Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on specific attributes or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of locations, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers typically can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for people, permanent residents, short-lived citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Liberty Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight resolve work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It likewise includes an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and employment equal protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with employees, previous employees, or task candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense needs that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private organization, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some protection from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only deal with prejudiced treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the “police powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States need to abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that provide additional employment security.

For instance, some State civil rights laws offer security from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually established gradually.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids employers and unions from paying different earnings based on sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in hiring. It offers that where workers perform equal work in the corner requiring “equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions,” they must be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment service may not discriminate when employing or referring applicants, and labor companies are likewise forbidden from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and associated medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those laid out in Title VII, except that the ADEA protects employees in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “maximum ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary help. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology be accessible to disabled employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 prohibits discrimination by mine operators against miners who experience “black lung illness” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “needs affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam age veterans by federal contractors”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts work discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than three staff members from discriminating versus anyone (except an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers versus certified people with disabilities, people with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered having a disability. It restricts discrimination based on genuine or perceived physical or psychological disabilities. It likewise needs companies to provide reasonable accommodations to workers who need them because of a disability to apply for a task, carry out the important functions of a job, or delight in the benefits and benefits of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary hardship will result. There are stringent constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical exams, employment and all medical info should be dealt with as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and detail the damages available to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not clearly consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and areas clearly prohibit harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or employment gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to include sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her boss told her that her presence might make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private workplaces. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also identified that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise provide comprehensive security from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as offered by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer higher defense to employees of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of too, given that federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]

Government employees

Title VII also uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers can limitations workers’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public employees retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal workers who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are typically enabled to consider qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is shown in a single case, employment Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police security can match races when necessary. For example, if police are running operations that include personal informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and employment hire officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is unique to the home entertainment market, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must stabilize personal privacy and security concerns with the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in backwoods can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that handle kids survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If a company were trying to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to carry out the job securely and efficiently or that it is not practical to figure out certifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers also carry the concern to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably essential, and a lesser prejudiced option method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in an office rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their work since of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from declining to work with an individual based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they ought to address this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, employees are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to businesses or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been supported and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing spiritual beliefs versus changing the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to make an application for religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for staff members to present proof that it is a seriously held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has actually faced criticism for restricting ladies from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the way in which black men were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts employers from victimizing employees for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of ladies since there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a protected category might still be prohibited if they produce a diverse influence on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits work practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they belong to task efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that runs to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be related to task efficiency, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

Height and weight requirements have been identified by the EEOC as having a diverse impact on nationwide origin minorities. [108]

When protecting against a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it should merely reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and enforces the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination against qualified people with impairments by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and implements its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial support. [16]

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which forbids discrimination based upon citizenship status or national origin. [115]

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) offices play the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
space in the United States
Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits work environment predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08”. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment because of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [irreversible dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York City Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based on a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US ladies in combat”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to protect older employees. Weak to begin with, she mentions that the ADEA has actually been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.