text:
Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

Initially, powers given to enforce the act were weak, but these were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section VIII, its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

The legislation was proposed by President John F. Kennedy in June 1963, but it was opposed by filibuster in the Senate. After Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed the bill forward. The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on February 10, 1964, and after a 72-day filibuster, it passed the United States Senate on June 19, 1964. The final vote was 290–130 in the House of Representatives and 73–27 in the Senate. After the House agreed to a subsequent Senate amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Johnson at the White House on July 2, 1964.

Reconstruction and New Deal era
In the 1883 landmark Civil Rights Cases, the United States Supreme Court had ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector, thus stripping the Civil Rights Act of 1875 of much of its ability to protect civil rights.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, the legal justification for voiding the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was part of a larger trend by members of the United States Supreme Court to invalidate most government regulations of the private sector, except when dealing with laws designed to protect traditional public morality.

In the 1930s, during the New Deal, the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector under the Commerce Clause, thus paving the way for the federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.

Influenced in part by the "Black Cabinet" advisors and the March on Washington Movement, just before the U.S. entered World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, the first federal anti-discrimination order, and established the Fair Employment Practices Committee. Roosevelt's successor, President Harry Truman, appointed the President's Committee on Civil Rights, proposed the 20th century's first comprehensive Civil Rights Act, and issued Executive Order 9980 and Executive Order 9981, providing for fair employment and desegregation throughout the federal government and the armed forces.

Civil Rights Act of 1957
The Civil Rights Act of 1957, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 9, 1957, was the first federal civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to become law. After the Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, Southern Democrats began a campaign of "massive resistance" against desegregation, and even the few moderate white leaders shifted to openly racist positions. Partly in an effort to defuse calls for more far-reaching reforms, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill that would increase the protection of African American voting rights.

Despite having a limited impact on African-American voter participation, at a time when black voter registration was just 20%, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 did establish the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. By 1960, black voting had increased by only 3%, and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which eliminated certain loopholes left by the 1957 Act.

1963 Kennedy civil rights bill
In winning the 1960 United States presidential election, Kennedy took 70% of the African American vote. But due to his somewhat narrow victory and Democrats' narrow majorities in Congress, he was wary to push hard for civil rights legislation for fear of losing southern support. Moreover, according to the Miller Center, he wanted to wait until his second term to send Congress a civil rights bill. But with elevated racial tensions and a wave of African-American protests in the spring of 1963, such as the Birmingham campaign, Kennedy realized he had to act on civil rights.

Kennedy first proposed the 1964 bill in his Report to the American People on Civil Rights on June 11, 1963. He sought legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments"—as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". In late July, Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers, warned that if Congress failed to pass Kennedy's civil rights bill, the country would face another civil war.

Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations and enable the U.S. Attorney General to join lawsuits against state governments that operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. But it did not include a number of provisions civil rights leaders deemed essential, including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, and granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.

House of Representatives
On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Representatives drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative". The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by New York Democrat Emanuel Celler. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 Act and 1960 Act. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

Lobbying efforts
Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyer Joseph L. Rauh Jr. and Clarence Mitchell Jr. of the NAACP.

After the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, on August 28, 1963, the organizers visited Kennedy to discuss the civil rights bill. Roy Wilkins, A. Philip Randolph, and Walter Reuther attempted to persuade him to support a provision establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission that would ban discriminatory practices by all federal agencies, unions, and private companies.

Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

Johnson's appeal to Congress
The assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."

Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee; it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially, Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many Representatives who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.

Passage in the Senate
Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that it would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by James O. Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi, whose firm opposition made it seem impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the Judiciary Committee from keeping the bill in limbo: initially waiving a second reading immediately after the first reading, which would have sent it to the Judiciary Committee, he took the unprecedented step of giving the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, thereby bypassing the Judiciary Committee, and sending it to the Senate floor for immediate debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican John Tower of Texas, led by Richard Russell (D-GA), launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Russell proclaimed, "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states."

Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond, who was still a Democrat at the time: "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals [sic], which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."

After the filibuster had gone on for 54 days, Senators Mansfield, Hubert Humphrey, Everett Dirksen, and Thomas Kuchel introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would overcome it by combining a sufficient number of Republicans as well as core liberal Democrats. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version as to the government's power in regulating the conduct of private business, but not weak enough to make the House reconsider it.

Senator Robert Byrd ended his filibuster in opposition to the bill on the morning of June 10, 1964, after 14 hours and 13 minutes. Up to then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. The day before, Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded that he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never before in its entire history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to defeat a filibuster on a civil rights bill, and only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

The most dramatic moment during the cloture vote came when Senator Clair Engle was wheeled into the chamber. Suffering from terminal brain cancer, unable to speak, he pointed to his left eye, signifying his affirmative "Aye" vote when his name was called. He died seven weeks later.

Final passage
On June 19, the compromise bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, quickly passed through the conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill, then was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by Johnson on July 2, 1964.

Vote totals
Totals are in Yea–Nay format:
 * The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)
 * Cloture in the Senate: 71–29
 * The Senate version: 73–27
 * The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)

By party
The original House version:
 * Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
 * Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
 * Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
 * Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
 * Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
 * Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
 * Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
 * Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By region
Note that "Southern", as used here, refers to members of Congress from the 11 states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of their geographic location.

