Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon particular attributes or « safeguarded categories ». The United States Constitution also prohibits 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 actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, working with, job assessments, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies generally can not discriminate against employees 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 mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or bad debts, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, long-term locals, momentary citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Liberty Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight deal with work discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal government workers.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of « life, liberty, or residential or commercial property », without due procedure of the law. It also contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from breaching a person’s rights of due process and equal security. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with employees, former employees, or job candidates unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection 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 free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision 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 personal sector is not due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the private sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a personal organization, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, job most State Constitutions only resolve prejudiced treatment by the federal government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that regulate the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the « authorities powers » doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, security and morals. All States should abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer additional work protection.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually developed in time.

The Equal Pay Act modified the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying various incomes based on sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in working with. It provides that where employees carry out equivalent operate in the corner needing « equivalent ability, effort, and duty and carried out under comparable working conditions, » they must be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in a lot more elements of the work relationship. « Title VII produced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It applies to a lot of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon secured characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of work. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are also restricted from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 « forbids discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal specialists ». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. An employee is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer big pensions). The ADEA contains specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of « optimal 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 specialists ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped staff members. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators against miners who struggle with « black lung illness » (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 « needs affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam era veterans by federal specialists ». [14]

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids 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 versus qualified people with impairments, individuals with a record of a special needs, or people who are considered having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or psychological disabilities. It also needs companies to offer sensible lodgings to employees who need them due to the fact that of an impairment to make an application for a job, perform the important functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and advantages of employment, unless the company can reveal that undue hardship will result. There are stringent restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical evaluations, and all medical details should be treated as personal. A disability is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that « significantly limits several major life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and job detail the damages offered to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from utilizing individuals’ hereditary information when making hiring, shooting, task placement, or promotion decisions. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual preference 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 prohibits work 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and localities clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work 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 Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense 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 actually experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job. » Many people in the LGBT community have lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her boss informed her that her existence might make other individuals feel uneasy. [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 job personal work environments. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some challengers 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 recognized that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise supply extensive defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as supplied by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply greater protection to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists classifications not secured by federal law. Age is included too, since federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government staff members

Title VII also applies 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 impact task 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 interpretation would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies can limits staff members’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, job which presents a different set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are generally permitted to think about characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

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

BFOQs do not apply in the home entertainment industry, such as casting for films and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the home entertainment industry, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is distinct to the entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage spaces in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should stabilize personal privacy and security interest in the variety of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For circumstances, retail facilities in rural locations can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with children survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to perform the job safely and efficiently or that it is impractical to determine qualifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious intention does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers also bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is fairly needed, and a lesser discriminatory alternative method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their work since of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their demand for lodging (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of treating individuals differently in their work due to the fact that of their lack of religion or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from declining to hire an individual based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If an employee believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they ought to address this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have clauses that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in various places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been supported and others reversed with time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing spiritual beliefs versus changing the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow employees to look for religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are specific requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for restricting women from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method in which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout 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 site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to defend the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or particular types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits companies from victimizing workers for previous or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to enforce systemic disparate treatment of females because there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim because there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate versus a protected classification may still be unlawful if they produce a disparate influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they are related to task performance.

The Act requires the removal of synthetic, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to job performance, it is restricted, regardless of the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to merely show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job 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 section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative solutions by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own policies that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive monetary support. [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 forbids discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin. [115]

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

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

References

^ a b c d e « Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ». US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « The Equal Pay Act of 1963 ». Archived from the 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 initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b « Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended ». ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS ». Archived from the original 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 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 original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 30 USC Sec. 938 ». Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ « Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ». Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate 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 against Openly Gay Men in the United States ». American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA ». Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). « Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC ». The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. « EEOC: Federal law bans 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 Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace ». FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). « The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked ». Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Code of Alabama 25-1-21 ». Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c « Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception ». touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f « Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ». California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b « Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60 ». Archived from the 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 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 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 initial 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 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 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 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 Rights Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^  » § 213.055 R.S.Mo ». Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303 ». Archived from the 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 initial 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 original 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 particular activities. – New York City 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 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 original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « 2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A ». Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ « Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission » (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ « State of Rhode Island General Assembly ». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « South Carolina Human Affairs Law ». Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Tennessee State Government – TN.gov ». www.tn.gov. Archived from the 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 original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Virginia Human Rights Act ». Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « RCW 49.60.180: job 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 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 hepatitis C infection ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work since of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « State of West Virginia » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation ». docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ « 22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3 » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ « 22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5 » (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b « Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146 ». Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151 ». Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451 ». Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION ». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 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 original 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 initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c « When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their employing 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 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness ». www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace ». www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination? ». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). « Prepare yourself for more US ladies in combat ». CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted 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 initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions ». Findlaw. Archived from the initial 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 original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Pre 1965: Events Causing 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.
^ « A Summary 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 Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to secure older workers. Weak to begin with, she mentions that the ADEA has 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.