Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on specific qualities or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public employees. 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, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, task examinations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers generally can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or bad debts, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible residents, short-term citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight address work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due process of the law. It likewise includes an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from breaking a person’s rights of due process and equal defense. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with staff members, former employees, or job candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense needs that government staff members have a reasonable procedural process before they are ended if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary 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 economic sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal company, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some defense from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the private sector are typically Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to secure public health, safety and morals. All States must follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that use extra employment defense.

For instance, some State civil rights laws use security from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed in time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts companies and unions from paying different incomes based on sex. It does not prohibit other inequitable practices in employing. It provides that where workers perform equal work in the corner requiring “equal ability, effort, and duty and performed under similar working conditions,” they ought to be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of companies engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon secured qualities relating to terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment firms might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are also forbidden from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination consists of discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, 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 “restricts discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA protects employees in firms with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. An employee is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most discussion 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 among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and info technology be available to handicapped workers. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three staff members from discriminating versus 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 get rid of prejudiced barriers against certified individuals with specials needs, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are related to as having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or psychological impairments. It also requires companies to provide sensible accommodations to staff members who need them due to the fact that of an impairment to request a job, carry out the important functions of a task, or enjoy the benefits and advantages of work, unless the employer can show that undue difficulty will result. There are stringent restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical evaluations, and all medical info must be treated as personal. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, make sure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages available to complainants 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 people’ hereditary details when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promo decisions. [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 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 Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT people were patchwork; numerous states and regions clearly prohibit harassment and bias in work choices 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 identified that transgender workers were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection 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 experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her boss told her that her presence might make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

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

State law

State statutes likewise supply substantial defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable protection as offered by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer higher protection to staff members of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included too, since federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

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

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

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies have the right to limits staff members’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public workers maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal workers who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should sue in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are normally enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd 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 rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when needed. For example, if cops are running operations that include confidential informants, or undercover agents, sending out 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 proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for films and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted 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 industry, particularly in performers. [95] This validation is unique to the entertainment industry, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment . BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage spaces in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company should balance privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For instance, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict 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 abuse is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to carry out the job safely and effectively or that it is impractical to identify credentials on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers likewise carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their work because of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment since of their absence of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to employ a specific based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they ought to address this to the alleged culprit. On the other hand, workers 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 provisions that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been promoted and others reversed in time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using religious beliefs versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers to use for religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present proof that it is a seriously held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has actually dealt with criticism for prohibiting women from serving in combat functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the way in which black guys were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, somalibidders.com throughout that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts companies from discriminating against workers for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of women since there is a huge underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim because there was no prejudiced intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a secured category may still be illegal if they produce a disparate influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they relate to job performance.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be related to task performance, it is restricted, regardless of the employer’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to show need; rather, it needs to simply reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

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

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own policies that apply 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 arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit history systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original 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 initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the 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 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 initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the 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 bans work environment bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual 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 original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty 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 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the 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 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 original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the original 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 original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights 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 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 original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the 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 discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific 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 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). [permanent 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 original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: 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 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 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 original 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 [permanent 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 initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451″. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York City 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 initial 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 a company to discriminate in their working with 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 initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get ready for more US females in fight”. CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the 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 Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older employees. Weak to start 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.