Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon certain attributes or « secured categories ». The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, including recruiting, employing, task evaluations, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend security to additional categories or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers normally can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible citizens, short-term 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 directly attend to employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of « life, liberty, or residential or commercial property », without due process of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaking an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating staff members, previous employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that government staff members have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is associated with a « liberty » (such as the right to free speech) or residential or commercial 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a personal business, consisting of civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically manage some security from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only attend to prejudiced treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the private sector are generally Constitutional under the « authorities powers » teaching or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States must stick to the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that use extra employment security.

For example, some State civil rights laws offer defense from work discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually 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 forbids employers and unions from paying various incomes based upon sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in working with. It provides that where workers carry out equal operate in the corner requiring « equal skill, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions, » they need to be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. « Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It uses to the majority of employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon secured qualities relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment companies might not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise forbidden from basing membership or union categories on race, color, employment religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying 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 contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors ». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A staff member is secured from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer 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 « established a policy against age discrimination among federal contractors ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary support. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology be available to handicapped staff members. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators versus miners who suffer from « black lung illness » (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 forbids work discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than three workers from victimizing anyone (except an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of discriminatory barriers against certified people with impairments, individuals with a record of a special needs, or individuals who are related to as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based on real or perceived physical or mental specials needs. It likewise requires companies to provide affordable lodgings to staff members who need them since of an impairment to make an application for a task, carry out the important functions of a job, or take pleasure in the benefits and privileges of work, unless the company can reveal that undue hardship will result. There are rigorous restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical examinations, and all medical details should be treated as personal. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that « considerably limits several significant life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all persons equal rights under the law and detail the damages available to complainants 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 employers from using people’ genetic info when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 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 securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and localities explicitly forbid harassment and bias in work decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers 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, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the task. » Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her boss informed her that her presence might make other individuals feel uneasy. [26]

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

State law

State statutes likewise offer substantial protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as supplied 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 provide greater protection to workers of the state or of state specialists.

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

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state governments have extra securities against employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact task efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has interpreted 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 workers maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers can limitations employees’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public employees maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private citizen (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which positions a different set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are usually enabled to consider qualities that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

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

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting staff are allowed to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is special to the entertainment market, and does not move to other markets, 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 an expense justification in wage gaps in between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should balance privacy and security interest in the number of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer preference alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For instance, retail facilities in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to carry out the task securely and effectively or that it is impractical to figure out certifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious motive does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced result. [97] Employers also bring the concern to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower prejudiced option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their work since of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a change in a work environment rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of treating people in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their absence of spiritual belief or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to hire a private based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they ought to address this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, employees are protected 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 provisions that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer certain exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various places, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been promoted and others reversed gradually.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using religious beliefs against modifying the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable employees to make an application for religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are particular requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a best regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for restricting ladies from serving in fight functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method which black guys were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a possibility to show themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the nation they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the job rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts companies from discriminating against workers for past or employment present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of females due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim because there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a protected category might still be prohibited if they produce a disparate influence on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they relate to job efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of synthetic, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be connected to task efficiency, it is prohibited, regardless of the employer’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When protecting versus a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it needs to just reveal that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and enforces 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 included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and employment standards are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own policies that use to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial help. [16]

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

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

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit scoring 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 initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « The Equal Pay Act of 1963 ». Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b « Pregnancy Discrimination Act ». Archived from the 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 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 original 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 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 original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ « Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ». Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment ». 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 initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. « EEOC: Federal law prohibits workplace predisposition versus 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 initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). « The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked ». Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Code of Alabama 25-1-21 ». Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c « Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception ». touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b « Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60 ». Archived from the initial 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2 ». Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination » ». Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Illinois Human Rights Act ». Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Indiana General Assembly ». iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Iowa Code 216.6 ». Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040 » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352 ». Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312 ». Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311 ». Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ». www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16 ». Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L. 151B § 4 ». Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L 151B § 1 ». Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^  » § 213.055 R.S.Mo ». Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303 ». Archived from the 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 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 original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York City Laws ». law.onecle.com. Archived from the 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 Liberty Commission ». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Oklahoma Chief Law Officer| ». www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A ». Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ « Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission » (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ « State of Rhode Island General Assembly ». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial 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 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 employers ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original 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 perceived HIV or employment 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 original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « State of West Virginia » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation ». 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 original (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 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 Preference Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights ». Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). « New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009) ». The New York Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b « Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC ». www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri ». www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c « When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their working with practices based upon a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification? ». University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c « CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications ». US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness ». www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the 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 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). « Get all set for more US ladies in fight ». CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). « Segregation in the Armed Forces During 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 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 initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC ». Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ». Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b « Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination ». Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503 ». Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ « A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices ». Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

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