document_title: Civil Rights Act of 1964

question_text: who does the civil rights act of 1964 protect

question_tokens: who does the civil rights act of 1964 protect

text: Civil Rights Act of 1964

text: Origins[edit]

text: The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his Report to the American People on Civil Rights of June 11, 1963,[7] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments", as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". Kennedy delivered this speech following the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham campaign and the growing number of demonstrations and protests throughout the southern United States. Kennedy was moved to action following the elevated racial tensions and wave of black riots in the spring 1963.[8]

text: Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. However, it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.[9]

text: Legislative history[edit]

text: House of Representatives[edit]

text: On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".[10][11] The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

text: Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October, 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[12] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

text: Johnson's appeal to Congress[edit]

text: The assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."[13]

text: Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee; it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

text: After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.

text: Lobbying efforts[edit]

text: Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyer Joseph L. Rauh Jr. and Clarence Mitchell, Sr. of the NAACP.[14]

text: Passage in the Senate[edit]

text: Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

text: When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[16] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]

text: The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[18]

text: After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[19]

text: On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[20]

text:
"Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

Play media

Public statement by Lyndon B. Johnson of July 2, 1964 about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

audio only

Problems playing these files? See media help.

text: On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, and quickly passed through the House–Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[21]

text: Vote totals[edit]

text: Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

text:
The original House version: 290–130   (69–31%)
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29   (71–29%)
The Senate version: 73–27   (73–27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126   (70–30%)

text: By party[edit]

text: The original House version:[22]

text:
Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

text: Cloture in the Senate:[23]

text:
Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

text: The Senate version:[22]

text:
Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

text: The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

text:
Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

text: By party and region[edit]

text: Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[24]

text: The original House version:

text:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

text: The Senate version:

text:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

text: Women's rights[edit]

text: Just one year earlier, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to civil rights both for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.[26][27][28][29] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944,[30] would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"[31] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.[32]

text: Smith asserted that he was not joking; he sincerely supported the amendment and, indeed, along with Rep. Martha Griffiths,[33] he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment.[32] For twenty years Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. He for decades had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who was also the leader in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, the author of the first Equal Rights Amendment, and a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category. Now was the moment.[34] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs.[35] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives... the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.'"[36]

text: Desegregation[edit]

text: One of the most damaging arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[37] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[37] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."[37] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[37]

text: Political repercussions[edit]

text: The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographic support of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[38] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election".[39] Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s.[40]

text: Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[41] Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.

text: Major features[edit]

text: (The full text of the Act is available online.)

text: Title I[edit]

text: Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

text: Title I did not eliminate literacy tests, which were one of the main methods used to exclude Black voters, other racial minorities, and poor Whites in the South, nor did it address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification", that is to say, it accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but rather might have to meet some standard beyond citizenship.[42][43] It was the Voting Rights Act, enacted one year later in 1965, that directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.

text: Title II[edit]

text: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[44]

text: Title III[edit]

text: Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

text: Title IV[edit]

text: Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

text: Title V[edit]

text: Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

text: Title VI[edit]

text: Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

text: General

text: This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

text: Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

text: Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

text: Title VII[edit]

text: Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[45]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[46] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[47] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

text: In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School — Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

text: Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[48]

text: There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

text:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Federally recognized Native American tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

text: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4[45]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Where a state law is contradicted by a federal law, it is overridden.[49] Every state, except Arkansas and Mississippi, maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)).

text: Precedents and history[edit]

text: In the early 1980s, the EEOC and some federal courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. In 1986, the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. This case filed by plaintiff Mechelle Vinson was the first in the history of the court to recognize sexual harassment as actionable.[50] Following 1986, court cases in which the plaintiff suffers no economic loss can potentially argue for a violation of Title VII if the discrimination resulted in a hostile work environment.[50] Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998).

text: In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual's transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.[51][52] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.[53] As of November 2014, Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[54][55]

text: On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by Attorney General Eric Holder, the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) took a position that aligned with the EEOC, namely the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DoJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees.[56]

text: In October 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive that withdrew the Holder memorandum.[57] According to a copy of the directive reviewed by BuzzFeed News, Sessions stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Attorney General Session stated as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se."[58] Devin O'Malley, speaking on behalf of the DoJ, stated "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DoJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is — it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court."[57]

text: On December 11, 2017, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, in which a lower court ruled against the plaintiff, who had argued Title VII protections applied to sexual orientation. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated in its earlier ruling that only the Supreme Court could determine if Title VII applied.[59]

text: Title VIII[edit]

text: Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

text: Title IX[edit]

text: Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists[who?] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.[citation needed]

text: Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be confused with Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.