The House of Representatives:
 * Northern: 281–32 (90–10%)
 * Southern: 8–94 (8–92%)

The Senate:
 * Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
 * Southern: 1–21 (5–95%) – Ralph Yarborough of Texas was the only Southerner to vote in favor in the Senate

By party and region
The House of Representatives: Note that four Representatives voted Present while 13 did not vote.
 * Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor
 * Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
 * Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
 * Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)

The Senate:
 * Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor
 * Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
 * Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against
 * Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke B. Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin L. Mechem (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against

Women's rights

One year earlier, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate whether Smith cynically attempted to defeat the bill because he opposed civil rights for Black people and women or attempted to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women. Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because labor unions opposed the clause. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later said, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights", as "he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights", and according to the Congressional Record, laughter greeted Smith when he introduced the amendment.

Smith asserted that he was not joking and sincerely supported the amendment. Along with Representative Martha Griffiths, he was the amendment's chief spokesperson. For 20 years, Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. For decades he had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who had been a leading figure in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, co-authored the first Equal Rights Amendment, and had been a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category, and felt now was the moment. Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that that was unfair to white women. Black feminist lawyer Pauli Murray wrote a supportive memorandum at the behest of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women. Griffiths also argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs. The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives [...] the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.

Desegregation
One of the bill's opponents' most damaging arguments was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools. The bill's proponents, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said it would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing. Humphrey said, "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race." Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," but two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.

Political repercussions

The bill divided both major American political parties and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of the support for each. President Kennedy realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election". Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s.

Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation, Republican 1964 presidential candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 60 working day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.

Continued resistance
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question [...] is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers". Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process". In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South. When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina, attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre." Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.

Later impact on LGBT rights
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, precluded employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Afterward, USA Today stated that in addition to LGBTQ employment discrimination, "[t]he court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit."

Title I – voting rights

Title I barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. This title did not eliminate literacy tests, which acted as one barrier for black voters, other racial minorities, and poor whites in the South or address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification". It accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but would have to meet standards beyond citizenship. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.

Title II – public accommodations
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; Title II defined "public accommodations" as establishments that serve the public. It exempted private clubs, without defining the term "private", or other establishments not open to the public.

Title III – desegregation of public facilities
Title III prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Title IV – desegregation of public education
Title IV enforced the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

Title V – Commission on Civil Rights
Title V expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules, and procedures.

Title VI – nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs
Title VI prevents discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funds. If a recipient of federal funds is found in violation of Title VI, that recipient may lose its federal funding.

General

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Executive Order

The December 11, 2019, executive order on combating antisemitism states: "While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in antisemitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI." The order specifies that agencies responsible for Title VI enforcement shall "consider" the (non-legally binding) working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016, as well as the IHRA list of Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism, "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent".

Title VII – equal employment opportunity
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of Title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see ). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of their association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage. The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (see Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait if the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To make a BFOQ defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job; the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and that there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.,, 111 S. Ct. 1196). BFOQ is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 97 S. Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a BFOQ (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School – Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Title VII allows any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

 * Federal government; (the proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
 * Federally recognized Native American tribes;
 * Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
 * Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations

The Bennett Amendment is a U.S. labor law provision in Title VII that limits sex discrimination claims regarding pay to the rules in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It says an employer can "differentiate upon the basis of sex" when it compensates employees "if such differentiation is authorized by" the Equal Pay Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs), enforce Title VII (see ). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on employees' behalf. Where a state law contradicts federal law, it is overridden. Every state except Arkansas and Mississippi maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. They must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or they may lose the right to file suit. Title VII applies only to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

Administrative precedents
In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex. In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration. , Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by Attorney General Eric Holder, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DOJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees. The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII.

In October 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew the Holder memorandum. According to a copy of Sessions' directive reviewed by BuzzFeed News, he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se." Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DOJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DOJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is – it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court." But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DOJ in certain cases.

Title VIII – registration and voting statistics
Title VIII required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

Title IX – intervention and removal of cases
Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from U.S. state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.

Title X – Community Relations Service
Title X established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

Title XI – miscellaneous
Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.

In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the law's constitutionality, but did not settle all the legal questions surrounding it.

Lau v. Nichols (1974)
In the 1974 case Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)
In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., a 1971 Supreme Court case about the Act's gender provisions, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless it did the same with potential male employees. A federal court overruled an Ohio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs that required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women but not men to take lunch breaks. In Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, the Supreme Court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women is illegal, ending that practice at the country's newspapers. The United States Civil Service Commission ended the practice of designating federal jobs "women only" or "men only."

