This country begins the twenty-first century with the legal presumption that everyone is entitled to equal opportunities to gain access to the workplace. Yet, numerous sectors of the workplace remain dominated by a single group. Disparities in the workplace are ever present. However, some courts now apply the very statute that entitled minorities to an equal opportunity to compete in a way that ensures employers will not be permitted to make decisions in recognition of this country’s past insidious treatment of economically disfavored groups. Because courts have closed their eyes to the underlying intent of Title VII, they have relieved the employer of its duty to strive for equality within the workplace.
To effectuate the competing interests of Title VII, courts must fashion a test that does not punish employers for acknowledging disparities in the workplace, which they played a predominant role in creating. Courts should determine that when an employer hires a qualified minority over a qualified majority member plaintiff, the employer should be required to present only evidence sufficient to establish that the minority hired was qualified for the position and the employer followed its own hiring procedures. This standard acknowledges the history of Title VII and requires an employer to demonstrate that it followed its own hiring procedures and hired someone who fit the qualifications of the position. To demonstrate why a different standard should apply to a majority member bringing a Title VII claim, this Comment will examine the historical background of Title VII and the Supreme Court’s varied interpretations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Act), as amended.