Sample Case Study on The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its Influence on Employment Discrimination Laws


  1. Is Kern (the plaintiff) charging disparate impact or disparate treatment? (Disparate treatment would be intentional, example: “I don’t want to hire her becauseshe is female”. Disparate impact is unintentional.)

Kern, the plaintiff is charging disparate impact since the actions were unintentional. According to the defendant, Dynalectron Corporation, Kern was to be hired in a pilot position that does not require her to fly to regions such as the Holy City of Mecca which was prohibited under the Muslim Sharia Laws in the Saudi Arabia. However, she could fly to other regions within Saudi Arabia. According to the court’s conclusion, Kern was not discriminated by the virtue of religion, being Baptist. Nevertheless under the United States Laws on Employment, the restriction of pilots from flying to certain areas of Saudi Arabia such as Mecca is regarded as a bona fide occupational qualification. In conclusion, Kern was found to have voluntarily gone against her contract of working for Dynalectron Corporation.

  1. What is the legal basis or provision for the discrimination that Kern is alleging?

The legal basis or provision that Kern is alleging is that of discrimination against employment opportunities based on religion. Discrimination along ethnic, race or other bias such as religion in the US is covered under the Civil Rights Act enacted in 1964. Kern is a Baptist by religion which the Saudi Arabia based Sharia laws requires that an individual profess Islam for him or her to fly into the Holy City and Sanctuary of Mecca. The Civil Rights Act which was a passed as an Act of Parliament under the Lyndon B. Johnson administration aimed at levelling the ground on discrimination of Americans along the lines of gender, religion, race, ethnicity or any other bias that may be hinged on propagating discrimination. Nevertheless, kern’s legal basis could not have yielded any fruits at the end of the case.

  1. What would be his prima facie case?

The prima facie of Kern’s case would have been that she is Baptist by religion. She would have gone further to build up her case that the Sharia Islam Laws of Saudi Arabia favours workers who profess Muslim. In this case, she could have gone on to justify that she was prevented from working at Dynalectron Corporation because she was a Baptist. Moreover, the laws required one to be Moslem in order to fly to certain restricted areas of Saudi Arabia.

  1. Based on your answer to the second question, what defence would Dynalectron(the defendant) use?

The defendant, Dynalectron Corporation could have used clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America to defend its position. The Constitution of the US requires that certain laws be applied, interpreted and enforced to the constitution. No law is interpreted and applied above the constitution of the US. The constitution of the US requires that the customary and traditional laws of any religion, ethnic or custom be upheld. Moreover, the constitution of the US states that every citizen has the right to profess the religion that he or she wishes to or not profess a religion at all. The court could have interpreted the case and upheld constitution that it is the duty of the Constitution of the US to uphold the customary beliefs of the Sharia Muslim laws and hold that Dynalectron Corporation had to uphold the Islam customary traditions. On this case, the plaintiff, kern could still have been left answerable for her own decisions to rescind her employment contract.

  1. What information would Kern’s attorneys ask for? Dynalectron attorneys?

Kern’s attorneys could have asked for information regarding the history of employment in Dynalectron Corporation and used previous accusations against Dynalectron on discrimination for employment opportunities along various biases. Dynalectron attorneys could have asked for information on whether Kern was a legit Muslim or had legitimately converted to Islam to be allowed to fly to the City of Mecca.

  1. Identify IRAC, I= issue (what is plaintiff want to complain about?); R=rule (Under which law is apply? Ex. Civil Rights Act.); A= analysis, facts (facts that helps judge to decide); C=the conclusion (explain this facts effects this laws and favours to this party) For example in this case, Kern was discriminated by his employer because of he is a Baptist, and it is under civil rights act 1964, based on religions………


The plaintiff, Kern complained that she had been discriminated along religious lines in her employment contract as a pilot with Dynalectron Corporation.


The rule under which the case was rule against is found under Clause 42 of the United States Constitution.


The judge’s used decisions on various case laws such as Weeks vs. Southern Bell telephone & Telegraph Co., Diaz vs. Pan American World Airways and Texas Department of Community Affairs vs. Burdine just to mention a few to arrive at the final decision that made Kern culpable.


The facts used in this case had a great effect in influencing the outcome of the judge’s decision. The judge’s decision favoured the defendant, Dynamolectron Corporation at the expense of the appellant, Kern. Kern had disregarded the employers’ conditions for employment citing discrimination on the basis of religion. The judges found Kern’s allegation unconstitutional.

  1. Analysis (most important facts).

The most important facts that arise in the case is that of upholding the customary laws of the Saudi Arabia country as well as the bias factors being a bona fide occupational qualification for employees seeking for employment.

  1. Do you agree or disagree with a court? If you were a judge, would you react differently?

I do agree with decision of the court. Ignorant has never been used as a defence in a court of law. Hence, the plaintiff could have worked hard to ensure she had the knowledge of the law on her fingertips before logging in any complaints with the courts of law. I would have ruled in a similar capacity if presented with a similar case without rushing to the plaintiff’s defence on discrimination based on her religion


Kern v. Dynalectron Corp., 577 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Tex. 1983).