Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on certain characteristics or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being based on 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, including recruiting, hiring, task assessments, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies normally can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible citizens, temporary 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 directly resolve employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It likewise contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from violating a person’s rights of due procedure and equal security. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with staff members, previous staff members, or task candidates unequally due to the fact that of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection requires that federal government workers have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 specifically offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private business, including civil rights laws, originates from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some protection from public and private work 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 employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States need to follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer additional work security.

For example, some State civil liberties laws offer security from employment discrimination on the basis of political association, although such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually developed in time.

The Equal Pay Act modified the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and job Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying various incomes based on sex. It does not restrict other discriminatory practices in hiring. It supplies that where employees carry out equivalent operate in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they ought to be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to the majority of 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 prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment service may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, 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, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are nearly similar to those detailed in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures employees in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted necessary retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply big pensions). The ADEA consists of specific 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 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 “established a policy against age discrimination among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal professionals with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details technology be accessible to handicapped employees. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three staff members from discriminating versus 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 remove inequitable barriers against certified people with specials needs, people with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered having a disability. It forbids discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or psychological impairments. It likewise needs companies to provide reasonable lodgings to employees who need them since of a special needs to make an application for a job, perform the important functions of a task, or take pleasure in the benefits and advantages of work, unless the employer can reveal that unnecessary difficulty will result. There are rigorous restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related questions or need medical exams, and all medical information should be dealt with as . An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially restricts several significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all persons equivalent rights under the law and describe 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 companies from using people’ genetic info when making hiring, shooting, job positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT people were patchwork; numerous states and localities clearly restrict harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to incorporate sexual orientation 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 form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their task, job including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her employer informed her that her existence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [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 personal workplaces. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also provide extensive protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as supplied 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 security to staff members of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included also, given that federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, 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 uses to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have extra protections against work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies have the right to limits staff members’ 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 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 employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are generally permitted to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide 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 police monitoring can match races when needed. For instance, if authorities 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, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is special to the entertainment market, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost reason in wage gaps in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to stabilize privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were attempting to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to perform the task safely and effectively or that it is not practical to figure out certifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers also carry the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lesser discriminatory alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religion, their religions and practices, and/or their demand for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It also includes treating people differently in their work due to the fact that of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are restricted from declining to work with a specific based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should resolve this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide particular exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been supported and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using religions versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers to request spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are certain requirements for workers to present evidence that it is a regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for forbiding women from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black men were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites provided 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 permitted to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the country they lived 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 voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts companies from discriminating against staff members for past or present participation 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 due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim because there was no inequitable intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a protected category might still be illegal if they produce a diverse effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids employment practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to task performance.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, approximate, 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 omit Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with job efficiency, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When defending versus a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not need to demonstrate need; rather, it must simply show that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and enforces the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of 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 treatments by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and implements its own regulations that use 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 national origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit report systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the 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 original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the 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 initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial 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, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original 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 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 initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 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 initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the 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 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 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 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 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 discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor job Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York City 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 initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. 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). [permanent 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 original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the 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 original 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 original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the 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 initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the 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 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 initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the 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 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 posted 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 initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original 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 Resulting In the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement 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 initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the 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 protect older workers. Weak to start with, she mentions that the ADEA has actually 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.