Romney, but perhaps most vividly for the historic rejection of his nomination to the US Supreme Court. After President Reagan recommended Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, the nomination was strongly opposed by a public campaign led by Democratic politicians like Edward Kennedy and organizations that included the NAACP, ACLU, and NOW.

Bork’s record as a strict constructionist who often disagreed with the racial and gender reforms of the 1960s and 1970s concerned many civil and women’s rights activists who feared that, as a Supreme Court Justice, Bork might work to overturn recent decisions on abortion and affirmative action. In August 1987, the NAACP released a report on “Judge Bork’s Views Regarding Racial Discrimination,” in which they detailed Bork’s record of opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and his criticism of previous voting rights and affirmative action-related decisions. A copy of the NAACP’s report can be found in the Helen Edmonds papers. In one section the report quotes an article Bork wrote in 1964 where he described the “dangers” implied by the 1964 Civil Rights Act that “enforc[es] associations between private individuals which would, if uniformly applied, destroy personal freedom over broad areas of life.” 1 Bork’s hostility to the Civil Rights Act is attributed by the NAACP to his belief “that it infringed on the freedom of whites to discriminate.” 2 The report also highlighted Bork’s disapproval of laws protecting minorities against housing discrimination and poll taxes, as well as his support of Nixon’s anti-busing legislation, which hoped to limit the use of busing to desegregate public school systems across the South.

It was documents like this NAACP report that swayed opinion against Bork in 1987. After his nomination was rejected, Bork left the Court of Appeals and spent the rest of his life as a scholar, legal advisor, and best-selling author. Despite his controversial career, Bork was an extremely influential figure who inspired a generation of conservative lawyers and politicians. Judge Bork passed away in December 2012.

1. “Judge Bork’s Views Regarding Racial Discrimination.” Helen G. Edmonds Papers. Folder 100, Scan 1.

2. “Judge Bork’s Views Regarding Racial Discrimination.” Helen G. Edmonds Papers. Folder 100, Scan 15.

On This Day: Arrests in Atlanta

On October 19, 1960—52 years ago today—Martin Luther King, Jr., and dozens of other individuals were arrested during a sit-in protest at Rich’s lunch counter in Atlanta, Georgia.

More than eight months after four African American college students launched the student sit-in movement at the F.W. Woolworth Co. lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, protests were underway in numerous cities across the county. The movement had already achieved some success, furthered by the organization of a new group: the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In March, San Antonio had become the first major Southern city to integrate its lunch counters, by April Galveston had become the second city in Texas to integrate its lunch counters, and by June six more cities across the nation had followed suit. The students in Atlanta sought to continue this success.

Although he did not lead this demonstration, King participated in it as he did in other sit-in demonstrations.  (He had previously urged college students to “fill up the jails of the South … to arouse the dozing conscience of the nation.”) On October 19, 52 protesters were arrested for violating legislation from 1960 which allowed individuals to be charged with a misdemeanor if they refused to leave private property when asked.

Charges against sixteen of the activists were dismissed by October 20, but 35 protesters remained in jail. King vowed to remain in the cell for a year rather than make bond.

Ultimately, the 35 jailed protesters were released on bond. However, unrelatedly, King had been given a 12-month probationary sentence on a charge of driving without a valid Georgia license (based on an “anti-trespass” law enacted to curb lunch counter sit-ins). Officials used this violation to hold him in jail, and King was sentenced to four months in a Georgia public works camp.

This steep sentence for an arguably frivolous charge was met with shock and anger by the NAACP, civil rights activists, the American populace. NAACP executive secretary Roy Wilkins stated “This incident and the picketing and the protest and other demonstrations are merely evidence of a problem to which the state of Georgia will have to address itself, whether it wants to or not.”

Fortunately, King did not remain incarcerated for long. His attorneys quickly filed an appeal. Meanwhile, Senator John F. Kennedy, then a presidential candidate, expressed his support to King’s wife, and his brother, Robert Kennedy, convinced a judge to grant bond. King was released on October 27, two days after he was sentenced and one day after he arrived at the Georgia State Prison.

The Kennedys’ efforts to free King convinced many African Americans to vote for the Democratic candidate in the national presidential election less than two weeks after King’s release, which Kennedy won. Click here to read a news article from the Associated Press, in which King thanks Kennedy.