text: Title X[edit]

text: Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

text: Title XI[edit]

text: Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

text: Continued resistance[edit]

text: There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers".[60] Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process".[60] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

text: Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South.[61] When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre."[62] Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.[63]

text: Amendments[edit]

text: Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.

text: In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation. The commission was also permitted for the first time to define "discrimination," a term excluded from the 1964 Act.[64]

text: Subsequent court rulings[edit]

text: The Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, at the time, in some dispute as it applied to the private sector. In the landmark Civil Rights Cases the United States Supreme Court had ruled, in 1883, that Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector, thus stripping the Civil Rights Act of 1875 of much of its ability to protect civil rights.[65]

text: In the late 19th and early 20th century, the legal justification for voiding the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was part of a larger trend by members of the United States Supreme Court to invalidate most government regulations of the private sector, except when dealing with laws designed to protect traditional public morality.

text: In the 1930s, during the New Deal, the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector under the commerce clause, thus paving the way for the Federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.

text: After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the constitutionality of the law, but it did not settle all of the legal questions surrounding the law.

text: In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., a 1971 Supreme Court case regarding the gender provisions of the Act, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless they did the same with potential male employees.[29] A federal court overruled an Ohio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs which required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women to take lunch breaks when men were not required to.[29] In Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, the United States Supreme Court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women was illegal, which ended that practice among the country's newspapers. The United States Civil Service Commission ended the practice among federal jobs which designated them "women only" or "men only".[29]

text: In 1974, the Supreme Court also ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.[66]

text: In 1975, a federal civil rights agency warned a Phoenix, Arizona school that its end-of-year father-son and mother-daughter baseball games were illegal according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.[29] President Gerald Ford intervened, and the games were allowed to continue.[29]

text: In 1977, the Supreme Court struck down state minimum height requirements for police officers as violating the Act; women usually could not meet these requirements.[29]

text: On April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, sitting en banc, ruled that Title VII of the Act forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a vote of 8–3.[67][68] Over the prior month, panels of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City had reached the opposite conclusion, finding that Title VII sex discrimination does not include claims based on sexual orientation.[69]

text: Influence[edit]

text: Despite its lack of influence during its time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had considerable impact on later civil rights legislation in the United States. It paved the way for future legislation that was not limited to African American civil rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964"—was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]". The Americans With Disabilities Act paralleled its landmark predecessor structurally, drawing upon many of the same titles and statutes. For example, "Title I of the ADA, which bans employment discrimination by private employers on the basis of disability, parallels Title VII of the Act". Similarly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, "which proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, tracks Title II of the 1964 Act while expanding upon the list of public accommodations covered." The Americans with Disabilities Act extended "the principle of nondiscrimination to people with disabilities",[70] an idea unsought in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act also influenced later civil rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, aiding not only African Americans, but also women.


document_title: NFL International Series

question_text: when did the nfl start playing in london

root

text: NFL International Series

text: Background[edit]

text: Prior to 2005, the NFL's primary method of promoting its game abroad was through the American Bowl, a series of preseason games played around the world, and NFL Europe, a developmental league based in Europe. The American Bowls ended in 2005 (though a similar China Bowl was planned for 2007 before being canceled), while NFL Europa (as it was known for its final season) folded in 2007. On October 2, 2005, the Arizona Cardinals defeated the San Francisco 49ers by a score of 31–14 at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, Mexico under the name NFL Fútbol Americano. It was the first regular season NFL game held outside the United States.[3] The game drew the NFL's highest game attendance at the time with 103,467 spectators.[3][4]

tag: p

text: Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the National Football League, has considered expanding the league's appeal overseas ever since the end of NFL Europa. Goodell has openly discussed the idea of holding a future Super Bowl game in London.[3] The NFL also investigated the possibility of adding a 17th regular season game to all teams, taking the place of the fourth pre-season game.[5] Waller notes that there will not be 16 different venues for the 17th games. More likely would be a "mini-season ticket" of perhaps four games in one city or country.[5] There was discussion that this "17th game" could take effect as early as the 2009 NFL season; however, 2010 would be the earliest this could be implemented because of concerns about playing on Labor Day or over the 2010 Winter Olympics, the league's rigid scheduling formula, and the league's collective bargaining agreement (CBA).[5] League officials were pondering moving a second existing game abroad for the 2010 season, but eventually abandoned it due to the ongoing CBA negotiations.[6] The league eventually abandoned its attempt to expand the NFL season via CBA negotiations, and the new CBA enacted in 2011 has kept the NFL schedule at 16 games as of 2017.

