It is true about the statement Jack Carter states about not being discriminatory to minorities and women since that is all they mostly hire. But in today’s day, since the CRA 1991, the process of filing and replying to a discrimination charge still occur depending on what the employee/applicant press charges for. The accuser pressing charges would be an employee or rejected applicant that show that an employment drill, like a test or specified questions has a disparate impact on a particular group. Disparate impact as stated on pg. 25 means, “an employer engages in an employment practice or policy that has a greater adverse impact [effect] on the members of a protected group under Title VII than on other employees, regardless of intent.” An example, is requiring a college degree for a job would have an effect on some if not most minority groups because they can’t provide degrees since they’re from different countries and know little English too. Since the new merger of the CRA 1991, it makes it easier to sue for money damages about intentional discrimination but have to provide that the employer is acting in discrimination to those individuals’ rights. Yes Carter Cleaning is covered by equal rights legislation even though they carry a handful of employees. It is due to the state and local laws are that cover these employers even when not covered by federal legislation. Local governments also spread protections to those not covered by legal legislation such as to the young community and those older than age 40.