Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on particular attributes or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of locations, including recruiting, hiring, task assessments, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to extra categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers generally can not discriminate against employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for people, irreversible homeowners, momentary 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 Rights 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 employment discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government staff members.

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 individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating workers, previous employees, or job candidates 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 connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal business, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some defense from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve discriminatory treatment by the federal government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “cops powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, security and morals. All States need to comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer additional employment protection.

For example, some State civil rights laws offer protection from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established in time.

The Equal Pay Act modified the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers and unions from paying different salaries based on sex. It does not restrict other prejudiced practices in hiring. It provides that where employees perform equivalent work in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under similar working conditions,” they need to be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to most employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon safeguarded attributes concerning terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment firms might not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing membership or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related 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 specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly similar to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A worker is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most 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 “established a policy against age discrimination amongst federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details innovation be available to handicapped employees. [16]

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

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

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate discriminatory barriers versus certified people with impairments, people with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered as having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It likewise requires employers to provide sensible lodgings to staff members who need them because of a disability to request a task, carry out the necessary functions of a task, or delight in the advantages and benefits of employment, unless the employer can show that excessive hardship will result. There are stringent limitations on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or require medical assessments, and all medical information should be dealt with as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially restricts several significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all individuals equivalent rights under the law and lay out 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 employers from utilizing individuals’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promo choices. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 people were patchwork; a number of states and regions explicitly restrict harassment and bias in work choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were protected 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 show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have actually experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have actually lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her boss informed her that her presence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

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

State law

State statutes also offer comprehensive protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as offered by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply higher defense to staff members of the state or of state contractors.

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

In addition,

– District of Columbia – matriculation, individual appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Civil servant

Title VII also uses to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra defenses versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not impact task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]

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

Federal staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are typically permitted to consider characteristics that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement security can match races when essential. For instance, if authorities are running operations that include private informants, or undercover agents, job 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 work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the entertainment industry, particularly in entertainers. [95] This justification is unique to the show business, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage gaps between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should balance privacy and security concerns with the variety of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

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

If a company were trying to prove that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the job securely and effectively or that it is unwise to figure out certifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malevolent intention does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable impact. [97] Employers also bring the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably necessary, and a lower prejudiced alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with people in a different way in their employment because of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from refusing to work with a private based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer certain exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various places, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been supported and others reversed in time.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religious beliefs versus changing the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable employees to look for religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the worker with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for employees to present proof that it is a truly held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly allows discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has dealt with criticism for prohibiting ladies from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the way in which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity 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 limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to safeguard the country they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or job involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits companies from victimizing workers for past or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of women due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no prejudiced intent towards females 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 disparate impact on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they belong to job performance.

The Act needs the removal of synthetic, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with job efficiency, it is restricted, regardless of the company’s absence 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 preventing a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to show necessity; rather, it needs to just reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and imposes 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 Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own regulations that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive 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 role of the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit report systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the 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 original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in 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 initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans workplace bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 initial 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 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 initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the 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 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 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 initial 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 original 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 original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the 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 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 against the engagement in certain 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 original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the 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 hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or 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 work since 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 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial 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 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 initial 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 working with 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 initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare yourself for more US females in combat”. 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 posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During The Second World War|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the 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 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 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.