Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on particular qualities or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, working with, job evaluations, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend security to extra categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers typically can not discriminate against staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term residents, short-term homeowners, 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight resolve employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government employees.

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 deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equal security. In the employment context, somalibidders.com these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating employees, former staff members, or job candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense needs that civil servant have a reasonable procedural process before they are ended if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or residential or commercial 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 economic sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a personal service, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some security from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the private sector are generally Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States must comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that offer extra work defense.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established gradually.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying different wages based on sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in hiring. It offers that where workers perform equal operate in the corner requiring “equal skill, effort, and duty and performed under similar working conditions,” they must be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in lots of more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and employment companies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment companies may not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor companies are also forbidden from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, 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 “forbids discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost identical to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in companies with 20 or more employees 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 forbade necessary retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer large pensions). The ADEA includes specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning 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 “developed a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial help. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as 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 suffer from “black lung disease” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “requires affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam era veterans by federal professionals”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids work discrimination on the basis of insolvency or bad debts. [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 eliminate inequitable barriers versus certified people with specials needs, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are regarded as having an impairment. It restricts discrimination based on real or perceived physical or psychological impairments. It likewise requires employers to provide affordable lodgings to workers who need them since of a special needs to obtain a job, carry out the essential functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and opportunities of employment, unless the employer can show that unnecessary difficulty will result. There are stringent constraints on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical examinations, and all medical information needs to be treated as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and detail the damages offered to plaintiffs 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 using people’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, job placement, or promo decisions. [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 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual preference 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 employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s prohibition of work 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 defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and localities clearly prohibit harassment and bias in work decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender workers were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to include sexual preference 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 kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her manager informed her that her presence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and personal offices. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise offer extensive protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as supplied 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 provide greater defense to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, given that federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, individual look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Civil servant

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not impact job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public employees retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers deserve to limits employees’ speech in specific ways. [93] Public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (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 workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are generally permitted to think about attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic 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 shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement monitoring can match races when necessary. For circumstances, if cops are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting staff are enabled to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is distinct to the home entertainment market, 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 employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost reason in wage gaps between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer should stabilize privacy and safety concerns with the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural locations can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were trying to prove that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and efficiently or that it is impractical to determine certifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious motive does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable effect. [97] Employers likewise carry the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably essential, and a lower prejudiced option method does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their work since of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a change in a workplace guideline or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also includes treating individuals in a different way in their employment because of their lack of religious belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from refusing to hire an individual based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a worker believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they ought to address this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas 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 organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have been promoted and others reversed in time.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religions against altering the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to make an application for religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the staff member with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for employees to present proof that it is a truly 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 dealt with criticism for prohibiting women from serving in combat functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black males were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to defend the nation they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits employers from discriminating versus workers for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of ladies because there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a safeguarded classification may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they relate to job performance.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be connected to job efficiency, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to show requirement; rather, it should simply show that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates 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 liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit match under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which restricts discrimination against qualified people with specials needs by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own regulations that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get 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 prohibits discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit rating 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 original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 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 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 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 original 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 original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original 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 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 original 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 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 initial 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 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 original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights 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; 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 initial 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 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 original 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 original 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: adremcareers.com 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 initial 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, section 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 original 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 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 versus the engagement in particular activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City 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|”. 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). [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 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 initial 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 liver disease 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 viewed 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 due to the fact that of age of staff member 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 Tabulation”. 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 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 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 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 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 a Bona Fide 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 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 initial 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 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). “Get all set for more US females 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 published 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 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 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial 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 arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR referall.us 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 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 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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to protect older workers. Weak to begin with, she mentions that the ADEA has been eviscerated 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.