Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon certain characteristics or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, working with, task examinations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to additional categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers usually can not discriminate against workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible citizens, short-lived locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight deal with work discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal government staff members.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaking an individual’s rights of due procedure and equal security. 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 employees, 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 federal government staff members have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation 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 private sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a personal company, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some protection from public and personal employment 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 an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to secure public health, safety and morals. All States need to abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that provide additional employment protection.

For example, some State civil liberties laws use defense 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 actually established gradually.

The Equal Pay Act amended 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 prohibits employers and unions from paying various wages based upon sex. It does not restrict other prejudiced practices in employing. It supplies that where workers perform equivalent operate in the corner requiring “equivalent ability, effort, and responsibility and performed under comparable working conditions,” they must be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and work agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon secured characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment firms may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination consists of discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards workers in companies with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade necessary retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer big pensions). The ADEA includes explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and 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 employment in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy against age discrimination amongst federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary help. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled workers. [16]

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

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

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers versus qualified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered having an impairment. It restricts discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or mental impairments. It also requires employers to supply sensible lodgings to employees who require them since of an impairment to make an application for a task, perform the important functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and benefits of work, unless the employer can show that undue difficulty will result. There are strict limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or require medical assessments, and all medical info must be dealt with as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably limits 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 outline 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 utilizing individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, shooting, job positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [upgrade], 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 employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and areas explicitly restrict harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to incorporate sexual orientation 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 actually experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her employer told her that her presence may make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal workplaces. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade spiritual liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have also recognized that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply substantial defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer higher defense to staff members of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, given that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as restricting 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 personal employers can limits staff members’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public workers keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (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, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which postures a various set of problems for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are typically allowed to think about attributes that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is shown in a single case, somalibidders.com Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement surveillance can match races when needed. For example, if police are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, referall.us can consider race-based policing and employ officers that are in proportion to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the home entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This validation is unique to the entertainment industry, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage gaps in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer needs to balance privacy and safety concerns with the number of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in backwoods can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that handle children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the task safely and effectively or that it is unwise to identify qualifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers also carry the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably necessary, and a lesser discriminatory option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their faith, their religions and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a change in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with individuals in a different way in their work because of their absence of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from refusing to employ an individual based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they should address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer particular exemptions in these laws to organizations or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been supported and others reversed gradually.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using faiths versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to request religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present proof that it is a regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has faced criticism for forbiding ladies from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the way in which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to defend the nation they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of people who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids employers from victimizing employees for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic diverse treatment of women because there is a vast underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

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

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When resisting a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not need to show necessity; rather, it should simply reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements 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 established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own regulations that use to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial support. [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 restricts discrimination based upon citizenship status or national origin. [115]

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

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap 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 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 initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits workplace predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference 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 initial 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 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 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 initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the 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 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 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 initial 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 original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York 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 specific activities. – New York City 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 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 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 original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the 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 initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or liver disease 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 employment since 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [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 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 TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the 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 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 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 working with 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 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get prepared 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 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 initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original 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 original 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 initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to protect older workers. Weak to begin with, she specifies that the ADEA has 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.