text: Games in the United Kingdom are broadcast by the BBC and Sky Sports either live on BBC2 or online via the BBC Sports website and interactive TV and on Sky Sports Action. On radio the games are broadcast by BBC Radio 5 Live Sports Extra, with Arlo White commentating.

text: The games have been popular, with tickets for the two games per season selling out in two days, nine months in advance. According to the NFL, only 3% of those attending the London games are Americans or American expatriates, while 22% are from London and 60% from elsewhere in Britain. Ticket prices are from £35 for end zone seats to £100 for lower sideline seats.[7] A team that plays a home game in London sells a cheaper season ticket package for its own stadium with seven regular season games rather than the usual eight. Each designated home team receives US$1 million for giving up the home game.[8]

text: On October 11, 2011, the NFL owners approved playing NFL games in Great Britain through the year 2016. This stated that a home team could visit every year for up to five years but visitors could only visit once every five years.[9] However, in 2015 the Detroit Lions returned to London as visitors in an apparent disregard for this rule. Subsequently, an agreement has been reached to play internationally through 2025.[10]

text: The Buffalo Bills received a unanimous vote of approval to play a series of regular and preseason games at Rogers Centre in Toronto from 2008 to 2017.[11][12] This was separate from the regular International Series as arrangements are made by the team as opposed to the league as with the International Series. The Bills' Toronto Series was mutually terminated after the 2013 contest.

text: Due to significant time zone differences, from 2007–2015 teams playing in London would have their bye week in the following week after their game in London. For 2016, the Indianapolis Colts volunteered to play a game the week after their London game, preferring to have their bye week later in the season. The Colts playing the week after London was also done by the NFL as a test to see team fatigue for evaluation of an eventual London franchise.[13] As Mexico City is within the Central Time Zone—eight NFL teams play home games in Central Time and the rest are within two hours of it—no bye week would be needed for those teams, though they may still by chance be scheduled their regular bye week anyway. For 2017, three teams playing in London (Baltimore, Jacksonville, and Miami), will have games immediately following their International Series game.[14] In all three cases, the teams playing after their International Series game are based on the East Coast of the United States and will either be home or (in the Jaguars case) playing in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

text: Due to NFL rules, teams that are playing in temporary homes or that have recently been awarded the Super Bowl are required to play a home game internationally. The Los Angeles Rams, upon relocating from St. Louis, agreed to host an international game from 2016–2019, while their new stadium is being built. The Los Angeles Chargers, who will be sharing the stadium with the Rams once it is completed, will also host an International Series game in 2018 and 2019, only getting out of the 2017 game because the team had executed its out clause to move from San Diego after the 2017 International Series games had been announced.[15] The rule wasn't in affect when the Minnesota Vikings were playing at TCF Bank Stadium while U.S. Bank Stadium was being built, although the team did give up a home game while they were still playing in the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. It is also likely that the Oakland Raiders will host another game in either 2018 and 2019 (or both) due to their pending move to Las Vegas, but it is unknown whether the "temporary stadium" rule applies in that case.

text: Early years (2007–2011)[edit]

text: The Miami Dolphins hosted the New York Giants at Wembley Stadium in London, England on October 28, 2007. The Giants defeated the Dolphins 13–10 in the first regular season NFL game held outside North America. The first 40,000 tickets sold out for the game in the first 90 minutes of sales.[3][16] The game was aired regionally on Fox.

text: A single game was held in London each year through 2011. Like the 2007 game, each was televised nationally in England, but only regionally in the United States.

