Civil Rights Bill Is Passed By House
|
|
With only an echo of the bitter debate over quotas that held the legislation back for two years, the House today passed and sent to President Bush a major civil rights bill that makes it easier to sue in job discrimination cases. The vote for the bill overturning at least eight Supreme Court decisions was 381 to 38, with 252 Democrats, 128 Republicans and 1 independent in favor, and 5 Democrats and 33 Republicans voting no. Mr. Bush has said he would sign the bill. Today’s debate was less than exuberant, dominated instead by a sense of relief that Washington had reached, as Speaker Thomas S. Foley put it in a rare floor speech “an historic moment when the President and the majorities of the Congress may be able to come together to advance the interests of working men and women.” No one maintained that the bill, fashioned in a compromise with the White House by Senators John C. Danforth, Republican of Missouri, and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was flawless. . ‘Not a Perfect Bill’ Mr. Foley, Democrat of Washington, said it was “not a perfect bill.” Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who led the opposition to a somewhat stronger bill in June, said today that the bill was “A compromise” and added, “I’m happy to accept it.” Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat who was a civil rights leader in the 1960’s, said: “It is not perfect. It is not a panacea. But it is a step in the right direction. It is a very important step.” There were two major elements of the measure adopted today. The first was a reversal of the 1989 Supreme Court decision in Wards Cove v. Atonio. The bill would undo that ruling and make it easier for plaintiffs to win suits attacking job practices that may appear fair on their face, like tests of strength or education, but have the effect of discriminating, for example against women or blacks. The second would give victims of discrimination based on sex, religion, national origin or disabled status the right to win cash damages in cases of intentional discrimination. Until now, only victims of racial discrimination have had that right. Three Strands of Debate There were three arguments in today’s brief debate: over whether assertions that the legislation would force employers to adopt quotas had ever been justified to begin with; over whether the House should grant its employes the same right to go to court that the Senate voted for its workers last week, and whether it was proper or fair, as the compromise deal provided, to exempt the Wards Cove Packing Company, the source of the suit that led to the legislation, from its effects. More : query.nytimes.com |