Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on particular qualities or « protected classifications ». The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, task assessments, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers normally can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for people, irreversible homeowners, short-term residents, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight resolve work discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal government workers.

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 an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of « life, liberty, or residential or commercial property », without due process of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equal defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, previous employees, or task candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure security requires that federal government workers have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is associated with a « liberty » (such as the right to complimentary 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 expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a personal service, consisting of civil liberties laws, comes from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically manage some defense from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just deal with discriminatory treatment by the federal government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the personal sector are usually Constitutional under the « police powers » doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to secure public health, safety and morals. All States need to adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that provide additional employment defense.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing 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 restricts employers and unions from paying various wages based on sex. It does not restrict other discriminatory practices in hiring. It offers that where workers carry out equal work in the corner needing « equivalent skill, effort, and duty and carried out under comparable working conditions, » they must be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more elements of the work relationship. « Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It applies to a lot of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon protected characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment firms may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are also restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 « restricts discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal contractors ». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards employees in companies with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is secured from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of « maximum ages of entry into work in 1956 » by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 « developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors ». [15]

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

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts employers with more than three staff members from victimizing anybody (except an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove prejudiced barriers against qualified individuals with impairments, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered having a disability. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or mental impairments. It likewise requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to workers who require them due to the fact that of an impairment to look for a task, carry out the necessary functions of a task, or take pleasure in the benefits and adremcareers.com advantages of employment, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary hardship will result. There are stringent limitations on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical exams, and all medical info should be treated as private. An impairment is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that « significantly limits several major life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all persons equal rights under the law and describe the damages offered to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from utilizing individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, job placement, or promo choices. [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 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual preference and 29 US states do not clearly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition of work 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 ), employment defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; numerous states and localities clearly restrict harassment and predisposition in work decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were protected 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 actually experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job. » Many people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her manager told her that her existence might make other people feel uneasy. [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 private work environments. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in just 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 complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply substantial security from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as provided 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 provide greater security to employees of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of too, since federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional defenses versus work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has analyzed this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the interpretation would be broadened to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits employees’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public workers keep 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 staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are usually allowed to consider qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can when needed. For example, if cops are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and work with officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This validation is unique to the entertainment market, 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 work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage gaps in between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer needs to balance personal privacy and security issues with the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in rural locations can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage kids survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to show that employment discrimination was based upon 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 job securely and efficiently or that it is unwise to determine credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers also carry the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lesser inequitable option method does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

« Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their employment because of their religion, their religions and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a modification in an office rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with people in a different way in their employment because of their absence of spiritual belief or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to employ a private based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker thinks that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they must address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, employees are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been maintained and others reversed with time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing faiths against changing the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to obtain religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present evidence that it is a regards 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 armed force has actually dealt with criticism for forbiding women from serving in fight functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method which black men were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to defend the nation they resided in, they were rejected 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 employment positions to carry out military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids employers from victimizing staff members for previous or present participation or somalibidders.com subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of ladies because there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no inequitable intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a safeguarded classification might still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they are associated to job performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be connected to job performance, it is forbidden, regardless of the employer’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to show requirement; rather, it must just reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and enforces 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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file fit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own regulations that apply 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) imposes the anti-discrimination provisions 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 take the role of the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against 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 history systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e « Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 ». US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « The Equal Pay Act of 1963 ». Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b « Pregnancy Discrimination Act ». Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b « Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended ». ADA.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). « Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy ». Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ « Family and Medical Leave Act ». Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). « Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application ». Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). « Age discrimination legislations in the United States » (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Guide to Disability Rights Laws ». ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 30 USC Sec. 938 ». Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ « Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ». Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) ». Archived from the initial 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 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. « EEOC: Federal law bans workplace bias against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald ». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). « Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment ». Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace ». FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). « The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked ». Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Code of Alabama 25-1-21 ». Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c « Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception ». touchngo.com. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f « Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ». California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b « Colorado Civil liberty 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 original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Delaware Code Online ». delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e « District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination » (PDF). Archived from the 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 original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine ». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2 ». Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination » ». Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Illinois Human Rights Act ». Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Indiana General Assembly ». iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Iowa Code 216.6 ». Archived from the 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 original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352 ». Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312 ». Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311 ». Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ». www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial 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 original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Minnesota Statutes, 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 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 State Executive Law, Article 15, referall.us 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 Attorney Resources – New York Laws ». law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^  » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^  » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « North Dakota Human Rights Act » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « 2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission ». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States| ». www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A ». Archived from the 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 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 original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Utah Code 34A-5-106 ». Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act » (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Virginia Human Rights Act ». Archived from the 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 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment since of age of staff member 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 Tabulation ». docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ « 22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3 » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ « 22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5 » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b « Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146 ». Archived from the 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 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 initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights ». Archived from the original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). « New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009) ». The New York City 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 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 initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the 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 original 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 for more US women 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 posted on The (January 14, 2013). « Segregation in the Army During The Second World War|African American History Blog ». The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions ». Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Shaping Employment Discrimination Law ». Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Federal Equal Job 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 provisions ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial 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.
^ « An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices ». Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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 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.