Over the next eight years, before he was assassinated, King continued his fight for civil rights and equality, through sit-in protests, mass marches, writings and speeches, and more. Last October, the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial was dedicated (click here to see pictures from the dedication ceremony). With the construction of the memorial, King became the first African American of the many American officials honored on the National Mall in Washington D.C. To learn more about Martin Luther King, Jr., check out this blog post.

Activists continued sit-in protests across the country. Their work, in tandem with other civil rights protests such as the freedom rides, eventually led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public spaces. (Click here to see a photograph of King at the Act’s signing.)

For a comprehensive list of early sit-ins, click here. Time magazine provides a brief photographic history of the sit-in movement here, including a photograph of the sit-in at Rich’s.

To learn more about sit-ins and other student-dominated civil rights protests, check out Wesley Hogan’s Many Minds, One Heart: SNCC’s Dream for a New America (UNC Press 2007).

For a firsthand account by a sit-in protester from Tennessee, check out Merrill Proudfoot’s Diary of a Sit-In, available through UNC Press’s Enduring Editions collection.

In their illustrated children’s book, Sit-In: How Four Friends Stood Up by Sitting Down, Andrea and Brian Pinkney celebrate the Greensboro Sit-In and the movement to which it contributed.

On This Day: The Watts Riot Begins

On August 11, 1965—47 years ago today—Los Angeles dissolved into what is perhaps the most famous display of racial hatred and violence in America’s history.

Only 13 months earlier, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had greatly expanded the rights and protections of all Americans, regardless of race or gender. Tensions remained high, though, as segregationists sought ways around this law (and other similar legislation). In California, Proposition 14 nullified the state’s 1963 fair housing law, amending the state constitution to allow individuals to decline to sell, lease, or rent property pursuant to their preferences.

On August 11, a police officer arrested Marquette Frye for drunk driving. While the officer was questioning him, Frye’s brother Ronald (who had been in the car at the time) led his mother to the scene. Alarmed by her son’s forcible arrest, Mrs. Rena Frye put up a fight, tearing one officer’s shirt. Both the mother and the two sons were arrested—and police hit them with their batons.

A growing (and angry) crowd of hundreds of onlookers dissolved into violence after the police officers left, stoning cars, beating people, and looting stores.

The National Guard was called in and a curfew was ordered, but the chaos lasted several days, finally ending on August 17—for the most part. (The next night, police entered a Nation of Islam mosque and fired extensively into the building, causing many injuries.)

By the time the violence was quelled, at least 34 people lay dead, 1000 had been wounded, and more than 600 buildings had been damaged or destroyed through looting and arson.

When peace was finally restored, California Governor Pat Brown created a commission to study the riots; the McCone Commission’s report ultimately stated that the riots had been caused by deep and engrained social problems: poverty, inequality, racial discrimination, and the passage of Proposition 14.

Despite this report, little was done to remedy the poor conditions under which Los Angeles’ African American residents lived. The riot lives on today in American history as a horrifying reminder of the violence such treatment can lead to. It was neither the first nor the last race riot in Los Angeles—a fact which illustrates all too well that the path to equality and justice is long.

To learn more, and to view news footage, check out this page from PBS. The Civil Rights Digital Library includes a synopsis and archival material.

To read the summary from Stanford University’s Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute, click here.

For a comprehensive study of the riot and its aftermath, check out Gerald Horne’s Fire This Time: The Watts Uprising and the 1960s (Da Capo Press, 1997).

To view the August 12, 1965, article in the New York Times, click here.

The August 27, 1965 edition of LIFE Magazine focused heavily on the Watts Riots.

To read the McCone Commission’s report, click here.

In this 2005 Los Angeles Times article, reporters Valerie Reitman and Mitchell Landsberg interview nine survivors.

To learn more about urban race riots, check out Janet Abu-Lughod’s Race, Space, and Riots in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles (Oxford University Press, 2012). Readers will also be interested in John Charles Boger and Judith Welch Wegner’s edited collection, Race, Poverty, and American Cities (UNC Press 1996).

This was not the first time Los Angeles had faced rioting, nor would it be the last. The 1943 zoot suit riots involved violence by white sailors and Marines against Latino youths. And in 1992, 58 individuals were killed after the controversial beating of Rodney King sparked a week-long riot.

To learn more about the 1943 riot, check out Eduardo Obregon Pagan’s Murder at the Sleepy Lagoon: Zoot Suits, Race, and Riot in Wartime L.A. (UNC Press, 2003). Rodney King, in conjunction with Lawrence Spagnola, recently published a memoir about the 1992 riot: The Riot Within: My Journey from Rebellion to Redemption.

