Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on particular qualities or « safeguarded categories ». The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has 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 restricts discrimination in a variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, hiring, task examinations, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to additional classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers normally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible homeowners, 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly deal with employment 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 federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of « life, liberty, or home », without due procedure of the law. It likewise contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly forbids states from violating an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating staff members, previous employees, or task candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that federal government workers have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a « liberty » (such as the right to free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision 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 private 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 rights laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a private company, including civil liberties laws, originates from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically manage some protection from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve discriminatory treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the personal sector are typically Constitutional under the « authorities powers » doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States need to adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that provide additional employment protection.

For example, some State civil rights laws use protection 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 established over time.

The Equal Pay Act changed 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 wages based upon sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in employing. It provides that where workers carry out equal work in the corner needing « equal ability, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions, » they need to be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’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 restricts discrimination in much more elements of the work relationship. « Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes concerning terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment service might not discriminate when hiring or applicants, and labor companies are likewise forbidden from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and employment pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 « prohibits discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide 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, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA includes explicit guidelines for benefit, 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 employment in 1956 » by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 « established a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal professionals ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled staff members. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids work discrimination on the basis of insolvency or bad debts. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three staff members from discriminating against anybody (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate discriminatory barriers versus qualified individuals with disabilities, people with a record of a disability, or people who are considered as having a disability. It restricts discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental impairments. It also needs employers to supply sensible accommodations to employees who require them because of an impairment to request a job, perform the essential functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and privileges of work, unless the employer can reveal that undue difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical exams, and all medical information needs to be dealt with as personal. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that « considerably limits one or more significant life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all individuals equal rights under the law and outline the damages readily 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 information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promo choices. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment securities for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities clearly forbid harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender workers were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: « Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task. » Many people in the LGBT community have lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her boss told her that her existence might make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal work environments. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade spiritual liberty, despite the fact that 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 also supply substantial protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar security as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer higher security to employees of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of also, given that federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – matriculation, individual appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Civil servant

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, regional and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional defenses against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has analyzed this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be broadened to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public employees retain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers deserve to limitations staff members’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public workers 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 job. [93]

Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are usually enabled to think about attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police surveillance can match races when needed. For example, if cops are running operations that involve confidential informants, or undercover representatives, 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 consider race-based policing and work with officers that are in proportion to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for movies and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based on physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the entertainment market, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is distinct to the show business, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage gaps between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer needs to stabilize personal privacy and safety issues with the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural areas can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle kids survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to perform the job securely and effectively or that it is unwise to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers also bring the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser inequitable alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their work because of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise includes dealing with people differently in their employment due to the fact that of their lack of religious belief or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from declining to employ a private based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If an employee thinks that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they must resolve this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various locations, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been upheld and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using faiths against changing the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to look for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for employees to present proof that it is a regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 explicitly allows discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has actually faced criticism for forbiding females from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method in which black males were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to show 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 allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the country they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids companies from victimizing staff members for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of women since there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate versus a protected classification might still be illegal if they produce a diverse influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they belong to job efficiency.

The Act needs the removal of synthetic, arbitrary, employment and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be shown to be related to task efficiency, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When defending versus a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to simply show that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and imposes 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 liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are contained in area 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 submit match under Title VII and/or the ADA should exhaust their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination versus certified people with impairments by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and implements its own regulations that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial assistance. [16]

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) implements the anti-discrimination provisions 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 function of the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay 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 Rights Act of 1964 ». US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « The Equal Pay Act of 1963 ». Archived from the 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 initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS ». Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b « The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ». Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b « Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 » (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). « Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy ». Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ « Family and Medical Leave Act ». Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). « Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application ». Law Notes for the 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 original 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 original 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 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 prohibits work environment predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald ». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). « Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment ». Center for American Progress. Archived from the 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 original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Code of Alabama 25-1-21 ». Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c « Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception ». touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f « Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ». California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b « Colorado Civil liberty Division 2008 Statutes » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60 ». Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Delaware Code Online ». delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e « District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ « District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Indiana General Assembly ». iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Iowa Code 216.6 ». Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 original 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 original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L. 151B § 4 ». Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L 151B § 1 ». Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^  » § 213.055 R.S.Mo ». Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303 ». Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices ». Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12) ».
^ a b c « 2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice ». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296 ». Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in particular activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City Laws ». law.onecle.com. Archived from the 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 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). [irreversible dead link] ^ « State of Rhode Island General Assembly ». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « South Carolina Human Affairs Law ». Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Tennessee State Government – TN.gov ». www.tn.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or hepatitis C infection ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or hepatitis C infection ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment since of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « State of West Virginia » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents ». docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent 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 original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b « Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146 ». Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151 ». Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451 ». Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING 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 initial 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 initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri ». www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c « When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their hiring practices based upon an Authentic Occupation Qualification? ». University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c « CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications ». US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the 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 initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Questions and employment Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace ». www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination? ». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). « Get prepared for more US ladies in battle ». 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 Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog ». The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints ». Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Shaping Employment Discrimination Law ». Archived from the 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 arrangements ». 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.
^ « An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices ». Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

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