Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon specific qualities or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public workers. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of locations, including recruiting, employing, job examinations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to additional categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies typically can not discriminate versus employees 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 psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible citizens, short-term citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Liberty Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil 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 work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly forbids states from breaking 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 employment practices by dealing with employees, former workers, or task candidates unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense requires that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the personal sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private service, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address inequitable treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “police powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws created to secure public health, security and morals. All States must abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that offer additional employment defense.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws use defense from work 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 actually established with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts companies and unions from paying different salaries based upon sex. It does not prohibit other inequitable practices in employing. It offers that where workers carry out equivalent work in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they ought to be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in lots of more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to the majority of employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon protected qualities relating to terms, conditions, and privileges of work. Employment firms may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also forbidden from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and related 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, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly identical to those laid out in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures employees in companies with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide big 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 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 against age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three staff members from discriminating against anybody (other than an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove discriminatory barriers versus certified people with specials needs, individuals with a record of a disability, or individuals who are regarded as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or psychological disabilities. It also requires employers to offer affordable lodgings to employees who need them due to the fact that of a special needs to get a job, carry out the vital functions of a task, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment, unless the employer can show that excessive hardship will result. There are stringent restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical examinations, and all medical details needs to be treated as confidential. An impairment is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably restricts several major life activities. ” [5]

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from utilizing people’ hereditary information when making hiring, shooting, job placement, or promotion decisions. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not explicitly consist of sexual preference 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 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated 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 ), employment securities for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and localities clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in employment 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) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s determined that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to include 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 experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her boss informed her that her presence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private workplaces. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public work environments. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would invade religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on discriminatory 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 likewise offer substantial protection 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 supply defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide greater security to employees of the state or employment of state specialists.

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

In addition,

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

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect task efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually interpreted this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [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 personal employers deserve to limits workers’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public employees keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal person (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are typically permitted to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide (BFOQ). The most typical 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 guideline is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that police monitoring can match races when required. For example, if authorities are running operations that include personal informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are in proportion 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 enabled to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, specifically in entertainers. [95] This reason is unique to the entertainment industry, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies 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 a company should stabilize personal privacy and safety interest in the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that deal with children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If an employer were trying to show 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 perform the task securely and efficiently or that it is impractical to figure out credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers also carry the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their work because of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their demand for lodging (a change in an office guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise includes treating people in a different way in their work because of their absence of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from refusing to employ a private based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a staff member believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to address this to the supposed transgressor. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have stipulations that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been supported and others reversed with time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using faiths versus modifying the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers to request spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are certain requirements for employees to present proof that it is a best regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has dealt with criticism for forbiding ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method in which black men were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout 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, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to defend the country they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and employment Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or particular types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids employers from victimizing employees for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic diverse treatment of females due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected category might still be illegal if they produce a disparate influence on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they relate to job performance.

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

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

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

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are contained in area 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 wanting to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative solutions by filing an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

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

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) imposes the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which forbids 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]

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons 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 Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the 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 original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the 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 original 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 original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the 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 original 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 work environment bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial 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 original 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 original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the 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 initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352″. Archived from the 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: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the 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 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 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 inequitable 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 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 original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial 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 Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the 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 initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial 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 employment 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment due to the fact that of age of employee 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 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 initial 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 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 original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 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 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 hiring 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 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get prepared for more US ladies 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 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 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 original 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 Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original 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 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original 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 Overview 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to protect older workers. Weak to start with, she specifies that the ADEA has actually 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.