TWA v. Hardison (1977)
A landmark United States Supreme Court case on religion and business, holding that employers may fire employees who refuse to work on the seventh-day in observation of a biblical sabbath.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, determined that sexual harassment is considered discrimination based on sex.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, established that discrimination related to non-conformity of gender stereotypical behavior is unallowable under Title VII.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., further ruled that same-sex harassment is discrimination under Title VII.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006)
On June 22, 2006, in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the Supreme Court held that White's reassignment to from forklift operator to less desirable duties as a track laborer as well as her suspension without pay after complaining about workplace sexual harassment constituted retaliatory discrimination. This was a landmark case because it clarified that Title VII’s retaliation provision is not confined to harmful acts occurring at the workplace or are related to employment. Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision prevents actions including a hire, a discharge, a change in compensation, conditions, privileges, opportunities, or status of employment. However, Title VII’s retaliation provision contains no such limiting language. The definition of retaliation against a complainant of sexual harassment was changed to encompass any unfavorable job decision or treatment that might deter a "reasonable worker" from filing a discrimination claim or from supporting one.

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda (2020)
On June 15, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Title VII protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex apply to discrimination against LGBT individuals. In the opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that a business that discriminates against homosexual or transgender individuals is discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Thus discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees is a form of sex discrimination, which is forbidden under Title VII.

Bostock was consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda. Before the Supreme Court's intervention, there was a split in the circuit courts, including these two cases as well as Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital in the Eleventh Circuit.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020)
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that Title VII covers gender identity, including transgender status.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964"—was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]". The Americans with Disabilities Act paralleled its landmark predecessor structurally, drawing upon many of the same titles and statutes. For example, "Title I of the ADA, which bans employment discrimination by private employers on the basis of disability, parallels Title VII of the Act". Similarly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, "which proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, tracks Title II of the 1964 Act while expanding upon the list of public accommodations covered." The Americans with Disabilities Act extended "the principle of nondiscrimination to people with disabilities", an idea unsought in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act also influenced later civil rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, aiding not only African Americans, but also women.

Other civil rights legislation

 * Civil Rights Act of 1866
 * Civil Rights Act of 1871
 * Civil Rights Act of 1991
 * Employment Non-Discrimination Act
 * Equality Act of 2015
 * Enforcement Act of 1870
 * First Enforcement Act of 1871
 * Second Enforcement Act of 1871

title: Civil Rights Act of 1964


text:
Talk:1932 Winter Olympics

Men without brooms
Where are the results for the demonstration curling? Anywhere? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-02-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 22:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1932 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410085042/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410085042/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410085042/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410085042/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410085042/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410085042/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932w.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:1932 Winter Olympics


text:
PVR

PVR may refer to:

Science and biology

 * Plant variety rights, granted to a plant breeder
 * CD155, a protein commonly known as the poliovirus receptor
 * Post-void residual volume, the amount of urine retained in the bladder after a voluntary void
 * Proliferative vitreoretinopathy, an eye disease
 * Pulmonary vascular resistance, a type of resistance that must be overcome to create blood flow
 * Petrol vapour recovery, a type of vapor recovery

Companies

 * Ranger Oil Corporation (formerly Penn Virginia Resources), a mining company
 * PVR INOX (formerly PVR Cinemas), an Indian theatre chain

Other

 * Personal video recorder
 * PVR, the IATA code of Licenciado Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
 * Peak Vehicle Requirement - a concept from transport planning

title: PVR


text:
USS Brooklyn (CL-40)

USS Brooklyn (CL-40) was a light cruiser, the lead ship of her class of nine, and the third United States Navy ship to bear its name. Commissioned in 1937, she served in the Atlantic during World War II, as a convoy escort and as fire support for amphibious landings.

Decommissioned in 1947, she was transferred to the Chilean Navy in 1951, where she served for another 40 years. She sank under tow to a scrapyard in 1992.

Construction and commissioning
She was launched on 30 November 1936 by New York Navy Yard; sponsored by Miss Kathryn Jane Lackey, daughter of Rear admiral F. R. Lackey; and commissioned on 30 September 1937.

Designed and built under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Arms Limitation Treaty and the 1930 London Naval Arms Limitation Treaty, the Brooklyn-class cruiser light cruisers were authorized by Congress in 1933. The treaty restrictions, which limited the size and armament of major warships in an attempt to avoid a naval arms race, meant the light cruiser designs were kept under 10,000 tons and armed with six-inch guns. Built in response to heavily armed light cruisers laid down by the Japanese, the Brooklyn-class warships had five triple six-inch gun turrets, three forward and two aft with turrets II and IV in super-firing (mounted above turrets I and III) position. This was the same layout as the Japanese Mogami-class cruiser warships. The Brooklyn-class was also noticeable for its flush-deck hull, with its high transom and built-in hangar aft.

Inter-war period
Following shakedown training out of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Brooklyn joined the fleet in the Panama Canal Zone during the latter part of 1938. She was assigned to Cruiser Division 8 (CruDiv 8) and attended to routine duties with the fleet until April 1939. In mid-April, she returned to the United States where she participated in the opening of the New York World's Fair on 30 April 1939. On 23 May, Brooklyn was ordered to the scene of the USS Squalus disaster, 6 mi south of the Isles of Shoals, New Hampshire. Until 3 June, she acted as a base ship during the salvage and rescue operations. Brooklyn then steamed to the west coast, where she joined the Pacific Fleet and participated in the opening of the Golden Gate International Exposition on 18 February 1940. She served on the west coast until March 1941, when she departed on a good-will and training tour of the South Pacific. In May, she left Pearl Harbor for the east coast where she joined the Atlantic Squadron. From 1–7 July 1941, she escorted the convoy carrying Marines to Reykjavík, Iceland. During the remainder of 1941, Brooklyn engaged in convoy escort and Neutrality Patrol in the western Atlantic.

