Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon particular qualities or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of locations, including recruiting, employing, task assessments, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend protection to additional classifications or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers generally can not discriminate against employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible citizens, short-term 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 straight address employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due process of the law. It likewise includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating a person’s rights of due procedure 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 dealing with employees, former staff members, or task applicants unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the personal sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a private business, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some security from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only attend to prejudiced treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to protect public health, security and morals. All States need to stick to the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that offer additional employment security.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually established in time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts companies and unions from paying different salaries based upon sex. It does not prohibit other inequitable practices in employing. It offers that where workers carry out equal operate in the corner requiring “equivalent ability, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,” they need to be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in numerous more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes regarding terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, 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 employment 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 “forbids discrimination by federal contractors 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, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly similar to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 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 forbade compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer large pensions). The ADEA includes specific guidelines for advantage, pension and employment retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many 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 “developed a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal contractors”. [15]

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

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three workers from discriminating against anyone (other than an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove discriminatory barriers versus qualified people with impairments, people with a record of a disability, or people who are regarded as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It also needs employers to provide reasonable lodgings to workers who need them because of an impairment to obtain a task, perform the necessary functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and opportunities of employment, unless the employer can show that unnecessary difficulty will result. There are strict constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical checkups, and all medical information needs to be treated as personal. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially limits several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all individuals equal rights under the law and describe the damages readily available to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using people’ hereditary information when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promo 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 clearly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s restriction 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and regions explicitly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to encompass sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her manager told her that her presence might 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 few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would intrude on religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise identified that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply comprehensive defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as offered by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply greater defense to staff members of the state or of state professionals.

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

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, regional and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional securities versus work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers deserve to limits staff members’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public employees maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal person (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, employment such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which postures a various set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are usually enabled to consider attributes that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd 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 rules that law enforcement security can match races when essential. For example, if police are running operations that include confidential informants, or employment undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the entertainment industry, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are allowed to cast characters based upon physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This validation is distinct to the show business, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage gaps in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should stabilize personal privacy and security interest in the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to perform the task securely and effectively or that it is impractical to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister intention does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers likewise carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lower prejudiced option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a change in an office guideline or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also consists of treating people in a different way in their employment since of their absence of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from refusing to employ an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should resolve this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting task 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 organizations or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various locations, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been supported and others reversed in time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing faiths against altering the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for workers to present evidence that it is an all the best 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 military has actually faced criticism for restricting women from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the way in which black males were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic website 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 functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to defend the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts employers from victimizing employees for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of females since there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no inequitable intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a safeguarded category might still be prohibited if they produce a disparate influence on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they are associated to task efficiency.

The Act needs the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with task efficiency, it is restricted, regardless of the company’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When defending versus a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to simply reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

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 developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and standards are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit match under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative treatments by filing an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own guidelines that use to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary assistance. [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 restricts discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment 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 space in the United States
Criticism of credit history 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 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 initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the 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 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 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 original 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 initial 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 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 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans work environment 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 initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial 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 original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial 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 original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 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 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 original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the 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 inequitable 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 original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York 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 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 Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. 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 original 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 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 initial 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 initial 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: with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or 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 work due to the fact that of age of employee 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 Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the 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 original 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 employing practices based on an Authentic 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 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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). “Get all set for more US ladies in battle”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the 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 original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Resulting In the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial 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 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.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older workers. Weak to start with, she mentions that the ADEA has actually been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.