California Affirmative Action Proposition 209 Case Study

According to Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2015) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, training, promotion, discipline, and other workplace decisions on the basis of employee or applicant’s race, color, gender, national origin, or religion” (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015, p. 111). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 have been extended to Title VII’s coverage to U.S. Citizens employed by American employers outside of the United States (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015).
According to California Affirmative Action, Proposition 209 (n. d.), In California, Affirmative Action, Proposition 209 was passed in 1996, under the Civil Rights Act (California Affirmative Action Proposition 209, n. d.). Proposition 209 prohibits the state, local government, districts, public universities,
d.). Since this proposition passed the number of minority admissions and graduations from Universities has increased (California Affirmative Action Proposition 209, n. d.).
The category I chose to explore was gender, gender can be a broad term that can include a person’s sex (male, female, or chose not to answer). This category extends to difference in treatment in the workplace according to gender, such as compensation, the hiring/firing/training/benefits process. In the case of Anderson v. City & County of San Francisco, Speckman (2014), indicated that 35 male and female deputies from San Francisco Sheriff’s Department filed a consolidated claim against both the city and county claiming discrimination against male deputies in violation of Title VII and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Speckman, 2014). In October 2006 the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department implemented a new policy to prohibit male deputies from holding supervisory