World War II
With the entry of the United States into World War II, Brooklyn got underway from Bermuda to patrol the Caribbean Sea. In April 1942, she was assigned convoy escort duty between the United States and the United Kingdom. On 3 September, during one of the trans-Atlantic crossings, the troopship USS Wakefield (AP-21) caught fire and was abandoned. Brooklyn rescued 1,173 troops who had been embarked onboard the troopship. Although severely damaged by the fire, Wakefield was towed to safety and repaired.

On 24 October 1942, Brooklyn departed Norfolk, Virginia, for North Africa. On 8 November, she bombarded shore installations to cover the Fedhala landing of Operation Torch. Unhappily, it was later determined Brooklyn fired upon friendly troops (Seventh Infantry) before the nearby French fort surrendered. French warships then sortied from Casablanca, and Brooklyn and USS Augusta (CA-31) took destroyer FRENCH DESTROYER Milan under fire. During the action, Brooklyn was struck by small caliber fire. Brooklyn also assisted in damaging FRENCH DESTROYER Brestois and may have damaged the light cruiser FRENCH CRUISER Primauguet. Both French warships were later beached or sank from the damage. Unbeknownst to the cruisers' crew, Brooklyn was also attacked by French second-class submarine FRENCH SUBMARINE Amazone, but her torpedoes missed wide of the mark. Later in the day, Brooklyn bombarded French artillery positions near Casablanca. While engaged, she was hit by a dud projectile from a coastal gun, which damaged two of the cruiser's guns and wounded five of her crew.

Following the Naval Battle of Casablanca Brooklyn departed Casablanca for the east coast on 17 November 1942. From January–July 1943, she made three convoy escort voyages between the east coast and Casablanca and then steamed to the Mediterranean where she carried out screening and fire support duties during the invasion of Sicily (10–14 July).

Remaining in the Mediterranean, Brooklyn next covered the Anzio-Nettuno landings (22 January – 9 February 1944), also known as Operation Shingle. From 13 to 23 May, she participated in the bombardment of the Formia-Anzio area and then carried out exercises in preparation for the invasion of southern France. On 15 August, Brooklyn furnished part of the heavy naval gunfire which preceded the landing of Allied troops on the coast of southern France. She remained on duty in the Mediterranean until 21 November, when she departed Sicily for New York, arriving on 30 November.

Comedian Lenny Bruce, who joined the navy at 17, served aboard Brooklyn during the period between 1942 and 1944 as a forward turret shell passer and saw combat in the Mediterranean.

Post-war
From December 1944 to May 1945, Brooklyn underwent extensive overhaul and alteration at New York Navy Yard. From May–September 1945, she exercised along the eastern seaboard and then reported to Philadelphia Navy Yard for her pre-inactivation overhaul. She went in commission in reserve on 30 January 1946 and out of commission in reserve on 3 January 1947.

Chilean Navy
On 9 January 1951, Brooklyn was transferred under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program to Chile, where she was renamed O'Higgins after one of Chile's founding fathers, Bernardo O'Higgins, and she served for 40 years. She was sold for scrap in 1992, but foundered and sank off Pitcairn Island while under tow to shipbreakers in India. One of her turrets is preserved at the Chilean Navy base at Talcahuano.

Awards

 * European–African–Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with four battle stars for World War II service.

title: USS Brooklyn (CL-40)


text:
Mischmetal

Mischmetal  (from Mischmetall – "mixed metal") is an alloy of rare-earth elements. It is also called cerium mischmetal, or rare-earth mischmetal. A typical composition includes approximately 55% cerium, 25% lanthanum, and 15~18% neodymium, with traces of other rare earth metals; it contains 95% lanthanides and 5% iron. Its most common use is in the pyrophoric ferrocerium "flint" ignition device of many lighters and torches, although an alloy of only rare-earth elements would be too soft to give good sparks. For this purpose, it is blended with iron oxide and magnesium oxide to form a harder material known as ferrocerium. In chemical formulae it is commonly abbreviated as Mm, e.g. MmNi5.

History

Carl Auer von Welsbach was the discoverer of neodymium and praseodymium, and co-discoverer of lutetium. He was also the inventor of the gas mantle (using thorium) and of the rare-earth industry. After extracting thorium from monazite sand, many lanthanides remained, for which there was no commercial use. He sought applications for the rare earths. Among his first discoveries/inventions was mischmetal.

