Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on specific attributes or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the personal sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, working with, task evaluations, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend security to extra categories or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers usually can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term citizens, momentary homeowners, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight attend to work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal government employees.

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 an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from breaching an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with workers, previous workers, or job applicants unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that government employees have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 personal sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their respective federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private organization, including civil liberties laws, stems from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some protection from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address discriminatory treatment by the federal government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the economic sector are generally Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, security and morals. All States need to abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that use additional work protection.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws use defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually developed gradually.

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 employers and unions from paying different earnings based on sex. It does not restrict other prejudiced practices in working with. It provides that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and responsibility and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they must be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and work agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon protected attributes concerning terms, conditions, and referall.us privileges of work. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are also restricted from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and associated medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “restricts discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies 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 secures employees in companies with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A worker is secured from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer big pensions). The ADEA includes explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most discussion 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 “established a policy against age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and info technology be accessible to handicapped employees. [16]

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

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “requires affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam age veterans by federal specialists”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than 3 workers 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 get rid of prejudiced barriers versus certified people with specials needs, individuals with a record of a special needs, or people who are concerned as having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or mental impairments. It also needs companies to provide affordable accommodations to workers who require them since of a disability to make an application for a task, perform the necessary functions of a task, or delight in the advantages and opportunities of work, unless the company can reveal that undue hardship will result. There are rigorous limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical exams, and all medical details should be dealt with as private. A disability is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “significantly limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and detail the damages available 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 people’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and localities explicitly restrict harassment and bias in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s determined that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to include sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her boss told her that her presence might make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and personal work environments. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have also recognized that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise provide substantial protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as supplied by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply higher security to staff members of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included as well, since federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, personal 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, local and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have extra defenses against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect task efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers have the right to limitations workers’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are usually allowed to think about qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced 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 guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police monitoring can match races when needed. For circumstances, if cops are running operations that include private informants, or undercover agents, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the home entertainment industry, particularly in entertainers. [95] This validation is distinct to the show business, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost reason in wage spaces in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must balance personal privacy and safety interest in the number of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

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

If a company were attempting to show that work 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 not able to perform the task securely and efficiently or that it is unwise to identify qualifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, adremcareers.com absence of a malicious intention does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced result. [97] Employers likewise carry the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower inequitable option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their employment since of their religious beliefs, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in an office rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise includes treating individuals differently in their employment since of their absence of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from declining to work with a specific based on their alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a staff member thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they should address this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, staff members are safeguarded by the law for reporting task 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 particular exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have actually been supported and others reversed with time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using religions versus altering the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers to apply for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for workers to present evidence that it is a truly held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has actually dealt with criticism for restricting ladies from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the way in which black males were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits employers from victimizing employees for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to enforce systemic diverse treatment of females due to the fact that there is a vast 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 straight discriminate versus a protected classification might still be illegal if they produce a diverse effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they relate to job efficiency.

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, somalibidders.com as here, an employment practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be associated with task efficiency, it is restricted, regardless of the company’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When resisting a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate requirement; rather, it must simply show that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and enforces its own policies 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) imposes the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit report 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 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 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 initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial 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 initial 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 work environment bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the 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 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 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the 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 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the 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, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain activities. – New York 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 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 Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or liver disease 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 because of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes 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 initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the 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 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 initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the 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 a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the 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 initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and 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 yourself for more US women in fight”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During The Second World War|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and 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 Resulting In 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 initial 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 Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to protect older employees. Weak to start with, she specifies 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.