Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon certain characteristics or “protected categories”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the personal sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually become based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, job assessments, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend protection to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers typically can not discriminate against employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or employment affiliation, [8] insolvency or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible citizens, momentary citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly resolve work discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It also includes an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from breaching an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent protection. In the employment context, these would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating workers, former staff members, or job candidates unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security requires that government employees have a fair procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 personal sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a personal company, consisting of civil rights laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some defense from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve inequitable treatment by the federal government, including a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “police powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to secure public health, safety and morals. All States must abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that use additional work security.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws use protection from employment discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor employment Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying different salaries based upon sex. It does not restrict other discriminatory practices in employing. It provides that where workers perform equal work in the corner requiring “equivalent skill, effort, and obligation and performed under comparable working conditions,” they must be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in a lot more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to a lot of employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment service might not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor companies are also forbidden from basing membership or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and related 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 “restricts discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those detailed in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted necessary retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer large pensions). The ADEA includes explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of 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 “developed a policy against age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to disabled staff members. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators against miners who struggle with “black lung disease” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “needs affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam era veterans by federal specialists”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or bad debts. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three staff members from victimizing anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove discriminatory barriers versus certified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or people who are concerned as having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It also requires companies to offer reasonable accommodations to staff members who need them because of an impairment to make an application for a task, carry out the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and opportunities of work, unless the company can show that undue difficulty will result. There are stringent limitations on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical examinations, and all medical information must be dealt with as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and outline the damages available to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

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

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for employment LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and regions clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender staff members were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to encompass 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 actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her employer informed her that her existence might make other people feel uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal work environments. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would intrude on religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise identified that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable protection as offered by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater protection to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists classifications not secured by federal law. Age is included as well, because federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, personal appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government workers

Title VII also uses to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state governments have additional defenses versus work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public workers keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers have the right to limits staff members’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public workers keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a various set of problems for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

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

The only exception to this guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that police monitoring can match races when required. For instance, if cops are running operations that involve private 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 think about race-based policing and work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the show business, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost reason in wage spaces in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must balance privacy and security issues with the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in backwoods can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle children survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.

If a company were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the task safely and effectively or that it is not practical to identify credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious intention does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory result. [97] Employers likewise bring the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly needed, and a lesser prejudiced option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise includes dealing with people in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from refusing to work with an individual based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should resolve this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been upheld and others reversed gradually.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using spiritual beliefs versus modifying the body and preventative medication as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for workers to present evidence that it is a sincerely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly allows discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually dealt with criticism for restricting females from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the way in which black men were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to prove 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 involvement was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to safeguard the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids employers from discriminating versus workers for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of women because there is a large underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim because there was no prejudiced intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a secured classification may still be unlawful if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits work practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they are related to task efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of synthetic, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to task efficiency, it is restricted, regardless of the employer’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When resisting a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not need to demonstrate requirement; rather, it must just show that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative treatments by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which restricts discrimination against certified individuals with specials needs by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own policies that use to its own programs and employment to any entities that receive monetary help. [16]

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

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) workplaces take the role of 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 space in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit report 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 original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial 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 original 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 original 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 initial 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 initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against 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 bans office predisposition versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial 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 original 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 original 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 initial (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 original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial 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 original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial 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 inequitable 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original 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 original (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 Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial 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 companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial 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 initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work since of age of worker 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 initial 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 original (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 initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING 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 initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their working with practices based upon an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original 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 initial 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 original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US ladies in combat”. CNN. Archived from the original 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 Army During The Second World War|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original 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 original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 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 initial 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 initial 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 Job 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 safeguard older employees. Weak to start 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.