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, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain attributes or “secured categories”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids 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 become based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, working with, job examinations, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers normally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, job consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for people, long-term locals, temporary locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly address employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually 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 property”, without due process of the law. It also consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaking an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with staff members, previous staff members, or job candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that government employees have a reasonable procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (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 due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a private business, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some security from public and personal employment discrimination, job such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve inequitable treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the economic sector are generally 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 must abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that use extra work defense.

For job example, some State civil rights laws use defense from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts companies and unions from paying different incomes based upon sex. It does not restrict other prejudiced practices in employing. It provides that where employees carry out equal work in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and duty and carried out under similar working conditions,” they must be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes concerning terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise forbidden from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and associated 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, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards workers in companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is protected from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited mandatory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer big pensions). The ADEA includes specific standards for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most 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 among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to disabled workers. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts employers with more than three staff members from discriminating against anyone (except an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove inequitable barriers against certified people with specials needs, individuals with a record of a disability, or people who are considered having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It also requires companies to offer affordable lodgings to staff members who need them since of a disability to look for a job, perform the essential functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and privileges of employment, unless the employer can reveal that undue hardship will result. There are rigorous limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical details must be treated as private. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably restricts one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and describe the damages available 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 employers from utilizing individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promotion decisions. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of 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 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT people were patchwork; numerous states and localities explicitly restrict harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her manager told her that her presence may make other individuals feel uneasy. [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 work environments. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe 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 complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise supply extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar security as offered by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply greater protection to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists classifications not protected by federal law. Age is included also, since federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

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

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

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits staff members’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public staff members keep 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 job. [93]

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

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational certifications

Employers are generally allowed to consider qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when needed. For example, if police are running operations that involve personal informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are in proportion to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, particularly in entertainers. [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 work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense reason in wage spaces between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company must balance personal privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural areas can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that deal with kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to prove that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to perform the job securely and effectively or that it is not practical to identify credentials on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious intention does not convert a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers also bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably necessary, and a lower prejudiced alternative approach 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 religious beliefs and practices. It likewise includes treating individuals differently in their work since of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to work with an individual based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If an employee thinks that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to resolve this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give particular exemptions in these laws to businesses or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed with time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing religious beliefs against changing the body and preventative medication as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to get religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are certain requirements for staff members 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 clearly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually dealt with criticism for restricting ladies from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black guys were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the country they lived in, they were rejected 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 work positions to carry out military service or specific types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts employers from discriminating versus employees for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of women due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a safeguarded classification might still be prohibited if they produce a diverse influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they are associated to job performance.

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, an employment practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to job performance, it is forbidden, regardless of the company’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When safeguarding against a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to simply reveal that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA should exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination versus certified individuals with specials needs by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own policies 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 national origin. [115]

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

See also

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

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the 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 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 original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the 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 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 deliberate 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 original 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits 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 original 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 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 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 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 initial 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 initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original 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.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty 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 original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful inequitable 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City 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 initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. 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 initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the 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 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 hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work because of age of staff member 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 [irreversible dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the 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 initial 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 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 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 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). “Get ready for more US women in combat”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During The Second World War|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original 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 original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment 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 fails to secure older workers. Weak to start with, she states 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.