Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on specific characteristics or “protected classifications”. The United States Constitution also 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 become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, including recruiting, working with, job evaluations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to extra categories or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies usually can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent homeowners, temporary residents, 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 directly address work discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government workers.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It likewise contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly forbids states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equal defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with staff members, previous staff members, or job candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure security 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 complimentary speech) or home 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 private sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their respective federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a personal business, including civil liberties laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some defense from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only attend to inequitable treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to secure public health, safety and morals. All States should follow the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that use extra employment security.

For example, some State civil rights laws offer protection from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has established over time.

The Equal Pay Act modified 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 restricts employers and unions from paying various earnings based upon sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in hiring. It supplies that where workers carry out equivalent work in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and responsibility and performed under comparable working conditions,” they ought to be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in numerous more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to a lot of companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon secured characteristics relating to terms, conditions, and advantages of work. Employment firms might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are also forbidden from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and referall.us Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA protects workers in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply big pensions). The ADEA contains specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting 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 “developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal professionals with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial help. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or bad financial obligations. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than three employees from discriminating against anybody (other than 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 discriminatory barriers versus certified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or perceived physical or psychological impairments. It likewise needs employers to offer affordable accommodations to employees who require them due to the fact that of a disability to get a task, carry out the necessary functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and advantages of work, somalibidders.com unless the company can show that excessive challenge will result. There are rigorous limitations on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical checkups, 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 “significantly restricts one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all persons equivalent rights under the law and detail the damages offered to complainants 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’ hereditary details when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and regions explicitly forbid harassment and predisposition in employment 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) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to incorporate sexual 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 actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her manager informed her that her presence might make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

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

State law

State statutes also supply extensive defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as provided by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher security to employees of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists classifications not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of too, since federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII also applies to state, federal, local and other public staff members. 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 task efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the interpretation would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers deserve to limits staff members’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public workers retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (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 workers who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which presents a various set of problems for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are normally permitted to consider attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used 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 rules that law enforcement surveillance can match races when required. For circumstances, if authorities are running operations that include personal 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 proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for films and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense reason in wage spaces between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should stabilize privacy and security issues with the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

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

If a company were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for thinking that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and effectively or that it is impractical to determine credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers also carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably necessary, and a lower inequitable option method does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their employment since of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in an office rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also consists of dealing with people differently in their work since of their absence of religious belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from declining to hire a specific based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should address this to the alleged culprit. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to services or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in various places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been maintained and others reversed over time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing religions against modifying the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members to get spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of spiritual beliefs. However, there are certain requirements for workers to present proof that it is a 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 military has dealt with criticism for restricting females from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was modified to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black men were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just enabled to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of people who willingly or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits companies from victimizing staff members for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to impose systemic diverse treatment of women because there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no prejudiced intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected category might still be prohibited if they produce a disparate effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they relate to task efficiency.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be associated with task performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it must simply reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies 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 solutions by filing an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and enforces its own regulations that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial support. [16]

The Office of Special Counsel for adremcareers.com Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) imposes the anti-discrimination arrangements 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) offices play the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit scoring 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 original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the 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 initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the 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 initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of 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 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, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits office 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 original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation 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 original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 liberty Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 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 initial 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 original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 initial 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 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 original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York 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 versus the engagement in certain 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 Rights 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 initial 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 initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or liver disease 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 staff member or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the 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 original (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 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 City Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based upon an Authentic 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 original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (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 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 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.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to secure 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.