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 certain characteristics or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, job including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, task assessments, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to additional classifications or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers usually can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, long-term citizens, short-term residents, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly address employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal civil servant.

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 an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaching a person’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with staff members, previous workers, or task candidates unequally since 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 ended 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 provision 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a private company, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to inequitable treatment by the federal government, including a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate 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, security and morals. All States need to adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that use extra work defense.

For instance, some State civil rights laws use defense from work discrimination on the basis of political association, although such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed gradually.

The Equal Pay Act modified 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 companies and unions from paying various wages based on sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in working with. It supplies that where employees perform equivalent work in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and duty and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they must be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in a lot more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII developed 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 employees, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of work. Employment service may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and associated medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, 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, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost similar to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures employees in companies with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A worker is secured from discrimination based upon age if he or job she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide large pensions). The ADEA includes specific guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into employment in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy against age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal professionals with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology be accessible to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or bad debts. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three employees from discriminating against anybody (except an unapproved 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 versus certified individuals with impairments, individuals with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are related to as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based on real or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It likewise needs employers to provide affordable accommodations to workers who require them because of an impairment to get a task, perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and advantages of work, unless the company can show that undue challenge will result. There are rigorous constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical exams, and all medical information must be treated as personal. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially restricts one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all persons equivalent rights under the law and lay out the damages offered to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from utilizing people’ hereditary information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids employment 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 ), work protections for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and areas clearly restrict harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender workers were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to encompass sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her employer told her that her existence might 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 personal offices. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also recognized that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise supply comprehensive security from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher protection to workers of the state or of state contractors.

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

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, job weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government staff members

Title VII also uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections versus employment discrimination.

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

Additionally, public employees retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers can limits staff members’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of problems for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are typically enabled to think about characteristics that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic 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 guidelines that police surveillance can match races when essential. For circumstances, if police are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, job 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 consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are enabled to cast characters based upon physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is special to the show business, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage spaces in between different groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company should stabilize privacy and security worry about the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For circumstances, retail facilities in backwoods can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with kids survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If an employer were trying to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to perform the job securely and efficiently or that it is unwise to determine credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers likewise carry the problem to show that a BFOQ is reasonably necessary, and a lower prejudiced option method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their demand for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals differently in their employment because of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from declining to work with an individual based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they must resolve this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been promoted and others reversed with time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing religions versus altering the body and preventative medication as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow employees to look for religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present evidence that it is a regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has faced criticism for prohibiting women from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was amended to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about 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 a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to safeguard the nation they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits companies from discriminating against employees for previous or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic diverse treatment of females due to the fact that there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim since there was no prejudiced intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a secured classification may still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they relate to job performance.

The Act needs the removal of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, job if, as here, a work practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be connected to job efficiency, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the company’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it needs to merely reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and implements 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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which restricts discrimination versus certified individuals with specials needs by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

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

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit report 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 original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the 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 initial 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 initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial 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 original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the 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 original 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 workplace 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 Orientation 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 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 original 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 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; Table of Contents, 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 initial 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 original (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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original 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 original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 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 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 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York City 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 original (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 Chief Law Officer|”. 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 initial 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 initial 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 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 employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original 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 because of age of worker or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [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 original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR job CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART 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 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 original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their working with practices based on a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare 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 posted 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 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 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 initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial 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 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.
^ “An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment 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 stops working to protect older employees. Weak to start with, she mentions that the ADEA has been eviscerated 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.