text: Multi-year deals and multi-game years (2012–2015)[edit]

text: On January 20, 2012, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell confirmed that from 2012 to 2014, the St. Louis Rams would play one of their eight home games each year at Wembley Stadium.[17] However, on August 13, 2012, the team announced that they would not play the proposed games in London in 2013 and 2014, only the 2012 game against the New England Patriots that had already been scheduled.[18] Goodell had previously proposed the use of certain regular teams in the International Series in an effort to build a fan base for those teams, raising the prospect of a permanent NFL team on the British Isles.

text: An NFL bid to become anchor tenants of London's Olympic Stadium failed.[19]

text: The Jacksonville Jaguars took the Rams' place and agreed to play a home game in London for four seasons from 2013 through 2016. With this announcement also came news that the NFL were working to schedule a second UK game from 2013 onwards.[20] (The Jaguars later extended their agreement with Wembley Stadium through 2020 in an agreement announced in October 2015.)[2] In October 2012, it was announced that the Jaguars would host the San Francisco 49ers and the Minnesota Vikings would host the Pittsburgh Steelers, marking the first season with multiple games in London.

text: The NFL played three international games for the 2014 season, including one game with an earlier 9:30 am ET start, which allowed for an afternoon game, rather than an evening game, in London. This timeslot proved to be successful as all London games in 2015 and 2016 were also scheduled at 9:30 am ET. Three games were again scheduled in 2015 – including the series' first division game between the New York Jets and the Miami Dolphins.

text: Long-term deals and new stadiums (2016–present)[edit]

text: Between 2018 and 2027, at least two games each year will be played at Tottenham Hotspur's new stadium in Northumberland Park as part of an agreement between the NFL and Tottenham Hotspur. On October 7, 2015, the league announced that a resolution had been passed to schedule international games at additional locations to London until 2025.[10] On October 22, 2015 it was confirmed that at least two games per year will remain at Wembley until through least 2020 and that the Jacksonville Jaguars will continue to play a home game there annually throughout the agreement.[21] Subsequent to this, on November 3, 2015, the NFL announced that it had reached an agreement with England's Rugby Football Union to host regular season games at Twickenham Stadium from 2016 onwards, with a minimum of three, and as many as five games to be held over the initial agreement period of three years.[22]

text: In 2016, the Oakland Raiders hosted the Houston Texans on November 21 at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, at the first International Series game played in Mexico. Previously, the Houston Texans and Pittsburgh Steelers had expressed interest in playing a game at Estadio Azteca (or possibly Estadio Olímpico Universitario) in Mexico City, although Houston was not prepared to give up a home date.[23][24] It was televised as part of ESPN's Monday Night Football, marking the first MNF game broadcast from outside the United States, and ESPN's second broadcast from Mexico City since the 2005 Fútbol Americano game (which was televised as part of ESPN's former incarnation of Sunday Night Football).[25][26]

text: The 2016 game between the Redskins and Bengals was the first International Series game to go into overtime, the first to end as a tie, and had at the time the highest attendance of all International Series games (later surpassed by the 2017 game between the Ravens and Jaguars, which drew an attendance of 84,592).

text: For 2017 the series underwent a partial rebrand with four games in London branded as NFL London Games[27] and one game in Mexico City branded as the NFL Mexico Game.[28][not in citation given]

text: Game history[edit]

text:
Year
Date
Designated
visitor
Score
Designated
home team
Score
City
Stadium
Attn.
Pre-game show
Television

2007
October 28
New York Giants
13
Miami Dolphins
10
 London
Wembley Stadium
81,176
The Feeling[29]
Fox

2008
October 26
San Diego Chargers
32
New Orleans Saints
37
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,226
Stereophonics[29]
CBS

2009
October 25
New England Patriots
35
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
7
 London
Wembley Stadium
84,254
Calvin Harris[29]
CBS

2010
October 31
Denver Broncos
16
San Francisco 49ers
24
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,941
My Chemical Romance[29]
CBS

2011
October 23
Chicago Bears
24
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
18
 London
Wembley Stadium
76,981
Goo Goo Dolls[29]
Fox

2012
October 28
New England Patriots
45
St. Louis Rams
7
 London
Wembley Stadium
84,004
Train[30]
CBS

2013
September 29
Pittsburgh Steelers
27
Minnesota Vikings
34
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,518
Tinie Tempah[31]
CBS

October 27
San Francisco 49ers
42
Jacksonville Jaguars
10
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,559
Ne-Yo[32]
Fox

