Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon specific qualities or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and employment state federal governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has 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 prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, working with, task evaluations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers generally can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible residents, momentary homeowners, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight resolve employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal government staff members.

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 deprive people of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with staff members, previous employees, or job candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision 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 because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a private business, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically manage some protection from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve inequitable treatment by the government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the personal sector are generally Constitutional under the “cops powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States must follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States may enact civil rights laws that use additional employment protection.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws use security from work discrimination on the basis of political association, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed over time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids companies and unions from paying different wages based on sex. It does not prohibit other inequitable practices in employing. It provides that where workers perform equal work in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and obligation and performed under similar working conditions,” they need to be supplied equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in a lot more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to the majority of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities concerning terms, conditions, and advantages of employment. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

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

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are nearly similar to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards employees in companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited mandatory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA includes explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “developed a policy against age discrimination among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial help. [16] It requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to disabled staff members. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than 3 employees from victimizing anybody (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of prejudiced barriers against qualified people with impairments, individuals with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered as having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental impairments. It also requires employers to supply affordable lodgings to workers who need them since of a disability to get a task, carry out the important functions of a job, or delight in the advantages and benefits of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary challenge will result. There are strict limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical information must be dealt with as private. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, changed in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and outline 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 using individuals’ hereditary info when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and regions clearly forbid harassment and predisposition in work decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to include sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have actually experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her employer told her that her presence might make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise 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 couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade spiritual liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply substantial security from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as offered by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply defense 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 secured by federal law. Age is included as well, since federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, personal appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76] Civil servant

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have additional defenses versus work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public employees retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers can limitations employees’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public employees retain 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 work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a various set of problems for complainants.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational credentials

Employers are normally enabled to consider qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that police security can match races when necessary. For instance, if cops are running operations that include personal informants, or undercover representatives, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, employment Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the entertainment industry, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is distinct to the show business, 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 a cost justification in wage spaces in between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must balance privacy and safety issues with the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural areas can not forbid African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If a company were trying to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to perform the job safely and employment effectively or that it is impractical to identify qualifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers also bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser prejudiced option method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their work since of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a change in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment because of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from declining to hire a specific based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have stipulations that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in various places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been promoted and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using faiths against modifying the body and preventative medication as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members to obtain religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are specific requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a genuinely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for restricting ladies from serving in combat roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black men were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans a possibility 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 restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to defend the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts employers from victimizing staff members for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of females since there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no discriminatory intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected classification might still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they relate to job performance.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to work 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 shown to be connected to job efficiency, it is forbidden, regardless of the employer’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate requirement; rather, it needs to merely reveal that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and implements its own policies that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial assistance. [16]

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

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

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

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the 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 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 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 intentional discrimination in work”. 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, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits 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 initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial 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 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 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; 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, 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 initial 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original 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 original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil 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 original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York 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 City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the 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 Chief Law Officer|”. 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 original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original 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 initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial 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 initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term 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 initial (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 original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART 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 a company to discriminate in their employing practices based upon 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 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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). “Prepare 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 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the 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 initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to safeguard older employees. Weak to begin with, she mentions that the ADEA has been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.