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 local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on certain qualities or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually become subject to 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 areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, employment job examinations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers generally can not discriminate against employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or employment mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, momentary residents, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly attend to employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal government employees.

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 warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with workers, former workers, or task applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that federal government employees have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is connected 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 personal sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private company, consisting of civil rights laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some security from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve discriminatory treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the economic sector are generally Constitutional under the “authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to secure public health, security and morals. All States need to comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil liberties laws that offer additional employment defense.

For example, some State civil rights laws provide protection from work discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has 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 various wages based upon sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in working with. It supplies that where workers carry out equal work in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and responsibility and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they must be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to the majority of employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon protected characteristics relating to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment firms may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor companies are likewise forbidden from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and 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 professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those detailed in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects employees in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide big pensions). The ADEA contains specific standards for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion 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 against age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and info innovation be accessible to handicapped employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three workers from discriminating versus anyone (other than an unauthorized 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 versus qualified individuals with specials needs, people with a record of a special needs, or individuals who are considered having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental disabilities. It also requires employers to provide reasonable lodgings to staff members who require them because of a special needs to get a task, perform the essential functions of a job, or delight in the advantages and benefits of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary hardship will result. There are stringent restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical assessments, and all medical details needs to be treated as personal. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “significantly restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and lay out 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’ hereditary information when making hiring, shooting, job placement, or promotion choices. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and localities 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 employment to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were secured 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 type of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her boss told her that her existence might make other people feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private workplaces. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise provide substantial security from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as offered 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 supply higher security to employees of the state or of state .

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is included also, considering that federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, local and other public workers. Employees of federal and state governments have extra protections against employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually translated this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers deserve to limits workers’ speech in specific ways. [93] Public staff members keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (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 staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the proper federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of problems for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are normally enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and employment the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement security can match races when required. For instance, if police 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, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the entertainment market, particularly in entertainers. [95] This reason is unique to the show business, and does not transfer to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage spaces in between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should stabilize personal privacy and safety issues with the number of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For employment circumstances, employment retail establishments in rural areas can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If a company were trying to prove that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for thinking 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 personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the problem to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower prejudiced alternative method does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religion, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a change in a work environment rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are restricted from refusing to work with a private based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a worker thinks that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they should resolve this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, employees are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various areas, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have actually been promoted and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing religions versus changing the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to request religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are particular requirements for employees to present evidence that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for forbiding women from serving in fight functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method which black males were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites provided the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to safeguard the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids employers from discriminating against staff members for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of females since there is a large underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a safeguarded classification may still be prohibited if they produce a diverse effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they are associated to job efficiency.

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be related to task efficiency, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When defending against a diverse impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to show requirement; rather, it should simply show that its practice is sensible. [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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards 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 must exhaust their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

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

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

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment 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 space in the United States
Criticism of credit rating 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 original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the 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 original 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 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 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 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 work”. 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 predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the 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 original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the 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 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 original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “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 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 liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the 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 original 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 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 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 Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [permanent 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 original 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 initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work because of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 [long-term dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the 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 original 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 PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Preference Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original 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 an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based on 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get all set 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 posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces 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 initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the 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 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.
^ “An Overview 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 fails to safeguard 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.