Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on certain characteristics or “protected categories”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the personal sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but 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 restricts discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, employing, task assessments, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies usually can not discriminate against staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term homeowners, temporary locals, 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 Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight address work discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal government employees.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights of due procedure and equal security. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with employees, previous staff members, or job candidates unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that 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 home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the private sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a private business, including civil liberties laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce 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 only attend to discriminatory treatment by the federal government, job consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the personal sector are generally Constitutional under the “police powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, safety and morals. All States must abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that provide additional work security.

For instance, some State civil rights laws offer protection 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 established over time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts companies and unions from paying various salaries based upon sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in working with. It supplies that where workers perform equivalent operate in the corner requiring “equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under comparable working conditions,” they need to be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities regarding terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment agencies might not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are likewise prohibited from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and 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 contractors 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 changed in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects employees in companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. An employee is secured from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide big pensions). The ADEA includes explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial support. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled staff members. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three employees from discriminating versus anyone (other than an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of inequitable barriers against certified individuals with specials needs, job people with a record of a special needs, or people who are considered as having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It likewise requires employers to provide affordable accommodations to employees who require them since of an impairment to apply for a task, perform the necessary functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and advantages of work, unless the employer can reveal that undue challenge will result. There are strict limitations on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical info should be dealt with as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably restricts several significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all persons equal rights under the law and detail the damages readily available to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights 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 utilizing individuals’ hereditary information when making hiring, shooting, 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 clearly consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference 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 protections for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and areas explicitly prohibit 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to include sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

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

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

State law

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

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, since federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not impact job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]

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

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are typically permitted to think about attributes that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used 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 needed. For example, if police are running operations that include private informants, or undercover agents, 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 job work with officers that are proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the entertainment industry, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is unique to the show business, and does not transfer to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost reason in wage gaps between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to balance personal privacy and safety interest in the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were attempting to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be a factual basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to perform the job safely and efficiently or that it is not practical to figure out credentials on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister intention does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers likewise bring the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser discriminatory option method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of 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, companies are restricted from declining to work with an individual based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they must resolve this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, staff members are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in various places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been supported and others reversed in time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religions against changing the body and preventative medication as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable employees to look for spiritual 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 proof that it is a truly held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has dealt with criticism for from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the way in which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just enabled 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 country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job 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 prohibits companies from victimizing employees 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 enforce systemic diverse treatment of females because there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no prejudiced intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected classification may still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they are associated to task performance.

The Act requires the removal of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded 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 shown to be connected to job efficiency, it is restricted, regardless of the employer’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it must simply reveal that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

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

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination versus qualified individuals with impairments by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own policies that use 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) implements the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based on citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit report systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the 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 initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the 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 General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the 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 initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the 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 initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans work environment predisposition against 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 original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference 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 original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial 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 initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 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 initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial 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 initial 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 Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original 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 initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 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 liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment since of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (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 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 PARTICIPATING 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 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 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 a company to discriminate in their hiring practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the 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 yourself for more US ladies 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 published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An 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 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 stops working to safeguard 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.