Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon specific characteristics or “secured categories”. The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, working with, task examinations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers generally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or bad financial obligations, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, long-term citizens, short-lived locals, 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 Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight deal with work discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It also includes an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from breaking an individual’s rights of due procedure and 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 treating staff members, former employees, or task candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that federal government workers have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or home 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 private sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their particular government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a personal service, consisting of civil liberties laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some defense from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only deal with prejudiced treatment by the government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “cops powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, security and morals. All States should adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that offer additional employment defense.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed 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 prohibits companies and unions from paying different incomes based upon sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in employing. It supplies that where workers perform equal work in the corner requiring “equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they should be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to a lot of employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment service might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor companies are likewise forbidden from basing membership or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and associated medical conditions. [4] An associated 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 professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into employment 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 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary help. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable accommodation, and employment Section 508 needs that electronic and info technology be accessible to handicapped workers. [16]

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

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “requires affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam period veterans by federal contractors”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than three workers from victimizing anyone (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of inequitable barriers versus certified people with impairments, individuals with a record of a disability, or people who are considered having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It also requires companies to supply affordable lodgings to workers who need them because of a disability to make an application for a job, carry out the vital functions of a job, or delight in the benefits and privileges of work, unless the company can show that unnecessary challenge will result. There are strict limitations on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical exams, and all medical information must be dealt with as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a mental or employment physical health condition that “considerably limits several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and detail the damages readily 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 employers from utilizing individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, shooting, task placement, employment or promo choices. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition 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 ), employment defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and areas clearly forbid harassment and predisposition in work choices 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 staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to incorporate sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have actually experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have actually lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her employer told her that her existence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal offices. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, even though these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined 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 security as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide greater protection to workers of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists classifications not protected by federal law. Age is included too, given that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – matriculation, individual look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Government workers

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state governments have additional protections against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this as prohibiting 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 staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers can limitations 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), employment they are on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are normally allowed to consider qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when required. For example, if police are running operations that involve personal informants, or undercover agents, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are proportionate to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the home entertainment industry, such as casting for movies and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are allowed to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is distinct to the show business, 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 employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage gaps between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should stabilize personal privacy and safety issues with the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For instance, retail facilities in backwoods can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that manage kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If a company were trying to show 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 perform the job securely and effectively or that it is impractical to identify certifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister motive does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable impact. [97] Employers also carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably necessary, and a lesser inequitable alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their work due to the fact that of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It also includes treating individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from refusing to hire a specific based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, employees are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer specific exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have been upheld and others reversed with time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using faiths against modifying the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers to apply for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are particular 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 Liberty Act of 1964 explicitly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for restricting women from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black males were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, employment that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the country they resided in, they were denied 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 work positions to undertake military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts employers from discriminating against staff members for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of ladies due to the fact that there is a large underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected classification might still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they are related 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 leave out Negroes can not be revealed to be related to task efficiency, it is forbidden, regardless of the employer’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

Height and weight requirements have been determined by the EEOC as having a disparate effect on nationwide origin minorities. [108]

When preventing a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to show necessity; rather, it should simply show that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment 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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination against certified people with disabilities by federal contractors and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own guidelines that use 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 arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based upon citizenship status or national origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap 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 Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the original 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 original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original 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 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 original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 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 initial 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 initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional 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 initial 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 initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans office bias 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 original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial 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 original 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 Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 initial 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; Table of Contents, 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 original 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 original 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 initial (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 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty 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 original 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 original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original 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 discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York City Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original 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 original 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). [permanent 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 initial 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 initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (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 initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease 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 hepatitis 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 employment since of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original 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 initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term 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 initial (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 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 original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Preference 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 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original 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). “Get ready for more US women in fight”. 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 posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army 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 original 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 viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Resulting In the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the original 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.
^ “A Summary 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 Job 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to safeguard 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.