Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on specific characteristics or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, job assessments, promo 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 versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for people, irreversible homeowners, temporary 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 Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

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

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating a person’s rights of due procedure and equal security. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally due to the fact that of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection requires that government workers have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the personal sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal service, including civil liberties laws, stems from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some protection from public and personal work discrimination, employment such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve inequitable treatment by the government, including a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the personal sector are normally Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that use additional work defense.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws provide protection 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 discrimination has actually developed with 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 employers and unions from paying different salaries based upon sex. It does not restrict other prejudiced practices in working with. It provides that where workers carry out equal operate in the corner needing “equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility and carried out under similar working conditions,” they should be supplied equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and work companies. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities relating to terms, employment conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment firms may not discriminate when employing or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal 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 “prohibits discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs 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 prohibited practices are almost identical to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “maximum ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “developed a policy against age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary help. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible lodging, and Section 508 requires 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 struggle with “black lung illness” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “needs affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam age veterans by federal contractors”. [14]

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than 3 workers from victimizing anyone (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 remove inequitable barriers versus qualified people with impairments, people with a record of a special needs, or people who are considered as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or perceived physical or mental specials needs. It also requires companies to offer affordable lodgings to staff members who require them due to the fact that of a disability to use for a task, perform the vital functions of a task, or take pleasure in the advantages and privileges of work, unless the employer can reveal that undue difficulty will result. There are strict restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical checkups, and all medical information needs to be treated as confidential. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, changed in 1993, ensure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and detail the damages 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 employers from utilizing people’ hereditary information when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promo choices. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and regions explicitly restrict harassment and predisposition 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to include 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 experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her manager informed her that her existence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private workplaces. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would intrude on religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise identified that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply substantial protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as offered 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 secured by federal law. Age is included as well, because federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state governments have extra securities versus work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public workers retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies can limitations employees’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public employees retain 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 issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are typically permitted to consider attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational credentials (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 guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when necessary. For instance, if authorities are running operations that involve confidential informants, or undercover agents, 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 proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for movies and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based on physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in entertainers. [95] This validation is distinct to the show business, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage spaces between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must stabilize 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 reason unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in rural areas can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the client base. But, employment matching genders for staffing at centers that deal with kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task safely and effectively or that it is impractical to identify qualifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers likewise carry the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower prejudiced option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their work because of their faith, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in an office rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also includes dealing with people 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, companies are restricted from refusing to employ an individual based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they should resolve this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer particular exemptions in these laws to services or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been promoted and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religions against altering the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to look for religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of spiritual beliefs. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present proof that it is a genuinely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for restricting women from serving in combat roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method in which black men were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, 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 wanted to safeguard the nation they resided in, they were rejected 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 work positions to carry out military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts companies from victimizing staff members for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of women since there is a large underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim because there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a protected category might still be unlawful if they produce a diverse influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to task performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be connected to task performance, it is restricted, notwithstanding the company’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it needs to just reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

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 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 Rights 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 file fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative grievance 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 prohibits discrimination against qualified people with disabilities by federal contractors and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and imposes 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) implements the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which forbids discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin. [115]

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) workplaces 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 space in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit scoring 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 initial 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 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 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 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 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 work”. 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 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 bans workplace predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation 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 initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original 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; 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the 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 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 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 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 initial 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 original 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 discriminatory 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 Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect 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 viewed 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 worker 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 Table of Contents”. 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 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 initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original 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 Preference Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York City 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 initial 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 initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their employing practices based on a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare 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 published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During The Second World War|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. 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 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 provisions”. 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 original on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Introduction 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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to protect older workers. Weak to start with, she mentions 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.