Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon particular qualities or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has actually become based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, employing, task assessments, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers usually can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and employment gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible citizens, short-lived 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 Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight address employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal government workers.

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 people of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from breaking an individual’s rights of due process and equal protection. 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 employees, previous staff members, or task candidates unequally due to the fact that of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that federal government staff members have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (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 specifically give their particular government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a personal company, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some security from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the economic sector are generally Constitutional under the “police powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States should adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil rights laws that offer additional employment defense.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws provide defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has established gradually.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced 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 on sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in employing. It supplies that where employees perform equal operate in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and responsibility and carried out under similar working conditions,” they need 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 amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in a lot 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 employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and work agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon secured characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor companies are also restricted from basing membership or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on 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 specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are nearly similar to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A worker is protected from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply big pensions). The ADEA contains specific guidelines 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 starting 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 “developed a policy against age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial help. [16] It needs affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than 3 workers from victimizing anyone (other than 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 discriminatory barriers against certified people with impairments, people with a record of a disability, or people who are considered having an impairment. It restricts discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or mental impairments. It also requires employers to offer affordable lodgings to staff members who require them since of a special needs to look for a task, perform the necessary functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and privileges of employment, unless the company can reveal that excessive difficulty will result. There are stringent restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical examinations, and all medical details needs to be dealt with as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably limits one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, changed in 1993, make sure all persons equal rights under the law and detail the damages readily available to plaintiffs 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 companies from using people’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promotion decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and areas clearly prohibit harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to incorporate 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 kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her boss informed her that her presence may make other people 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 personal work environments. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise recognized that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise offer comprehensive defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense 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 supply greater defense to workers of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, because federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII also applies to state, federal, local and other public workers. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually translated this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be expanded to include . [92]

Additionally, public employees retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limitations employees’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public staff members 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 concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal employees who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which poses a different set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational certifications

Employers are typically allowed to think about characteristics that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used 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 rules that law enforcement monitoring can match races when essential. For example, if authorities are running operations that involve private 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 consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the home entertainment industry, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is unique to the entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to stabilize personal privacy and safety worry about the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in rural locations can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage kids survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to perform the task safely and effectively or that it is not practical to determine qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers also carry the problem to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser inequitable option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their religion, their religions and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It also includes treating people in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to hire an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, employment they should resolve this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have clauses that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been supported and others reversed over time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using faiths versus modifying the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable employees to obtain religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are specific requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for prohibiting ladies from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a chance to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits employers from victimizing staff members for previous or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of women since there is a vast underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no inequitable intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected category may still be unlawful if they produce a disparate influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they are related to job performance.

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be associated with task efficiency, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the company’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When resisting a disparate effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to demonstrate need; rather, it needs to merely reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets 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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative solutions by filing an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

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

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

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) 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]

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work 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 report 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 original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the 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 original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial 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 Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, 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 initial 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 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 initial 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 original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the 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 inequitable practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 specific activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial 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 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original 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 original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work since of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes 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 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR employment PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original 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 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 an employer to discriminate in their employing 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 Bona Fide 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get prepared for more US females in battle”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the 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 original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement 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 initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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 secure older employees. Weak to begin with, she states that the ADEA has actually been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.