2014
September 28[33]
Miami Dolphins
38
Oakland Raiders
14
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,436
Def Leppard[34]
CBS

October 26[33]
Detroit Lions
22
Atlanta Falcons
21
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,532
Little Mix[35]
Fox

November 9[33]
Dallas Cowboys
31
Jacksonville Jaguars
17
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,603
Joss Stone[36]
Fox

2015
October 4
New York Jets
27
Miami Dolphins
14
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,986
None
CBS

October 25
Buffalo Bills
31
Jacksonville Jaguars
34
 London
Wembley Stadium
84,021
The Ohio State University Marching Band[37]
Yahoo! Sports[38][A]

November 1
Detroit Lions
10
Kansas City Chiefs
45
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,624
Madness[39]
Fox[40]

2016
October 2
Indianapolis Colts
27
Jacksonville Jaguars
30
 London
Wembley Stadium
83,798
Robin Thicke
CBS

October 23
New York Giants
17
Los Angeles Rams
10
 London
Twickenham Stadium
74,121
Craig David[41]
NFLN[B]

October 30
Washington Redskins
27
Cincinnati Bengals
27
 London
Wembley Stadium
84,448
Wessex Male Choir & US Army Europe band
Fox

November 21
Houston Texans
20
Oakland Raiders
27
 Mexico City
Estadio Azteca
76,473
None
ESPN[C]

2017
September 24
Baltimore Ravens
7
Jacksonville Jaguars
44
 London
Wembley Stadium
84,592
None
Verizon, Yahoo! Sports

October 1
New Orleans Saints
20
Miami Dolphins
0
 London
Wembley Stadium
84,423
None
Fox

October 22
Arizona Cardinals
0
Los Angeles Rams
33
 London
Twickenham Stadium
73,736
None
Fox

October 29
Minnesota Vikings
33
Cleveland Browns
16
 London
Twickenham Stadium
74,237
None
NFLN

November 19
New England Patriots
33
Oakland Raiders
8
 Mexico City
Estadio Azteca
77,357
None
CBS

tag: table

text: Standings[edit]

text:
Team
Appearances
W–L–T
Pct
Most recent appearance

New England Patriots
3
3–0–0
1.000
2017

Minnesota Vikings
2
2–0–0
1.000
2017

New Orleans Saints
2
2–0–0
1.000
2017

New York Giants
2
2–0–0
1.000
2016

San Francisco 49ers
2
2–0–0
1.000
2013

Chicago Bears
1
1–0–0
1.000
2011

Dallas Cowboys
1
1–0–0
1.000
2014

Kansas City Chiefs
1
1–0–0
1.000
2015

New York Jets
1
1–0–0
1.000
2015

Jacksonville Jaguars
5
3–2–0
.600
2017

Detroit Lions
2
1–1–0
.500
2015

Cincinnati Bengals
1
0–0–1
.500
2016

Washington Redskins
1
0–0–1
.500
2016

Oakland Raiders
3
1–2–0
.333
2017

St.Louis/Los Angeles Rams
3
1–2–0
.333
2017

Miami Dolphins
4
1–3–0
.250
2017

Arizona Cardinals
1
0–1–0
.000
2017

Atlanta Falcons
1
0–1–0
.000
2014

Baltimore Ravens
1
0–1–0
.000
2017

Buffalo Bills
1
0–1–0
.000
2015

Cleveland Browns
1
0–1–0
.000
2017

Denver Broncos
1
0–1–0
.000
2010

Houston Texans
1
0–1–0
.000
2016

Indianapolis Colts
1
0–1–0
.000
2016

Pittsburgh Steelers
1
0–1–0
.000
2013

San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers
1
0–1–0
.000
2008

Tampa Bay Buccaneers
2
0–2–0
.000
2011

text: Teams with no International Series appearances[edit]

text: As of the 2017 season, five of the 32 teams have not played in the International Series: The Carolina Panthers, Green Bay Packers, Philadelphia Eagles, Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans. Seattle played a game outside the United States in 2012, but it was not part of the International Series. The Houston Texans have never played in London, but played an International Series game in Mexico City.

