Employment Discrimination Law in The United States
Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon particular characteristics or “protected classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has become based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, employing, task examinations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to extra classifications or companies.
Under federal work discrimination law, employers typically can not discriminate against staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term residents, temporary citizens, 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title IX
Constitutional basis
The United States Constitution does not directly resolve work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal civil servant.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific 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 includes an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent defense. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with workers, previous staff members, or task applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation 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 economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a personal business, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some security from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to discriminatory treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.
Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to secure public health, safety and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that use additional employment protection.
For example, some State civil liberties laws use defense from work discrimination on the basis of political association, although such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.
History of federal laws
Federal law governing work discrimination has developed with time.
The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids companies and unions from paying different salaries based on sex. It does not restrict other prejudiced practices in hiring. It supplies that where workers perform equal operate in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and duty and performed under similar working conditions,” they must be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to the majority of companies engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon protected qualities concerning terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment firms may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]
Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “forbids discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost similar to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into employment 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 disability by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary support. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and information innovation be available to disabled employees. [16]
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators against miners who struggle with “black lung disease” (pneumoconiosis). [17]
The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “requires affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam period veterans by federal professionals”. [14]
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or bad debts. [9]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than 3 employees from victimizing anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of prejudiced barriers versus qualified individuals with impairments, individuals with a record of a special needs, or people who are considered having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or psychological disabilities. It likewise requires employers to provide affordable accommodations to employees who need them because of a special needs to make an application for a task, perform the important functions of a task, or delight in the advantages and opportunities of employment, unless the company can show that unnecessary challenge will result. There are stringent limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical details needs to be treated as personal. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]
The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all persons equal rights under the law and describe the damages available 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 utilizing individuals’ hereditary info when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promo choices. [10]
The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not clearly 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 employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and areas clearly forbid harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to encompass sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]
According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. 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 task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her manager told her that her existence might 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 people in both public and personal offices. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty. [28]
State law
State statutes likewise offer extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as offered by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide security to groups not covered by the . Some state laws offer greater security to employees of the state or of state specialists.
The following table lists classifications not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, since federal law only covers employees over 40.
In addition,
– District of Columbia – matriculation, personal appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Government employees
Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, regional and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra protections versus work discrimination.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not impact job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]
Additionally, public employees maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limitations staff members’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public workers keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]
Federal staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a different set of issues for plaintiffs.
Exceptions
Authentic occupational qualifications
Employers are normally allowed to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.
The only exception to this guideline is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that police monitoring can match races when essential. For circumstances, if police are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover representatives, 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 consider race-based policing and employ officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]
BFOQs do not use in the entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is unique to the entertainment market, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]
Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage spaces between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company must stabilize personal privacy and safety worry about the number of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]
Additionally, client preference alone can not be a validation unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For instance, retail establishments in backwoods can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for employment staffing at facilities that handle children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.
If a company were trying to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to carry out the task safely and effectively or that it is impractical to identify certifications on a personalized 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 also bring the concern to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly essential, and a lesser prejudiced option approach does not exist. [98]
Religious employment discrimination
“Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their work because of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also consists of dealing with individuals in a different way in their work since of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from refusing to hire a specific based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, workers 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 clauses that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed in time.
The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religious beliefs versus altering the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to make an application for religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are certain requirements for workers 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 versus members of the Communist Party.
Military
The military has dealt with criticism for forbiding females from serving in combat roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave 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 joined the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts companies from victimizing staff members for past or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of females since there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because 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 classification might still be prohibited if they produce a diverse influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they relate to task efficiency.
The Act requires the removal of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be shown to be connected to job performance, it is restricted, regardless of the employer’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]
Height and weight requirements have actually been recognized by the EEOC as having a diverse influence on national origin minorities. [108]
When safeguarding against a diverse impact claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, however, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it should simply show 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 established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination versus certified people with specials needs by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and implements its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary help. [16]
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) imposes the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]
State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) offices play the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]
See also
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay space 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 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 Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the 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 original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits office bias 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 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 initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the 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 initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the 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 original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 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 initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in particular activities. – New York 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 original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original 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 original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (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 employers”. 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 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 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 employment because of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [irreversible 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual 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 a company to discriminate in their working with practices based upon an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the 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 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 employment 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). “Get prepared for more US ladies in combat”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original 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 opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial 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 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 employment 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 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.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links
Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job 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 protect older workers. Weak to begin with, she mentions that the ADEA has been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.