On This Day: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

On July 2, 1964—48 years ago today—President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, greatly expanding the rights and protections of all Americans, regardless of race or gender.

The Act originated in President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 proposal that Congress develop civil rights legislation with an aim toward guaranteeing equal treatment for all Americans. Congress’s work, before and after Kennedy’s assassination, culminated in extensive bans on discrimination, building on the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act.

The most sweeping civil rights legislation since the Reconstruction era, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in public spaces, provided for the integration of public schools and facilities, and outlawed employment discrimination. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and addressed voter registration, foreshadowing the changes to come the following year after the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been used not only to eliminate segregation, but also to dismantle gender discrimination (for example, see Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.) and other policies and actions that threaten equality. Civil rights legislation has continued to be affirmed and clarified in years since (see, for example, the Civil Rights Restoration Act).

To learn more about this piece of legislation, and to view the document, click here and here.

To hear an NPR story about the landmark legislation, click here.

To see video footage of President Johnson signing the bill, click here. To read the full text of his speech, click here.

For a comprehensive list of civil rights legislation, click here.

To learn more about the legislation and its effects, check out Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (University of Virginia Press, 2000, ed. Bernard Grofman).

To learn about the legislation’s passage, check out Robert Loevy’s edited volume, The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law That Ended Racial Segregation (SUNY Press, 1997).

Despite the significance of the Act, Johnson’s relationship to the civil rights movement remained complex. To learn more, check out David Carter’s The Music Has Gone Out of the Movement: Civil Rights and the Johnson Administration, 1965-1968 (UNC Press, 2009).

On This Day: Faragher v. City of Boca Raton

On June 26, 1998—only 14 years ago today—the Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton identified the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Beth Ann Faragher, a former ocean lifeguard, sued the City of Boca Raton and her immediate supervisors, alleging that she had faced a sexually hostile atmosphere characterized by uninvited touching and offensive comments. She argued that this treatment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case made its way through district court and the court of appeals before the Supreme Court heard arguments in 1998. Although the Supreme Court had previously heard cases concerned with the definition of sexual harassment in the work place, the Faragher case—in tandem with Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (decided the same day)—questioned the extent to which a company was liable for the actions of an employee who harassed another employee.

The decision read, in part:

The District Court found that the City had entirely failed to disseminate its policy against sexual harassment among the beach employees and that its officials made no attempt to keep track of the conduct of supervisors like Terry and Silverman. The record also makes clear that the City’s policy did not include any assurance that the harassing supervisors could be bypassed in registering complaints. . . . Under such circumstances, we hold as a matter of law that the City could not be found to have exercised reasonable care to prevent the supervisors’ harassing conduct. Unlike the employer of a small workforce, who might expect that sufficient care to prevent tortious behavior could be exercised informally, those responsible for city operations could not reasonably have thought that precautions against hostile environments in any one of many departments in far-flung locations could be effective without communicating some formal policy against harassment, with a sensible complaint procedure.

The ruling, in tandem with the same-day ruling in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, very clearly defined the responsibilities and rights of companies and their employees. The decision made some lawsuits against employers easier to win, while simultaneously limiting the extent to which workplaces with effective anti-harassment policies could be held liable.

To read the full text of the decision, click here.

To listen to the oral argument, click here.

To learn more, click here, or check out this article from the Florida Bar Journal.

To read the New York Times article published that day, click here.

Catharine MacKinnon’s Sexual Harassment of Working Women (Yale University Press, 1979) and Julie Berebitsky’s Sex and the Office (Yale University Press, 2012) examine sexual harassment, providing excellent context for understanding this ruling.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and Gender Discrimination

On June 19, 1986—only 26 years ago today—the Supreme Court extended the coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 beyond “economic” or “tangible” discrimination, ruling that employees could sue their employers for sexual harassment.

Mechelle Vinson filed a lawsuit after she was dismissed from her job at Meritor Savings Bank (then Capital City Federal Savings and Loan Association). Claiming she had been subjected to sexual harassment by her employer, Sidney Taylor, over multiple years, she argued that the resulting “hostile working environment” was covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and therefore she was due injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.

Years of legal wrangling followed, in district court, a D.C. court of appeals, and finally the Supreme Court.

