Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain qualities or “protected classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being subject to 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, consisting of recruiting, working with, job assessments, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to extra categories or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers typically can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] national origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term residents, short-lived locals, 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 Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly deal with work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to protect federal government employees.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or home”, without due process of the law. It likewise contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaking an individual’s rights of due process and equal security. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, previous workers, or task applicants unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security requires that government workers have a reasonable procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination 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 expressly offer their respective federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a personal business, consisting of civil liberties laws, comes from their power to manage all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some protection from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only attend to discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the “cops powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States need to abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that offer extra work security.

For example, some State civil rights laws provide security from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established in time.

The Equal Pay Act changed 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 companies and unions from paying different earnings based upon sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in working with. It supplies that where workers carry out equivalent operate in the corner needing “equivalent skill, effort, and duty and carried out under similar working conditions,” they ought to be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some element 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 Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon protected qualities regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of employment. Employment companies may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also forbidden from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “restricts discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly identical to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards workers in companies with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide big pensions). The ADEA includes specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [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 “maximum ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary help. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped workers. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than 3 staff members from discriminating against anyone (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of prejudiced barriers versus qualified individuals with specials needs, individuals with a record of a special needs, or people who are regarded as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or perceived physical or mental disabilities. It likewise requires companies to offer reasonable accommodations to staff members who require them since of a special needs to apply for a job, perform the vital functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and advantages of work, unless the employer can reveal that excessive difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical examinations, and all medical info must be treated as private. An impairment is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially restricts several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all individuals equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages offered 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 employers from utilizing individuals’ hereditary details when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promo choices. [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 explicitly consist of sexual preference and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and regions clearly restrict harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to incorporate sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her manager informed her that her existence may make other individuals feel uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private offices. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise identified that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also offer extensive security from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar security as provided by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher security to staff members of the state or of state contractors.

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

In addition,

– District of Columbia – matriculation, individual appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76] Civil servant

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra securities versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts 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 include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies deserve to limitations workers’ 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 job. [93]

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are typically enabled to think about characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most common 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 demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police monitoring can match races when essential. For example, if authorities are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, sending out an African American officer into a sting for employment a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and employ officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the entertainment industry, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, 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 an expense validation in wage spaces in between different groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to balance privacy and security concerns with the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle kids survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be a factual basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task safely and efficiently or that it is unwise to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious motive does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower prejudiced option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise consists of treating individuals in a different way in their employment because of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to hire an individual based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member thinks that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they should resolve this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, staff members are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been maintained and others reversed with time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing spiritual beliefs versus changing the body and preventative medication as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to get religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the staff member with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present evidence that it is a seriously 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 forbiding ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, however, the law was changed to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered 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 just permitted to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits employers from discriminating versus workers for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic diverse treatment of since there is a huge underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected classification 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 prejudiced impact, unless they belong to task performance.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to task performance, it is restricted, regardless of the company’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When resisting a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to demonstrate requirement; rather, employment it should simply reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and standards are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA should exhaust their administrative treatments by filing an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and enforces its own regulations that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive monetary help. [16]

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) imposes the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based on citizenship status or nationwide 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 against persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit scoring 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 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 original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the 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 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 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 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 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, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits work environment predisposition 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 initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the 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 liberty 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 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 initial (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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, employment 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 original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the 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: employment 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 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 initial 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 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 initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City 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 original 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 original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original 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 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 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment due to the fact that 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 original 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 initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 original 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 Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the 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 initial 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 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 original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US women in fight”. CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original 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 Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the original 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 original 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 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 Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to protect older workers. Weak to start with, she specifies 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.