Preparation
Historically, mischmetal was prepared from monazite, an anhydrous phosphate of the light lanthanides and thorium. The ore was cracked by reaction at high temperature with either concentrated sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide. Thorium was removed by taking advantage of its weaker basicity relative to the trivalent lanthanides, its daughter radium was precipitated out using entrainment in barium sulfate, and the remaining lanthanides were converted to their chlorides. The resulting "rare-earth chloride" (hexahydrate), sometimes known as "lanthanide chloride", was the major commodity chemical of the rare-earth industry. By careful heating, preferably with ammonium chloride or in an atmosphere of hydrogen chloride, the hexahydrate could be dehydrated to provide the anhydrous chloride. Electrolysis of the molten anhydrous chloride (admixed with other anhydrous halide to improve the melt behavior) led to the formation of molten mischmetal, which would then be cast into ingots. Any samarium content of the ore tended not to be reduced to the metal, but accumulated in the molten halide, from which it could later be profitably isolated. Monazite-derived mischmetal typically was about 48% cerium, 25% lanthanum, 17% neodymium, and 5% praseodymium, with the balance being the other lanthanides. When bastnäsite started being processed for rare-earth content in about 1965, it too was converted to a version of rare-earth chloride and on to mischmetal. This version was higher in lanthanum and lower in neodymium.

, the high demand for neodymium has made it profitable to remove all of the heavier lanthanides and neodymium (and sometimes all of the praseodymium as well) from the natural-abundance lanthanide mixture for separate sale and to include only La-Ce-Pr or La-Ce in the most economical forms of mischmetal. The light lanthanides are so similar in their metallurgical properties, that any application for which the original composition would have been suitable, would be equally well served by these truncated mixtures. The traditional "rare-earth chloride", as a commodity chemical, was also used to extract the individual rare earths by companies that did not wish to process the ores directly. , mischmetal is typically priced at less than 10 USD per kilogram, and the underlying rare-earth chloride mixtures are typically less than US$5/kg.

Use
Mischmetal is used in the preparation of virtually all rare-earth elements. This is because such elements are nearly identical in most chemical processes, meaning that ordinary extraction processes do not distinguish them. Highly specialized processes, such as those developed by Carl Auer von Welsbach, exploit subtle differences in solubility to separate mischmetal into its constituent elements, with each step producing only an incremental change in composition. Such processes later informed Marie Curie in her search for new elements.

Zinc-aluminium galvanising
Traces of a cerium and lanthanum mischmetal are sometimes added to the Galfan galvanising process for steel wire. This is a zinc and 5-10% aluminium coating, with traces of mischmetal.

title: Mischmetal


text:
Talk:Charge at Krojanty

Account
Here is an account of the battle which formed the basis of the "cavalry charge" item.

 * "Both myths are creations of German and even Italian propaganda and are very far from truth. Polish cavalry was active during the campaign and acted as horse mounted infantry. One of the most successful cavalry charges took place at Krojanty, where elements of 18th Uhlans Regiment attacked and destroyed German infantry battalion only to be counterattacked by German armored unit. Uhlans attempted to withdraw and suffered light losses. This event lead to the story of Polish cavalry charges on panzers. Polish Airforce was deployed at numerous airfields and although numerically inferior and partially obsolete was very active during the course of the campaign (e.g. over Warsaw). Polish pilots shot down in combat over 137 enemy planes. Polish cavalry brigades never charged tanks with their sabres or lances as they were equipped with anti-tank weapons such as 37mm Bofors wz.36 (model 1936) anti-tank guns (that could penetrate 26mm armor at 600m at 30 degrees). The cavalry brigades were in the process of being reorganized into motorized brigades." (source: George Parada, Invasion of Poland (Fall Weiss), http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/polcamp.htm) --Uncle Ed 16:47 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PAGE MOVED to Charge at Krojanty, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I think this article should be renamed from Polish war myth to something like Polish-German battles or German war propaganda or Battle of Krojanty. --Uncle Ed 16:47 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Zaloga calls it "Small Skirmish of Krojanty". Moved accordingly. -- Matthead discuß!    O       21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Our naming conventions suggest the use of battles even for such events. Please use WP:RM and feel free to ask for other opinions at WP:MILHIST.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This was not a battle, it was minor action within the Battle of Tuchola Forest. The event is only notable for being blown out of proportion (like the claims that the whole 800 strong German regiment was wiped out). Besides, much of the article is covered at Polish_cavalry. -- Matthead discuß!    O       07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Matt, I did most of the work for you, you only have to list this WP:RM here and we're there.  // Halibutt 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done at Requested_moves. -- Matthead discuß!    O       13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shall we vote now or what? Personally, I'd support Charge at Krojanty, as that name seems to be the second most popular after Battle of Krojanty. OTOH most skirmishes are called battles in wikipedia, regardless of the number of men on both sides. Just take a look at the articles related to American Civil War: there are zillions of battles with less people involved than, pardon my comparison, in an average European bar brawl or wedding fight. Yet, they are called battles.  // Halibutt 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Charge would probably be more descriptive; I think it's an idea worth considering.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So... do people favor Charge at Krojanty for the title of this article? If so, I'm ready to close this request. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Charge.. is an acceptable compromise, though as noted above, "Battle.." is somewhat more wiki-canonical. Keep a redirect from "Battle.." of course. --Ling.Nut 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result: Victory??
I find the article a bit contradictory. How can it be claimed to have resulted in a Polish victory when it is clearly stated that the Polish forces retreared after coming under artilery fire. The Polish contigent may have been able to slow down a German unit for some time but they did not stop or capture the unit, nor did they prevent it from fighting on as part of the September Campaign. Victory during a battle generally means the opposing army was captured, defeated, or at least took heavy losses or sustained major damage - none of which is confirmed by the article. --Nikostar 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like 'inconclusive' would be a better choice. Halibutt?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If the figure of 600 of the ~800 Germans KIA or WIA is correct, then I would define that as heavy losses, especially compared to the 60 Poles KIA/WIA. -- x -Flare- x {{sup|{Talk)}} 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It all depends whether we consider the German AFV fire after the Polish charge a part of the battle or not. Feel free to reword whatever you please as there indeed is something fishy here. Halibutt 14:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From a certain point of view the Poles were "victorious". The task for them was to win time, so other units could retreat before the fast advancing German forces. Actually the attack did not only slow down the Germans. They did not follow the Poles that evening. So Polish Cav. fullfilled their mission. But of course the casualties were so high that it is uncertain if the "success" justified such sacrifices. --Memnon335bc 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the infobox the Polish casualties were 20 killed and 40 wounded and that doesn't sound very high to me compared to the alleged 600 killed or wounded Germans. -- x -Flare- x {{sup|{Talk)}} 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a serious mistake i the table. The whole German Infanterie-Regiment (mot.) 76, which was the German force involved had only one bataillon of about 800 men at Krojanty. The German casualties are actually not recorded and this is the reason, why in the German Wikipedia as well as in the Polski Wikipedia there are no German casualties to find in the table. It is unlikely that the losses were a higher number for the bataillon performed well in the following weeks of the campaign. Probably the German casualties were far lower than the Polish. Also the Polisch losses are given as between 80 and 100 soldiers in the foreign language articles, which seems quite logical as the Germans kept the battlefield after the battle, so they were able to take many prisoners including the wounded. --Memnon335bc 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * User Jinxs changed the German casualties in the table from "unknown" to "unknown, but heavy". What I miss is a source for the statemant that they were "heavy". If there is no source (and so far I never saw any) this has to be changed in the table. --Memnon335bc 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * If they Poles accomplished their strategic goal, and the Germans won the battle, isn't that a "German Victory/Polish Strategic victory", I fail to see indecisiveness in the battle results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.19.122 (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes
There are several mistakes in the article. For example the Germans did not move towards Gdansk. The Poles did not receive machine gun fire after the attack, but during the attack. The German unit (by the way III. Bat. of Infantry-Rgt. 76 (mech.) was also not resting in the woods. Also there were no APC's around, because in 1939 there were only few of them and those were attached to the tank divisions (mostly 3rd Armoured Division). There were actually Armoured Reconnaissance vehicles. Gen. Guderian mentioned Polish Cavalry in his memoires, but it was the 2nd Motorizid Division to the south, which considered a tactical retreat, not the 20th motorized Div. The Polish troops did not retreat to south, but to the North-East. There has never been an Chojnice Operational Group as it is said in the article (far down).