text: Future[edit]

text: Possible teams[edit]

text: Before the Chargers and Saints were announced to be the two teams headed to London in 2008, the Kansas City Chiefs, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Seattle Seahawks were identified as teams interested in playing a future game in Europe.[42] In particular, Seattle, which had been slated to play the China Bowl before that game was cancelled, had shown a continued interest in playing a game abroad. Tampa Bay eventually got the 2009 and 2011 games, while Kansas City got one of the games in 2015. Both the New York Giants and Miami Dolphins have similarly expressed interest in returning to the UK in a rematch of 2007's international series.[citation needed] There have also been negotiations between the Pittsburgh Steelers (whose owner, Dan Rooney, was the United States Ambassador to Ireland) and Croke Park in Dublin, Republic of Ireland for a potential International Series game there.[43]

text: The Rams and the Buccaneers are both under co-ownership with teams in the Premier League, the top association football league in England; the Rams are under co-ownership with Arsenal Football Club of London, while the Buccaneers are co-owned with Manchester United. From 2006 until 2012, the Cleveland Browns were also under co-ownership with Aston Villa before Randy Lerner sold the Browns to Jimmy Haslam, and since 2013, Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan also owns Fulham F.C., which were at the time in the Premier League, but have since been relegated to the Football League Championship.[44]

text: As part of their application to relocate to Los Angeles for the 2016 season, the Rams have volunteered to play in the International Series at least once a year while occupying the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum for three seasons until their new stadium in Inglewood, California, opens in 2020.[45]

text: In 2016, Steelers president Art Rooney II stated that the team may have to give up a home game to play in Mexico City in the future, with the team stating that they would require permission from the Sports & Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County to do so, as their lease at Heinz Field explicitly requires the team to play ten home games (8 in the regular season, 2 preseason) at that stadium per season.[46][47]

text: The Packers' president and CEO Mark Murphy said the team will not give up a home game at Lambeau Field to play internationally. The Jaguars also declined to give up a home game against the Packers since the well-traveled fans would certainly lead to sold out crowd in Jacksonville.[48]

text: Future markets[edit]

text: Within the United Kingdom, aside from London, potential candidates for hosting NFL games include Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales;[49] and Murrayfield in Edinburgh, Scotland.[50] Other prime locations to get games would be Croke Park in the Republic of Ireland (Ireland has already hosted the NCAA Emerald Isle Classic, a college football game similar to the International Series, and Steelers owner Dan Rooney was once an ambassador to the country), Germany (which hosted five teams in NFL Europa at the time of its dissolution in 2007 and whose national American Football team won both the 2010 and 2014 European Championship), China;[51] Brazil,[52][51] Australia[53] and Canada (Canada hosted the Bills Toronto Series from 2008 to 2013). Mark Waller, NFL senior vice president, international, doubts Asia or Australia would be targeted because of the travel concerns, but he does not dismiss anything.[5] Until 2015 the Jacksonville Jaguars' agreement stipulated that all future International Series games in the current agreement would take place at Wembley, ruling out other locations.[54] a The league had plans to host a game in China in 2018 with the Los Angeles Rams as the home team against the San Francisco 49ers.[55] However, the game in Germany was scrapped in favor of adding a 4th game in London in 2017. The potential game in China was postponed (the third time the league has postponed playing in China, following failed attempts in 2007 and 2009) to being aimed for the 2019 season to coincide with the league's 100th anniversary.[56][57] The league has indicated that a China game is still not certain because of the lack of a fan base in the country (NFL games are played in the middle of the night in China).[58]

text: In regard to future games outside London or Mexico, Mark Waller stated in 2017 that the only holdup with games in Germany was what he dubbed "an inventory management thing. How many games do we actually have?"[58]

text: Potential London team[edit]

text: The success of the International Series has led the NFL to focus its global expansion aims on the possibility of having a full franchise located in London. While no set timetable has been set, the league is working on a goal of establishing a franchise by around 2021, assuming they have all the necessary arrangements in place. It is believed this would be most likely achieved through relocation of an existing franchise, with the Jaguars most often linked due to their association with the International Series, even though their owner is said to be content with the current arrangement and other franchises have more reason to move (the most often cited being poor on-field performance, lack of fans and uncertainty over stadium leases). The NFL has used some of the specific arrangements for the International Series games as a test bed for predicting how a London franchise could be made effective from a logistical and competitiveness standpoint.[59][60]