In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment may create a hostile or abusive work environment, which in turn qualifies as sex discrimination. The decision read, in part:

. . . The language of Title VII is not limited to “economic” or “tangible” discrimination. The phrase “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” evinces a congressional intent “to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women” in employment.

. . . The EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] Guidelines support the view that harassment leading to noneconomic injury can violate Title VII.

In defining “sexual harassment,” the Guidelines first describe the kinds of workplace conduct that may be actionable under Title VII. These include “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” . . . Relevant to the charges at issue in this case, the Guidelines provide that such sexual misconduct constitutes prohibited “sexual harassment,” whether or not it is directly linked to the grant or denial of an economic quid pro quo. . .

Since the Guidelines were issued, courts have uniformly held, and we agree, that a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.

The ruling had far-reaching implications, further defining what constituted sexual harassment in the workplace and providing guidance regarding the extent of employers’ liability.

To read the full text of the Supreme Court decision, click here.

To listen to the oral argument, click here.

To learn more, check out this excellent summary.

For more information, check out Augustus B. Cochran III’s Sexual Harassment and the Law: The Mechelle Vinson Case (University Press of Kansas, 2004).

Catharine MacKinnon, one of Vinson’s lawyers, used arguments from her previously published book, Sexual Harassment of Working Women (Yale University Press, 1979), during the trial.

Julie Berebitsky’s Sex and the Office, also published by Yale University Press (2012), examines sexual harassment in a historical context.

Remembering the Birmingham Campaign

On May 10, 1963, the Birmingham Campaign came to an end (after intervention from the U.S. Department of Justice), when local officials agreed to desegregate downtown stores and release jailed demonstrators following the end of the protest.

The movement, which began in April, utilized massive direct action to attack Birmingham’s strongly engrained system of segregation (see the Birmingham Manifesto). Encompassing mass meetings, sit-ins, marches, and more, the campaign was organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (ACMHR) and attracted increasingly large numbers of protesters each day.

Less than two weeks after the campaign began, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ralph Abernathy, both of whom were instrumental in planning and executing the movement, were arrested. Activists pressed on, though, and King’s subsequent “Letter from Birmingham Jail” further mobilized the protest.

The campaign gained momentum in early May during the Children’s Crusade, when more than a thousand African American students marched downtown, facing police lines and arrest.

Trained in the strategies of nonviolent direct action by the SCLC and the ACMHR, hundreds of the initial protesters were arrested and taken to jail, but hundreds more joined in the following day. After public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor instructed police to use force against the demonstrators, television and newspaper coverage of children facing beatings, high-pressure fire hoses, and dog attacks spread quickly across the nation and world.

This protest was exactly what the Birmingham Campaign needed to inspire action: the Birmingham Campaign ended on May 10th with an agreement between civil rights activists and local officials.

Racial hostility and unrest continued—seen, for instance, in the board of education’s announcement that it would suspend or expel all students who had participated in the crusade, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of this decision and, later, in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. However, the Children’s Crusade and the Birmingham Campaign as a whole further energized the civil rights movement and highlighted the need for reforms that would soon be seen in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Countless other individuals and groups were inspired to continue the fight for equality and justice.

For the Encyclopedia of Alabama’s entry on the Birmingham Campaign, click here.

For more on Birmingham’s significance in the civil rights struggle, check out Glenn Eskew’s But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle (UNC Press, 1997).

Diane McWhorter’s Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle for the Civil Rights Revolution (Simon and Schuster, 2002) chronicles Birmingham’s events of 1963.

For more information about the Children’s Crusade, click here, and also check out Cynthia Levinson’s We’ve Got a Job: The 1963 Birmingham Children’s March (Peachtree Publishers, 2012).

For more about children’s involvement in the civil rights movement, check out Rebecca de Schweinitz’s If We Could Change the World: Young People and America’s Long Struggle for Racial Equality (UNC Press, 2009).

Remembering the Children’s Crusade

On May 2nd, 1963—49 years ago today—more than a thousand African American students gathered at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church of Birmingham to begin an unprecedented march downtown, facing police lines and arrest.

Trained in the strategies of nonviolent direct action by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (ACMHR), thousands of students on May 2ndseveral weeks after Martin Luther King, Jr., had been arrested in Birmingham—launched the Children’s Crusade, an initiative of the Birmingham Campaign.

Hundreds of the initial protesters were arrested and taken to jail, but hundreds more joined in the following day. After public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor instructed police to use force against the demonstrators, television and newspaper coverage of children facing beatings, high-pressure fire hoses, and dog attacks spread quickly across the nation and world.

