Opinion ID: 673802
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(b)

Text: 13 The tester plaintiffs also sought damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII declares that [i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(b). After exhausting certain administrative remedies (as the plaintiffs have done), a person claiming to be aggrieved by any such practice may sue the offending employment agency in court. Id. Sec. 2000e-5(b), (c), (f)(1). This statutory scheme is much more analogous than Sec. 1981 to the provisions of the Fair Housing Act that were at issue in Havens. 1 For our purposes, however, the available remedies are critically different. 14 Had the tester plaintiff in Havens proved her claims, the district court could have awarded her damages. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3612(b); cf. United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 932-33 (7th Cir.1992). At the time of the alleged discrimination against the testers here, however, only equitable remedies were available under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(g); see also United States v. Burke, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1867, 1873-74, 119 L.Ed.2d 34 (1992) (contrasting the circumscribed remedies available under Title VII with the remedies available under the Fair Housing Act). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the remedies available under Title VII, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981a, but the new remedial provisions cannot be applied to conduct occurring before the enactment of the 1991 statute. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994).