Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the typical law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, task assessments, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to additional categories or job employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers usually can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or bad debts, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible locals, momentary homeowners, refugees, job and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight attend to employment discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal government staff members.

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 an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with staff members, previous workers, or job applicants unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure security requires 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 free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision 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 due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a personal company, consisting of civil rights laws, originates from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to prejudiced treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that regulate the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, security and morals. All States must comply with the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States might enact civil rights laws that use extra work defense.

For example, some State civil rights laws offer defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political association, even though 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 amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying different incomes based upon sex. It does not restrict other discriminatory practices in hiring. It supplies that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner requiring “equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under comparable working conditions,” they ought to be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to the majority of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities relating to terms, conditions, job and opportunities of work. Employment service may not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also restricted from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful 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 specialists”. [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 prohibited practices are nearly similar to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures workers in firms with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion 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 “developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary help. [16] It needs affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to disabled staff members. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than 3 staff members from victimizing anybody (except an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of prejudiced barriers versus qualified individuals with impairments, people with a record of a disability, or people who are considered having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or psychological disabilities. It also requires employers to supply sensible accommodations to employees who need them because of a disability to look for a job, perform the vital functions of a task, or enjoy the advantages and opportunities of work, unless the employer can show that excessive hardship will result. There are strict restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical checkups, and all medical information needs to be treated as private. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, changed in 1993, guarantee all individuals equivalent rights under the law and detail 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 using individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promotion choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not clearly 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 orientation 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and regions clearly restrict harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [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 staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her employer informed her that her existence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private work environments. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply extensive defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as supplied 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 defense to employees of the state or of state contractors.

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

In addition,

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

Title VII also applies to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional securities against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually translated this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be broadened to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers have the right to limits employees’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public employees retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal resident (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which postures a various set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational credentials

Employers are typically allowed to consider attributes that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical 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 guidelines that law enforcement security can match races when necessary. For circumstances, if cops are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, 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 neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for films and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the home entertainment market, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is distinct to the entertainment market, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies 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 employees. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to stabilize privacy and security concerns with the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For instance, retail facilities in rural areas can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If a company were trying to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to carry out the job securely and efficiently or that it is impractical to identify certifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory result. [97] Employers also carry the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably essential, and a lower prejudiced alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment since of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals differently in their work since of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from declining to work with a specific based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If an employee believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they ought to address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer specific exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been maintained and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and job prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using religions against changing the body and preventative medication as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members to look for religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the worker with employment 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 explicitly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for prohibiting females from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method in which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers joined 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 safeguard the nation they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits employers from discriminating versus employees for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic diverse treatment of females since there is a huge underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no prejudiced intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a safeguarded classification may still be prohibited if they produce a diverse effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be connected to task efficiency, it is restricted, notwithstanding the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When resisting a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, however, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it must just show that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

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

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own guidelines that use to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary assistance. [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 forbids discrimination based upon citizenship status or national origin. [115]

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

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work 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 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 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 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 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 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 initial 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, says 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 predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the 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 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 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 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 original (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 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 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 initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil 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 initial 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 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 discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York City 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 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. 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 initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the 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 initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment because 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 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 original (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 initial 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 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 Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based on a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, job 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). “Prepare for more US ladies 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 Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. 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 Employment (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL 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 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 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 Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to safeguard older 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.