The Cornerstone – The Civil Rights Act of 1964

Let’s start with the fundamental—the law that transformed the workplace and the HR profession. The time, legislative negotiation, and compromise that went into passing this law in 1964 was phenomenal. It was the first significant civil rights law since Reconstruction and was not without critics.

Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion and national origin in all aspects of employment—from recruitment and hiring to discharge and layoffs and everything in between. It applies to private employers, labor unions and employment agencies.

While speaking to a group of women, a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) once noted, “if it wasn’t for this law, most of us in this room would not have the jobs we have today.”

Consider a group of women sharing experiences with younger women about joining the workforce in the 60s and the 70s including questions posed to women in job interviews about marital status or child-bearing plans. Their younger colleagues were aghast.

The debate over Title VII—the longest in the U.S. Senate’s then nearly 180-year history—was contentious with opposition to the inclusion of many of the protections, such as religion. Ohio Representative John Ashbrook noted that "[i]t seems incredible that we would even seriously consider forcing an employer to hire an atheist."

Consider that in a news release issued August 22, 2025, the EEOC highlighted its recent enforcement actions to uphold “religious liberty protections for workers.”

While the EEOC’s recent actions regarding discrimination on the basis of religion is reflective of today’s political landscape—the current chair serves on a task force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government—Title VII defines religion to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief,” without specifying any particular religious faith(s).

Accounts suggest that the addition of the word "sex" was an effort to stop the bill in its tracks. New York's Representative Katharine St. George lobbied for protections based on sex, saying: "We outlast you. We outlive you. We nag you to death ... We are entitled to this little crumb of equality. The addition of that little, terrifying word 's-e-x' will not hurt this legislation in any way. In fact, it will improve it ... It will make it right."  (Eric Dreiband, Celebration of Title VII at Forty, 36 U. Mem. L. Rev. 5 (2005)).

Consider that in June 2020 Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, affirming discrimination on the basis of sex applies to an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII.

However, the EEOC’s enforcement guidance on harassment, including harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity will likely be rescinded under the current chair.

Consider that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act went into effect in 2023 requiring a reasonable accommodation to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (including elective abortions not medically necessary). The current EEOC chair has publicly opposed the “abortion-related” accommodation portion of the rule.

While Title VII is still the law, laws and their interpretations are not static. We have witnessed shifts over time as culture and political views change, and we discussed only some of those changes here. There were more in 2025 leading to fears we are losing ground in eradicating discrimination from our workplaces and society. People’s rights are important, and it is imperative those rights are protected.