What was one of the responses from Congress in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991?

What was one of the responses from Congress in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991?

• A. To limit employee rights
• B. To enhance protections against discrimination
• C. To reduce litigation in discrimination cases
• D. To promote voluntary compliance only

Answer: (B)

The correct answer reflects the intention behind the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which was to enhance protections against discrimination in the workplace. This legislation was a response to court decisions that had, in some cases, weakened the impact of earlier civil rights laws. By reinforcing protections, the Act aimed to ensure fair treatment and equal opportunities for all employees, particularly in the context of race, gender, disability, and other forms of discrimination. Additionally, the law provided mechanisms for individuals to seek damages in cases of intentional discrimination, further strengthening the rights of employees. In contrast, limiting employee rights, reducing litigation, or promoting voluntary compliance would not align with the Act's goals. These options suggest a potential regress in protections for employees or a lack of motivation for organizations to adhere to anti-discrimination practices, which would contradict the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It was fundamentally about expanding rights and protections rather than restricting them.

The correct answer reflects the intention behind the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which was to enhance protections against discrimination in the workplace. This legislation was a response to court decisions that had, in some cases, weakened the impact of earlier civil rights laws. By reinforcing protections, the Act aimed to ensure fair treatment and equal opportunities for all employees, particularly in the context of race, gender, disability, and other forms of discrimination. Additionally, the law provided mechanisms for individuals to seek damages in cases of intentional discrimination, further strengthening the rights of employees.

In contrast, limiting employee rights, reducing litigation, or promoting voluntary compliance would not align with the Act's goals. These options suggest a potential regress in protections for employees or a lack of motivation for organizations to adhere to anti-discrimination practices, which would contradict the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It was fundamentally about expanding rights and protections rather than restricting them.