In case someone wants to learn more about this, just let me know. --Memnon335bc 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means, feel free to edit this article and correct the mistakes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * As to O.W. Chojnice, it could be roughly translated as either Separated Unit Chojnice, Independent Unit Chojnice or any similar name. Operational Group, however, is not the best term here indeed.  // Halibutt 13:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Movies
-- Matthead DisOuß   04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * German movie Kampfgeschwader Lützow (1941, imdb) is said to show a re-enacted scene. This Youtube clip shows at around 1:40 how cavalry attacks after hiding behind a hill, and at 2:00 the German armoured recon vehicles arrive, firing with machine guns.-- Matthead Discuß   00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lotna (1959, imdb) by Andrzej Wajda apparently includes such a event, possibly the German footage of 1941. See Youtube vids with opening credits, dead horses (3:20) and a slide show with stills, prancing horse in front of tank (0:31)
 * The Polish Re-enactment group Grupa Rekonstrukcji Historycznej Aufklärungsabteilung 7 der 4. Panzer Division, or simply AA7 on youtube seems to own several WW2-style vehicles, and has re-enacted AA7 vs Polish cavalry Szarży pod Krojantami 2007

 * This should certainly be added to the article. Interesting how such a minor skirmish has nonetheless attracted attention, isn't it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The editwarring of folks who can not contribute anything other than automatic "rv" surely can not be called minor anymore. No >3RR today, sorry. The skirmish itself was, is, and remains minor, in WW2 standards, and even in the standards of the very same day. Only reports published much later blew it up to a "myth". The article needs to trace the propaganda stories better. Also, coverage of the military aspect is needed, with "20.Inf.Div.(mot.) reaches the area northwest Czerkiew and Konitz. Fights with polish 18.Ulan-Rgt. at Krojanty with heavy losses for the enemy. Secured Nowa-Czerkiew and Konitz later on." and . Hey, thats what everybody was looking for. German propaganda machine has been so effective that it still sends aftershocks throughout the Internet more than sixty years after the events. Also, tall tales like "decided to take the enemy by surprise", for example, should be reworded as "overeager commander neglects recon and sends his men into disaster". -- Matthead DisOuß   20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One wonders how this edit without summary would be justified by Molobo? Was the battle not in 1939, or was abolished? -- Matthead Discuß   00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

how about a move
This article should be moved to Battle of Krojanty. Loosmark (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

