Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon particular attributes or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state governments versus 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 Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of locations, consisting of recruiting, hiring, job assessments, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies typically can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or bad debts, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for people, long-term locals, short-term homeowners, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly attend to work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It also contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaching an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, previous staff members, or task applicants unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and employment Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (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 due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a private company, consisting of civil liberties laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some protection from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that control the personal sector are typically Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States should abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States may enact civil rights laws that use extra employment protection.

For instance, some State civil rights laws provide security from work discrimination on the basis of political association, although such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established with time.

The Equal Pay Act amended 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 forbids employers and unions from paying various wages based upon sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in working with. It offers that where employees perform equal work in the corner needing “equal ability, effort, and obligation and performed under comparable working conditions,” they need to be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to many employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon secured attributes concerning terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment companies may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor companies are also forbidden from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on 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 nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in companies with 20 or employment more employees rather than 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer large pensions). The ADEA contains specific guidelines for benefit, 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 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

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

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of insolvency or bad financial obligations. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than three workers from victimizing anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate prejudiced barriers against qualified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered as having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who require them due to the fact that of an impairment to use for a task, perform the necessary functions of a task, or enjoy the advantages and advantages of work, unless the employer can reveal that excessive difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when a company can ask disability-related questions or need medical checkups, and all medical info should be treated as personal. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably limits one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, employment ensure all persons equivalent rights under the law and outline the damages readily available to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; numerous states and regions clearly prohibit harassment and bias in work decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to incorporate 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 type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her manager told her that her presence might make other uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private workplaces. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply substantial security from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable protection as provided 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 offer higher security to employees of the state or of state specialists.

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

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra protections versus work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job 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 consist of gender identity. [92]

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

Federal employees who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should sue in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of problems for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are typically permitted to consider qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide 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 guidelines that police security can match races when necessary. For example, if police are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider 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 television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, employment sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This justification is unique to the home entertainment industry, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage spaces in between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company must stabilize personal privacy and security issues with the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to carry out the task securely and efficiently or that it is not practical to determine certifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower prejudiced option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in an office guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise includes treating people in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from declining to work with an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to resolve this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have clauses that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give particular exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been upheld and others reversed gradually.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing spiritual beliefs against changing the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow employees to apply for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. 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 explicitly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for forbiding ladies from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was amended to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the way in which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans a possibility to show themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their participation was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to protect the nation they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts companies from discriminating against employees for previous or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic diverse treatment of women because there is a vast underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected 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 straight victimize a secured classification might still be unlawful if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, approximate, and unneeded 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 related to task efficiency, it is forbidden, regardless of the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When defending against a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to show requirement; rather, it needs to merely show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and enforces 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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are consisted of 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 imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against certified people with impairments by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

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

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

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 space in the United States
Criticism of credit rating systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights 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 original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the 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 initial 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 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans workplace bias against 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 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 original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty 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 original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, 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 original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the 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 original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the 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 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 liberty 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 initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in particular activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York 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 original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the 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 original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. 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 liver disease 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 because 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 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 [irreversible 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 initial 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 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 initial 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 Liberties 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 an employer 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 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US women in combat”. 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 posted 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 original 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 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 initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement 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 original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the 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 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 stops working to safeguard older workers. Weak to begin with, she specifies that the ADEA has actually been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.