Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, employment federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on specific qualities or “protected categories”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually become based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, employing, task evaluations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend security to additional classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies usually can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly address work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal government staff members.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It also consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaking an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent protection. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with staff members, former employees, or employment job applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that federal government employees have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a personal company, employment consisting of civil rights laws, originates from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just deal with 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 economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, security and morals. All States need to stick to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil liberties laws that provide additional employment protection.

For example, some State civil liberties laws provide security from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed 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 prohibits companies and unions from paying different earnings based on sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in working with. It provides that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they must be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and work agencies. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon protected attributes regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of work. Employment service might not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, 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 “prohibits discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects employees in firms with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A worker is protected from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA includes specific standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [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 work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary help. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and employment Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three employees from victimizing anyone (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers versus certified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or people who are considered as having a special needs. It restricts discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental disabilities. It likewise requires companies to supply affordable accommodations to workers who need them due to the fact that of a special needs to use for a task, carry out the important functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and advantages of employment, unless the employer can reveal that undue difficulty will result. There are rigorous limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical checkups, and all medical details must be dealt with as personal. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably limits several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and outline the damages offered 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 people’ genetic details 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] Since June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not clearly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and regions clearly forbid harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to include 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 form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their task, employment consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her employer told her that her existence may make other people feel unpleasant. [26]

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

State law

State statutes also supply substantial security from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as provided by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater protection to staff members of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is included too, because federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government staff members

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional securities versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually translated this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the interpretation would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers can limitations employees’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public employees keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private citizen (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of problems for complainants.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational credentials

Employers are generally permitted to consider attributes that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when essential. For example, if authorities are running operations that include 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 think about race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the home entertainment market, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the home entertainment industry, particularly in entertainers. [95] This validation is unique to the entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense reason in wage spaces in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should stabilize privacy and safety worry about the number of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

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

If a company were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task safely and effectively or that it is impractical to figure out qualifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable impact. [97] Employers likewise carry the concern to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower prejudiced option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with people in a different way in their work since of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from refusing to hire a specific based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member thinks that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they must address this to the alleged culprit. On the other hand, workers 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 stipulations that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different areas, employment depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been supported and others reversed over time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing spiritual beliefs against altering the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the staff member with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a best regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually dealt with criticism for forbiding females from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the country they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts employers from discriminating against staff members for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to enforce systemic diverse treatment of females since there is a vast underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a protected category may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to task efficiency.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with job performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to demonstrate necessity; rather, it must merely reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and imposes 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 developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of 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 wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative treatments by filing an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and implements its own policies that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary help. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against 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 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 initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the 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 original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original 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 versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans workplace bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial 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 initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the 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 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 original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original 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 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 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). [long-term 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 original 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 initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of 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 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 viewed HIV or hepatitis 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 since of age of worker or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the 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 Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York 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 initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial 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 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 original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original 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 fight”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the 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 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 original 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 initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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 secure 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.