TK-3
It mentions that the Polish had TKS/TK-3 tankettes, but the page for the TKS says that only one prototype for the TK-3 was ever made 192.197.54.29 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charge at Krojanty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/pimpf/dp10-39.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525155708/http://www.grudziadz.pl/_main_kaw.php?link=4 to http://www.grudziadz.pl/_main_kaw.php?link=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg

"Polish war myth" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Polish war myth. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charge at Krojanty


text:
Pyrophoricity

A substance is pyrophoric (from πυροφόρος, pyrophoros, 'fire-bearing') if it ignites spontaneously in air at or below 54 °C (for gases) or within 5 minutes after coming into contact with air (for liquids and solids). Examples are organolithium compounds and triethylborane. Pyrophoric materials are often water-reactive as well and will ignite when they contact water or humid air. They can be handled safely in atmospheres of argon or (with a few exceptions) nitrogen. Class D fire extinguishers are designated for use in fires involving pyrophoric materials. A related concept is hypergolicity, in which two compounds spontaneously ignite when mixed.

Uses
The creation of sparks from metals is based on the pyrophoricity of small metal particles, and pyrophoric alloys are made for this purpose. Practical applications include the sparking mechanisms in lighters and various toys, using ferrocerium; starting fires without matches, using a firesteel; the flintlock mechanism in firearms; and spark testing ferrous metals.

Handling
Small amounts of pyrophoric liquids are often supplied in a glass bottle with a polytetrafluoroethylene-lined septum. Larger amounts are supplied in metal tanks similar to gas cylinders, designed so a needle can fit through the valve opening. A syringe, carefully dried and flushed of air with an inert gas, is used to extract the liquid from its container.

When working with pyrophoric solids, researchers often employ a sealed glove box flushed with inert gas. Since these specialized glove boxes are expensive and require specialized and frequent maintenance, many pyrophoric solids are sold as solutions, or dispersions in mineral oil or lighter hydrocarbon solvents, so they can be handled in the atmosphere of the laboratory, while still maintaining an oxygen- and moisture-free environment. Mildly pyrophoric solids such as lithium aluminium hydride and sodium hydride can be handled in the air for brief periods of time, but the containers must be flushed with inert gas before the material is returned to the container for storage.

Solids

 * White phosphorus
 * Alkali metals, especially potassium, rubidium, caesium, including the alloy NaK
 * Finely divided metals (iron, aluminium, magnesium, calcium, zirconium, uranium, titanium, tungsten, bismuth, hafnium, thorium, osmium, neodymium)
 * Some metals and alloys in bulk form (cerium, plutonium)
 * Alkylated metal alkoxides or nonmetal halides (diethylethoxyaluminium, dichloro(methyl)silane)
 * Potassium graphite (KC8)
 * Metal hydrides (sodium hydride, lithium aluminium hydride, uranium trihydride)
 * Partially or fully alkylated derivatives of metal and nonmetal hydrides (diethylaluminium hydride, trimethylaluminium, triethylaluminium, butyllithium), with a few exceptions (i.e. dimethylmercury and tetraethyllead)
 * Copper fuel cell catalysts (zinc oxide, aluminium oxide)
 * Grignard reagents (compounds of the form RMgX)
 * Used hydrogenation catalysts such as palladium on carbon or Raney nickel (especially hazardous because of the adsorbed hydrogen)
 * Iron(II) sulfide: often encountered in oil and gas facilities, where corrosion products in steel plant equipment can ignite if exposed to air
 * Lead and carbon powders produced from decomposition of lead citrate
 * Uranium, as shown in the disintegration of depleted uranium penetrator rounds into burning dust upon impact with their targets; in finely divided form it is readily ignitable, and uranium scrap from machining operations is subject to spontaneous ignition
 * Neptunium
 * Several compounds of plutonium are pyrophoric, and they cause some of the most serious fires occurring in United States Department of Energy facilities
 * Petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) sludge

Liquids
Hydrazine is hypergolic with oxidants like dinitrogen tetroxide or hydrogen peroxide, but not truly pyrophoric.
 * Diphosphane
 * Metalorganics of main group metals (e.g. aluminium, gallium, indium, zinc, cadmium, etc.)
 * Triethylborane
 * tert-Butyllithium
 * Diethylzinc
 * Triethylaluminium
 * Linseed oil; rags soaked in linseed oil can self-ignite

Gases

 * Nonmetal hydrides (arsine, phosphine, diborane, germane, silane)
 * Metal carbonyls (dicobalt octacarbonyl, nickel carbonyl)

title: Pyrophoricity


text:
Moon Landrieu

Moon Edwin Landrieu (born Maurice Edwin Landrieu; July 23, 1930 – September 5, 2022) was an American lawyer and politician who served as the 56th mayor of New Orleans from 1970 to 1978. A member of the Democratic Party, he represented New Orleans' Twelfth Ward in the Louisiana House of Representatives from 1960 to 1966, served on the New Orleans City Council as a member at-large from 1966 to 1970, and was the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under U.S. president Jimmy Carter from 1979 to 1981.

