Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on specific qualities or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of locations, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers typically can not discriminate versus workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent residents, momentary locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight resolve employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, previous staff members, or job applicants unequally due to the fact that of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense needs that government workers have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the private sector are typically Constitutional under the “police powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States need to abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that offer extra employment defense.

For instance, some State civil rights laws provide defense from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established gradually.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor referall.us Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying different wages based upon sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in working with. It supplies that where workers perform equivalent operate in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they must be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to a lot of companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor organizations, and work companies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment service might not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also forbidden from basing membership or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and associated 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 “prohibits discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national 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, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects employees in companies with 20 or more employees 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 actually phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation 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 against age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts work discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or bad debts. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three employees from victimizing anybody (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 get rid of inequitable barriers versus certified individuals with impairments, people with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered as having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based on real or perceived physical or psychological impairments. It also requires companies to offer affordable lodgings to workers who need them because of a disability to request a task, carry out the essential functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and benefits of employment, unless the employer can show that unnecessary difficulty will result. There are strict limitations on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical examinations, and all medical details should be treated as confidential. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially limits several significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, ensure all individuals equal rights under the law and describe the damages offered to complainants 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 utilizing individuals’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, task positioning, or promotion decisions. [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 clearly consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is included by the law’s prohibition of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and areas clearly forbid harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender workers were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security 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 actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her boss informed her that her presence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [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 personal work environments. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also provide comprehensive protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as supplied by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater protection to employees of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included too, considering that federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII also applies to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra defenses against employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact task efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has analyzed this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the interpretation would be broadened to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits staff members’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (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 workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are normally allowed to consider qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd 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 shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement monitoring can match races when essential. For example, if cops are running operations that involve personal informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the entertainment industry, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the show business, 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 employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage spaces in between different groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should balance personal privacy and safety worry about the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with kids survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, somalibidders.com there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to carry out the job securely and efficiently or that it is impractical to identify certifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister motive does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers also bring the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lower discriminatory alternative method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their employment since of their faith, their faiths and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise includes treating individuals in a different way in their employment since of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from declining to employ an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a worker believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to address this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have provisions 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 different places, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been promoted and others reversed gradually.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using religions against changing the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit staff members to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present proof that it is a genuinely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for prohibiting females from serving in fight roles. In 2016, however, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to defend the nation 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 people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts employers from victimizing workers for previous or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of women since there is a large underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

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

The Act requires the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with task performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to demonstrate need; rather, it should simply show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes 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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with impairments by federal contractors and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own regulations that use to its own programs and to any entities that get financial help. [16]

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) implements the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay gap 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 original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the 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 initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial 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 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 Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the 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 original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of 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 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, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits office predisposition 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 Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial 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 Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the 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; 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 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 initial 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 original (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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” 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 initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful 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 city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. – New York City 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 original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original 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 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 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 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 Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR 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 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 original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their hiring practices based upon a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US 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 published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original 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 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 initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the original 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.
^ “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 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to safeguard older workers. Weak to start with, she mentions that the ADEA has been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.