Women Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 - 1481 Words

During the 1960s, living off one income had become increasingly more difficult to continue living a comfortable lifestyle with the rise in economic demands. Therefore, forcing many American women to begin seeking jobs in the workforce. However, many qualified women were quickly looked over by men, some with fewer years of experience and education. Potential employers felt that women would not be able to face the stress that went along with work. So 1964, the United States enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.  §Ã‚ § 2000e et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) This act is very well-known, prohibiting harassment in the workplace and discrimination. A few years later, on October 31, 1978, President Jimmy†¦show more content†¦The school board also ruled that the expectant mothers could not return to their duties until the next semester started, the teacher acquired a certificate proving a clean bill of health, and that the baby is three or more months old. Unfortunately, even with the guidelines, the teachers were not promised their teaching positions back after the child’s birth. Instead, they were guaranteed a teaching position, but quite possibly not the one they had before. (Legal Information Institute) In 1971, Jo Carol LaFleur, a teacher at Patrick Henry Junior High school, as well as Ann Elizabeth Nelson of Central Junior High school, both fell pregnant a few months apart. Both teachers were forced by the Cleveland board of Education to take their maternity leave early, in March 1971. Just two months away from the end of the school year, despite their wishes to finish out the school year. Each teacher filed a separate suit in the district court, but their cases were tried together under The Cleveland Board of Education vs. LaFleur. (Pregnancy Discrimination and the American Worker.) On January 21, 1974, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, decided that th e Cleveland maternity leave rule was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the