Ultimately, the Children’s Crusade proved much more expedient and successful than previous civil rights protests in the city: the Birmingham Campaign ended on May 10th  (after intervention from the U.S. Department of Justice), when local officials agreed to desegregate downtown stores and release jailed demonstrators following the end of the protest.

That wasn’t the end of the protesters’ struggle, though. Soon after the campaign ended, the city’s board of education announced that it would suspend or expel all students who had participated in the crusade. The local federal district court upheld the ruling, but, on the same day, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, condemning the board of education’s decision and ordering the schools to reinstate the students.

The young protesters’ success—as well as strong national outrage over the violence against schoolchildren—further energized the civil rights movement and highlighted the need for reforms that would soon be seen in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The children’s courage inspired countless other individuals and groups to continue the fight for equality and justice.

For more information, click here.

For the Encyclopedia of Alabama’s entry on the Birmingham Campaign, click here.

For more on Birmingham’s significance in the civil rights struggle, check out Glenn Eskew’s But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle (UNC Press 1997).

For more about the crusade, check out Cynthia Levinson’s We’ve Got a Job: The 1963 Birmingham Children’s March, from Peachtree Publishers.

For more about children’s involvement in the civil rights movement, check out Rebecca de Schweinitz’s If We Could Change the World: Young People and America’s Long Struggle for Racial Equality (UNC Press 2009).

Remembering Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

On March 20th, 21 years ago, the Supreme Court in Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. chipped away at gender-based employment discrimination, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits companies from excluding or firing women from jobs that might pose reproductive health hazards.

The case resulted from the actions of one major manufacturing company—Johnson Controls, Inc.—but signaled an end to widely-used “fetal protection” policies across the U.S.

The manufacturing of automobile batteries at Johnson Controls, Inc., exposed employees to high levels of lead. In an effort to eliminate the lead exposure of women who might become pregnant, the company forbade its female employees of reproductive age and ability from engaging in tasks which might involve exposure to high levels of lead. In order to gain access to the higher-paying, lead-exposed jobs, women had to provide medical proof of infertility.

The United Automobile Workers brought the case to court, arguing that Johnson Controls’ policy constituted sexual discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Supreme Court noted in a unanimous decision that even when policies are well intentioned, they must still be considered unconstitutional if they result in discrimination. Johnson Controls did not require men to demonstrate proof of sterility—even though lead exposure also affects male reproductive health—and therefore, the Court argued, the company could not require women to do so:

The policy is not neutral because it does not apply to male employees in the same way as it applies to females, despite evidence about the debilitating effect of lead exposure on the male reproductive system.

While the work conditions may have been detrimental to reproductive health and pregnancies, the women were fully capable of performing their tasks, just as the men were. And whether or not the policy may have been well-intentioned, discrimination was still present:

The absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect.

The ruling marked a decisive victory for women, who had previously been excluded from jobs considered hazardous. Up to this point, “fetal protection” policies had been widely used not just at Johnson Controls but also at other major companies across the country, such as General Motors. The decision thus provided previously unavailable advancement potential to women who, though fully capable, had previously been barred from jobs simply due to their gender and reproductive potential.

To listen to an audio clip of the argument, click here.

To read the full text of the Supreme Court’s opinion, click here.

To learn more about employment discrimination, click here.

For more on sex-based employment discrimination in particular, click here.

Remembering Griggs v. Duke Power Company

On March 8th,  41 years ago, the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. issued a unanimous ruling that transformed America’s workplaces, successfully striking a blow to employment discrimination.

In this case, the Legal Defense and Educational Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) represented thirteen African-American employees of North Carolina’s Duke Power Company—a company which plaintiffs argued had reserved the best jobs for whites and assigned African Americans to the least-desirable positions.

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employers from discriminating on the basis of race, Duke Power—like many other companies—found ways around this legislation, in this case by requiring a high school diploma or specific IQ test scores as prerequisites for higher-level positions.

The NAACP legal team, led by Jack Greenberg, argued the case before the Supreme Court in 1970. The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision on March 8, 1971, ruled:

What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification. . . . The [Civil Rights] Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. . . . If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.

This decision represented one of the earliest examples of the “disparate impact” framework which has since been used to eliminate arbitrary barriers to equal employment opportunity for all individuals, and which was codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

For more information and to listen to the oral argument, click here.

Another summary of the case and its significance can be found here.