“Protected Classes” Undermines the Right to Dignity of All of Us

Examining the unintended consequences of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If you’ve clicked on this article, then you are probably already familiar with the typical nondiscrimination clause all companies include in their job postings.

It is the same nondiscrimination clause that is of upmost importance in all Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) complaints.

The standard nondiscrimination clause states that [company], [government agency] or [other organization] does not and will not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, age, national origin, and marital status.

Occasionally, some organizations that like to think of themselves as forward thinking will jump on the “us too” liberal bandwagon of useless empty gestures to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to their list of “protected classes.”

No one includes red heads or Yankees fans in their nondiscrimination policy.

Although it’s just as likely for a business owner or manager to discriminate based solely on that personal identifying trait.

Even though as the following blog points out, “redheads have been the target of discrimination since ancient times.’

In Britain, lawmakers are seriously considering whether or not redheads should be considered a protected class.

Some would argue that in the United States, introverts are the next lucky group on the list to have their basic human rights extended to include the workplace.

I can’t help my sarcastic tone at times. The shortsightedness and stubborn simple-mindedness of those who create the narrative and frame this debate makes me so.

Rather than attempt to list all possible reasons an individual may be discriminated against in the workplace, why don’t we admit that anyone could face potential discrimination in a given set of circumstances for an infinite number of reasons.

Instead of extending nondiscrimination clauses to the latest fad group to occupy our minds, why don’t we just extend nondiscrimination protections to all individuals?

Protected classes as they are viewed now under the law also harms those who for legitimate reasons seek grievances against an employer or landlord. Sometimes, oftentimes, a person may not know exactly why their boss discriminated against them.

I had an attorney explain it to me this way: When filing a complaint alleging discrimination against an employer, if during discovery they determine that the actual reason an employer discriminated against someone was their sex (the employer doesn’t like females working for him) instead of race (the person thought that her boss was discriminating against her because of her skin color) then they can amend the compliant to include the new protected class.

That’s fine as long as the real reason is also a protected class.

What if, after years of successful employment, your boss discovers that your (non-spousal) significant other is not of the same race as you? Suddenly, your career and your performance reviews take a turn for the worse.

What can you do? Technically, according to the law, you are not being discriminated against. Spouses of interracial marriages are a protected class. Having a non-spousal significant other or proclivities towards dating members of another race is not. Your boss is free to tell you throughout the workday everyday how he doesn’t like it and hold it against you.

The concept of “protected classes” elevates members recognized as members of that group over other employees.

It grants them, a term I feel out of place using myself “special privileges.” Although, I wouldn’t call basic human rights and being treated fairly “special.” If so, then those “special privileges” need to be extended to all individuals. We all deserve to live and work with dignity.

As much as many of us hate to believe it is true, the creation of protected classes has led to some people being more equal than others. In large, multinational corporations, more attention and care is given to ensure that the rights of those people who are part of a group known to be historically discriminated against are not violated. By its very definition, this leaves less time and care available for those who may face discriminatory practices under the company’s radar.

The only people who benefit from us being divided into separate identifiable groups as employees are lobbyists for special interest groups. Lobbyists as a class of people will never see the group they represent as finally achieving the equality they have long sought after. To have that level of success would put them out of a very lucrative career, rendering them obsolete. Lobbyists thrive when we subdivide and group ourselves into us and them.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has been around since 1964.

It was legislation that was desperately needed in its time. It still does a lot of good and goes a long way towards its goal of trying to achieve racial equality.

However, Title VII has its limits. As the following article from the Gay and Lesbian Review points out, “how the courts answer the question as to what constitutes ‘sex discrimination’ is anyone’s guess.”

In 1964, when asked to define obscenity/pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart uttered the now famous phrase, “I know it when I see it.”

I believe the same can be said for discrimination today without the need to resort to list objective bullet points for a subjective experience.

Most of us know discrimination when we see it. We don’t need laws that seek to limit which groups of people should be extended basic workplace protections that should be given to us all, regardless of sex, age, religion, national origin, or any other personal defining factor.

In 1964, there were originally seven protected classes. That has since expanded to somewhere between 14 and 17. The exact number is uncertain as many of the newly recognized protected classes have yet to be challenged or mentioned as part of a decision on a case taken up by the Supreme Court. In some organizations, there are up to as many as 20 protected classes.

It is the height of irony that while the types of protected classes are increasing drawing our attention to our differences, we live in a culture where it is expected that we will ignore those differences.

We are supposed to have an outward display of colorblindness which, hopefully, reflects our inner beliefs. I’m sorry to say that this breeds resentment not acceptance.

Using these conveniently provided labels to Identify, categorize, and distinguish ourselves from the rest of humanity has become the first way many people think when defining who they are as individuals. We often make prejudicial assumptions of others based on these same labels with little or no more information than these group identifiers.

While the intention behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was noble, there was no way the politicians of the time could see that by solidifying the identities of specific groups of people, they were in fact, not only strengthening their own cause, but were also unknowingly instilling in the culture a concept that would make racism and sexism permanent.

It is definitely true that the Civil Rights Act led to a more equal society and helped many African Americans achieve what they would not have been able to accomplish otherwise.

But it also created a huge undercurrent of a more silent and resilient racism that would endure beyond the law.

The creation of protected classes condoned the belief that different classes of people should be treated differently. If we want to end discrimination on all levels, we need to learn to treat all individuals with the dignity and respect we all deserve.

It is the responsibility of each of us to believe ourselves and others are worthy of being treated fairly and with dignity.