Early life and career
Landrieu was born in Uptown New Orleans to Joseph Geoffrey Landrieu and Loretta Bechtel. Bechtel was of French and German descent, with grandparents who came to Louisiana from Alsace and Prussia. Joseph was born in 1892 in Mississippi, the son of Frenchman Victor Firmin Landrieu and Cerentha Mackey, the out-of-wedlock child of a black woman and an unknown father.

Landrieu went to Jesuit High School and received a baseball scholarship to Loyola University New Orleans, where he played college baseball as a pitcher. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in business administration in 1952 and a Juris Doctor in 1954. As an undergraduate, he was elected the student body president at Loyola. In 1954, he joined the United States Army as a second lieutenant and served in the Judge Advocate General's Corps until 1957. Upon completion of army service, he opened a law practice and taught accounting at Loyola.

In the late 1950s, Landrieu became involved in the youth wing of the mayor deLesseps Morrison's Crescent City Democratic Organization. Running on Morrison's ticket, Landrieu was elected by the 12th Ward of New Orleans to the Louisiana House of Representatives in 1960. There he voted against the "hate bills" of the segregationists, which the Louisiana State Legislature passed in the effort to thwart the desegregation of public facilities and public schools.

In 1962, Landrieu ran for New Orleans City Council and lost. In 1966, he was elected councilman-at-large, defeating incumbent Joseph V. DiRosa. In 1969, he led a successful push for a city ordinance outlawing segregation based on race or religion in public accommodations, an issue that had been addressed nationally in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As councilman, Landrieu also voted to remove the Confederate flag from the council chambers and voted to establish a biracial human relations committee. He succeeded with both votes.

Landrieu as mayor
Landrieu was elected the mayor of New Orleans in the election of 1970 to succeed fellow Democrat Victor Schiro. His opponent in the Democratic primary runoff was the Louisiana lieutenant governor, Jimmy Fitzmorris. In the general election, Landrieu defeated Ben C. Toledano. In that contest, Landrieu received support from 99 percent of the black voters.

On May 3, 1970, the day before he took his oath of office as mayor, Landrieu received a death threat by telephone, but authorities quickly caught the culprit. During his tenure as mayor, Landrieu oversaw desegregation of city government and public facilities and encouraged integration within business and professional organizations. Before Landrieu was elected, there were no high-ranking black employees or officials in City Hall; he worked actively to change this by appointing African Americans to top positions, including Terrence R. Duvernay as chief administrative officer, the number two position in the executive branch of city government. (Duvernay went on to become U.S. deputy secretary of housing and urban development under the president, Bill Clinton, in 1993.)

When Landrieu took office in 1970, African Americans made up 19 percent of city employees; by 1978, this number had risen to 43 percent. He also appointed Reverend A. L. Davis to fill a temporary vacancy on the City Council; Davis was the city's first black city councilor. Landrieu also employed an African American assistant: Robert H. Tucker, Jr.

Landrieu obtained federal funds for the revitalization of New Orleans' poor neighborhoods, and he promoted the involvement of minority-owned businesses in the city's economic life. Like his predecessor, Landrieu presided over continued suburban-style growth in the Algiers and New Orleans East districts, with Algiers essentially built-out, having exited its greenfield development stage, by the end of his administration. He advocated the creation of the Downtown Development District to revitalize the New Orleans CBD, and worked to promote the city's tourism industry. His tourism-related projects included the Moon Walk, a riverfront promenade facing the French Quarter, the $163 million Louisiana Superdome, and renovations of the French Market and Jackson Square.

By the midpoint of Schiro's mayoral administration, an accelerating number of building demolitions were approved and other projects were also being contemplated, such as the elevated Claiborne Expressway and Riverfront Expressway segments of I-10. Landrieu authorized the 1972 New Orleans Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Study. Most of that study's recommendations were enacted by Landrieu, including the 1976 establishment of the Historic District Landmarks Commission ("HDLC"), which extended design review and demolition controls for the first time to parts of New Orleans outside the French Quarter.

During 1975–1976, Landrieu served as president of the United States Conference of Mayors. He was reelected in 1974 and served until April 1978. After leaving office, he was succeeded by Dutch Morial, the city's first black mayor. Landrieu was the last white elected mayor of New Orleans until his son, Mitch, was elected in 2010.

After city hall

After leaving office in 1978, Landrieu served as the secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). President Jimmy Carter appointed Landrieu to this post during a major reshuffle in which he reassigned Patricia Harris to replace Joseph A. Califano Jr. at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Carter chose Landrieu for the position in order to draw Catholic Democratic party voters away from Ted Kennedy in the upcoming 1980 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Landrieu was elected to serve as a judge of the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, and he served until his retirement in 2000.

In 2004, Landrieu was inducted into the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame in Winnfield. His personal papers are archived at Loyola University New Orleans and the New Orleans Public Library.

Personal life
"Moon" was a childhood nickname of Landrieu's. He legally changed his first name to "Moon" in 1969 during his first mayoral campaign. In 1954, Landrieu married Verna Satterlee, and they had nine children; among them are former U.S. senator Mary Landrieu, who served from 1997 to 2015, and the former mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu. The family is Catholic.

Landrieu died at home in New Orleans on September 5, 2022, at age 92. The cause of death was heart failure after having a heart attack. His death was confirmed by longtime aide Ryan Berni.

title: Moon Landrieu