Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on certain characteristics or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, job assessments, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to additional categories or employment employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies usually can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent citizens, temporary 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight attend to employment discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure 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 individuals of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It likewise includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with workers, previous staff members, or job applicants unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection needs that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a personal company, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some protection from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to inequitable treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the private sector are normally Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States must abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that provide extra work defense.

For example, some State civil rights laws use 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 work discrimination has established with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed 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 various salaries based upon sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in employing. It offers that where employees perform equivalent work in the corner needing “equal ability, effort, and duty and performed under similar working conditions,” they need to be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon safeguarded characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor companies are likewise restricted from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon 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 “forbids discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide 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 companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards employees in companies with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide big pensions). The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “maximum ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists”. [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 receiving federal monetary support. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than 3 employees from discriminating against anybody (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 remove inequitable barriers against certified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of a special needs, or individuals who are considered having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It likewise needs companies to offer affordable lodgings to workers who need them due to the fact that of a special needs to use for a job, perform the vital functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and benefits of employment, unless the company can reveal that excessive difficulty will result. There are stringent constraints on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical exams, and all medical information must be treated as private. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “significantly limits one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, ensure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages available to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, employment and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from utilizing individuals’ hereditary information when making hiring, firing, task positioning, or promotion 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 [update], 28 US states do not clearly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not clearly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is included 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 protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and localities explicitly forbid harassment and predisposition in employment choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s determined that transgender workers were secured 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 people have experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her employer informed her that her presence might make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private work environments. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise identified that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also provide comprehensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar 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 employees of the state or of state contractors.

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

In addition,

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

Title VII also applies to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional securities against employment discrimination.

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

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers have the right to limits workers’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public workers maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal resident (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, employment which poses a different set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are typically enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when needed. For circumstances, if police are running operations that include confidential informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are proportionate to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the entertainment market, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are allowed to cast characters based on physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the home entertainment market, particularly in entertainers. [95] This reason is special to the home entertainment market, and does not move to other markets, 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 a cost reason in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company needs to balance personal privacy and security worry about the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For circumstances, retail facilities in rural locations can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that handle children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were trying to prove that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the job securely and efficiently or that it is not practical to figure out qualifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister intention does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers also bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower inequitable option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their work since of their faith, their faiths and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also includes treating individuals differently in their employment because of their absence of religious belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from refusing to work with a private based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various locations, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been upheld and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing faiths against altering the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to apply for religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present evidence that it is a truly held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for restricting women from serving in combat roles. In 2016, however, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method which black men were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and employment cooks. Even when African Americans desired to protect the country they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits employers from discriminating versus employees for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to enforce systemic disparate treatment of women because there is a large underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a secured classification may still be illegal if they produce a diverse effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to job efficiency.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be shown to be related to task performance, it is restricted, notwithstanding the company’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, however, does not require to demonstrate requirement; rather, it needs to merely show that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 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 tire their administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination against qualified people with impairments by federal contractors and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, employment each firm has and enforces its own policies that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary help. [16]

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

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

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records 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 Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 original 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 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 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 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 initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans office predisposition versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the 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 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 original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the 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 original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the 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 original 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 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, section 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 initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced 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 versus the engagement in certain activities. – New York City 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 original 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 Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or hepatitis 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 work due to the fact that of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the 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 initial (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 original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their working with practices based upon an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic 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 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 original 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 combat”. CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the 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 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 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 Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Resulting In the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the original on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older employees. Weak to start with, she mentions 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.