
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, July 11, 1990                   TAG: 9007110083
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

CRITICS REJECT COMPROMISE ON SENATE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL

Senate sponsors of a major civil rights bill offered a compromise Tuesday designed to ease concerns that the measure would lead to hiring quotas, but critics called the plan inadequate.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the plan would "force business people to proportionately hire, just to save their skins" and avoid lawsuits. He said he had talked with White House chief of staff John Sununu and doubted that the Bush administration would be able to support the proposed compromise.

Civil rights forces have placed the bill at the top of their congressional shopping list, saying it was needed to reverse six Supreme Court decisions last year that represented a severe setback for their cause.

The Bush administration supports some provisions, including language that would outlaw racial harassment in the workplace.

The bill also would make it harder to reopen court-approved agreements designed to end job bias, bar discriminatory seniority systems, and provide for punitive damages from employers who engage in unlawful job practices with "malice" or "reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others."

At the heart of the debate, however, is a feature that would force employers either to end lopsided hiring practices or justify them on the grounds of business necessity.

Sponsors say the bill contains nothing about hiring quotas, but critics claim this provision would guarantee that employers would turn to them to insulate themselves from lawsuits.

Changes made by Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other sponsors with an eye toward reaching a compromise involved refinements of highly technical language in the bill. For example, the revised version would force those filing suits to single out specific objectionable practices rather than target groups of practices.

The new version includes language that would change the definition of business necessity from "essential" for effective job performance to "bears a substantial and demonstrable relationship" with effective job performance.

Hatch complained that the fresh version had surfaced only Monday night but that it already appeared to be inadequate.

Forty-four senators are co-sponsoring the legislation. Sponsors have repeatedly said they had the votes to pass it, but it is less certain that they would be able to override a threatened presidential veto.

by CNB