Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on specific characteristics or “protected categories”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has become 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 variety of locations, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to extra categories or employment employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies usually can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, employment including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term locals, momentary locals, 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 address work discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to safeguard 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 a specific requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly forbids states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating employees, former workers, or task candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or employment home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (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 provide their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a private organization, consisting of civil rights laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some security from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve prejudiced treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that regulate the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States should follow the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that use additional employment protection.

For instance, some State civil rights laws provide security from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established in time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids companies and unions from paying various salaries based upon sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in employing. It offers that where employees carry out equivalent work in the corner needing “equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions,” they should be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in many more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to many employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and work agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon secured characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and opportunities of employment. Employment companies might not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise prohibited from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, 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 “forbids discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [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 prohibited practices are nearly identical to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures employees in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer big pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit guidelines for benefit, 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 “maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956″ by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy against age discrimination amongst federal professionals”. [15]

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

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators versus miners who suffer from “black lung disease” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids work discrimination on the basis of insolvency or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than 3 workers from discriminating versus anyone (except an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate prejudiced barriers versus certified individuals with specials needs, people with a record of a special needs, or who are considered as having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It also needs employers to provide sensible accommodations to employees who need them because of a special needs to request a task, carry out the vital functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and opportunities of employment, unless the company can reveal that undue hardship will result. There are rigorous limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical details must be treated as private. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “significantly limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, changed in 1993, make sure all persons equal rights under the law and lay out 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 companies from utilizing individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, job positioning, or promo 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 explicitly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to encompass sexual preference 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 experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims 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 prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal work environments. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also recognized that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included also, given that federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra securities against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits 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 analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public employees keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies deserve to limitations staff members’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public workers retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private resident (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the proper federal jurisdiction, which poses a different set of issues for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are typically permitted to think about qualities that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when essential. For example, if police are running operations that include confidential informants, or undercover representatives, sending out 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 proportionate to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are allowed to cast characters based upon physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This reason 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 work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage spaces between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer needs to balance personal privacy and safety concerns with the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a reason unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For instance, employment retail establishments in rural areas can not forbid African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with kids survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.

If a company were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job safely and effectively or that it is impractical to determine credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious intention does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable impact. [97] Employers also bring the problem to show that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lesser prejudiced alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their religion, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a modification in a work environment rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise includes treating individuals in a different way in their employment since of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from declining to work with an individual based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If an employee thinks that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they ought to resolve this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer certain exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been supported and others reversed gradually.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using religious beliefs against changing the body and preventative medication as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to get spiritual exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are certain requirements for employees to present evidence that it is a regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has faced criticism for prohibiting ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method in which black males were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just enabled to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard 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 types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits employers from discriminating versus staff members for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of women because there is a large underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a protected category may still be illegal if they produce a disparate influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they are related to job performance.

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that runs to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be related to job efficiency, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the company’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When resisting a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it must simply show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and implements 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 arrangements are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative remedies by filing an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals 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 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 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 original 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 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 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 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 initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work”. 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 initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans workplace 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 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 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 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 original 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 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 original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6″. Archived from the 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 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 original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial 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 original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the 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 original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 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 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 initial 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 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 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 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 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 work because of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the 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 Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York 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 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 a company to discriminate in their employing practices based on an Authentic 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 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 females in battle”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During The Second World War|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and 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 original 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 initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the 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 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 safeguard older workers. 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.