Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon specific attributes or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, task assessments, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend security to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers typically can not discriminate against staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term locals, momentary homeowners, 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 attend to employment discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to safeguard federal government employees.

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 deny individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaching a person’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. 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 employees, previous workers, or job candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that federal government workers have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a private business, consisting of civil liberties laws, comes from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some defense from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only address inequitable treatment by the federal government, including a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the personal sector are usually Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to protect public health, security and morals. All States must comply with the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer extra employment protection.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws use security from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment has established gradually.

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 prohibits employers and unions from paying different salaries based upon sex. It does not forbid other discriminatory practices in working with. It provides that where employees carry out equal work in the corner needing “equal ability, effort, and duty and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they must be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in numerous more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes relating to terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment service might not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise prohibited from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes 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 “forbids discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly similar to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is protected from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted necessary retirement, other than for employment high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA contains specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy against age discrimination amongst federal professionals”. [15]

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

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits employment 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 national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of prejudiced barriers against qualified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered as having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based on real or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It also needs companies to supply affordable accommodations to staff members who need them since of a disability to get a job, perform the necessary functions of a job, or delight in the advantages and advantages of work, unless the company can show that excessive difficulty will result. There are stringent limitations on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical checkups, and all medical information must be dealt with as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably limits several major life activities. ” [5]

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using people’ hereditary details when making hiring, shooting, task placement, or promotion choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly include 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 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition 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; several states and localities explicitly restrict harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security 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 kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her boss informed her that her presence may make other individuals 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 people in both public and private work environments. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise offer comprehensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar security as provided 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 defense to staff members of the state or of state professionals.

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

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional securities against employment discrimination.

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

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies can limitations staff members’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public staff members maintain 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 workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a different set of problems for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are usually permitted to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police monitoring can match races when necessary. For example, if authorities 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, police 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 use in the entertainment market, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the home entertainment market, specifically in performers. [95] This validation is special to the home entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer needs to stabilize personal privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in backwoods can not forbid African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and efficiently or that it is not practical to identify qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious intention does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers also carry the problem to show that a BFOQ is fairly necessary, and a lesser inequitable option method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their work due to the fact that of their faith, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with people in a different way in their work because of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from declining to work with a specific based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have clauses that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer certain exemptions in these laws to services or employment institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been upheld and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religious beliefs versus altering the body and preventative medication as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow employees to use for religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the worker with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a sincerely 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 dealt with criticism for prohibiting females from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was modified to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black men were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout 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, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the job rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts companies from victimizing workers for previous or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of women due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually 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 victimize a secured category might still be illegal if they produce a disparate influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they belong to job efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of artificial, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, employment as here, a work practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be related to task efficiency, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to show requirement; rather, it needs to just reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and imposes 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 established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative treatments by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own guidelines that use to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary assistance. [16]

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

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

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit history systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the 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 initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original 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 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 original 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 intentional discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against 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 prohibits work environment bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the 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 initial 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 original 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 original (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 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 initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 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 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 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, section 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the 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 original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York City 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 original 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 Rights 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 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial 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 work since 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 Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the 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 initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the 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 Rights 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 on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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 original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get ready for more US females 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 Army During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing 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 JOB 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 original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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 secure older workers. Weak to begin 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.