Laboris

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the typical law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on specific characteristics or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, working with, task evaluations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to additional classifications or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers usually can not discriminate against workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term locals, short-lived residents, 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, employment however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government staff members.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly forbids states from breaching a person’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating staff members, former staff members, or job candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or employment residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a personal business, including civil rights laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some defense from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only attend to inequitable treatment by the government, including a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the personal sector are usually Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States must comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that use additional employment defense.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws use defense from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying various salaries based upon sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in working with. It supplies that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner requiring “equivalent ability, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they should be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in a lot more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to most companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon protected attributes regarding terms, conditions, and employment opportunities of employment. Employment service might not discriminate when employing or referring applicants, and labor organizations are also restricted from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “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 amended in 1978 and 1986, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards workers in companies with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A worker is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific standards for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning 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 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary help. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and info technology be accessible to handicapped employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 prohibits 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 specialists”. [14]

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than 3 workers 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 eliminate prejudiced barriers versus qualified people with impairments, people with a record of a disability, or people who are considered having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or psychological specials needs. It likewise needs employers to offer affordable accommodations to workers who require them because of an impairment to apply for a task, carry out the necessary functions of a job, or delight in the benefits and advantages of work, unless the company can reveal that excessive hardship will result. There are rigorous constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or employment require medical exams, and all medical details needs to be dealt with as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably restricts several significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, changed in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and lay out the damages offered to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from utilizing individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, job placement, 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 clearly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and regions explicitly forbid harassment and predisposition in work decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass 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 individuals have experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her manager told her that her presence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

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

State law

State statutes also supply extensive defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense 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 offer higher protection to workers of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists classifications not protected by federal law. Age is included also, considering that federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Civil servant

Title VII also uses to state, federal, local and other public workers. Employees of federal and state governments have extra securities versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies can limitations workers’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (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 staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational certifications

Employers are normally permitted to think about qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement surveillance can match races when essential. For circumstances, if authorities are running operations that involve confidential informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment market, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based upon physical qualities, 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 unique to the show business, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage spaces between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must stabilize privacy and security interest in the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For example, 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 facilities 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 thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to perform the task safely and efficiently or that it is not practical to determine credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory result. [97] Employers also carry the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It likewise includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their work since of their lack of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from refusing to work with a private based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer specific exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been promoted and others reversed gradually.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing spiritual beliefs versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are particular requirements for workers to present proof that it is a seriously 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 faced criticism for employment restricting females from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was modified to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. about the method in which black men were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to defend the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids companies from discriminating versus workers for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of ladies because there is a large 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 ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a protected category may still be prohibited if they produce a diverse effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they are associated to job efficiency.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with job performance, it is forbidden, regardless of the employer’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

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

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes 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 Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions 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 wishing to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative complaint 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 restricts discrimination versus certified individuals with specials needs by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial support. [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 on citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) offices 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 rating systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the 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 initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the 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 initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 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 prohibits 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 initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the 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; 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 initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the 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 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 original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08”. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the 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 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the 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 initial 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 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 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 initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the 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 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 Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their working with 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 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original 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 yourself 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 Army During The Second World War|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the 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 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 initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL 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 original 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 Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

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