Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon certain characteristics or “protected categories”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, task assessments, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to extra categories or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies normally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for employment employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent homeowners, short-lived citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly attend to employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due process of the law. It also includes an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights of due procedure and equal 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 employees, former employees, or task candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection requires that government staff members have a reasonable procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally 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 bills (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 because Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private service, consisting of civil liberties laws, comes from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that control the private sector are usually Constitutional under the “authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States need to adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that use additional work security.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws offer protection from work discrimination on the basis of political association, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act amended 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 various salaries based upon sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in working with. It offers that where workers carry out equal operate in the corner needing “equivalent skill, effort, and obligation and performed under similar working conditions,” they need to be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in lots of more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to the majority of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon secured characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of work. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are also forbidden from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, 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] needs affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures employees in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A staff member is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply big pensions). The ADEA contains explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion 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 “developed a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal professionals with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details technology be available to disabled staff members. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three employees from discriminating versus anyone (except 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 inequitable barriers against certified people with specials needs, people with a record of an impairment, or employment individuals who are considered as having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based on real or perceived physical or mental impairments. It likewise requires companies to offer reasonable lodgings to workers who need them because of a special needs to request a task, perform the important functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and benefits of work, unless the employer can reveal that excessive hardship will result. There are strict restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical checkups, and all medical details must be treated as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “significantly restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, changed in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages offered 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 utilizing individuals’ hereditary info when making hiring, firing, job positioning, 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 [upgrade], 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual preference and 29 US states do not clearly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction 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; a number of states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; 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 show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many people in the LGBT community have lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her employer informed her that her presence may make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private work environments. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise identified that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also offer comprehensive security from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as provided 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 greater defense to workers of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists classifications not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, because federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII also applies to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections against employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually interpreted this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [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 private companies deserve to limitations employees’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (not on behalf of their employer), 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) must take legal action against in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are usually enabled to think about characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, employment Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when required. For example, if police 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, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and work with officers that are proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, 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 rare in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is special to the home entertainment market, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense reason in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must stabilize personal privacy and security interest in the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were attempting to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to perform the task securely and effectively or that it is not practical to determine qualifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister intention does not convert a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced result. [97] Employers likewise carry the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower discriminatory alternative method does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment since of their faith, their religions and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise includes treating individuals differently in their employment because of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to hire an individual based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If an employee thinks that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they should address this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed gradually.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using religions versus changing the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to use for spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the staff member with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a best regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has faced criticism for forbiding ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, however, the law was amended to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black males were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers joined 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 safeguard the nation they resided 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 employment positions to undertake military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids employers from victimizing employees for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of ladies because there is a vast underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no prejudiced intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a secured category might still be unlawful if they produce a disparate impact on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act requires the removal of synthetic, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be connected to task efficiency, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

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

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and employment V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Act, and employment the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit match under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative treatments by filing an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and implements its own policies that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary help. [16]

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

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

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination 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 original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the 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 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 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 initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the 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 original 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 prohibits workplace predisposition 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 Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 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 initial 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 original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the 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 initial 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 original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 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 inequitable practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific activities. – New York City 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 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 Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, employment Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial 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 initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial 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 liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or liver disease 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 work since of age of worker 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 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 original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the 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 Preference 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 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 initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their working with practices based on a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the 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 initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get ready for more US females in battle”. 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 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 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 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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, 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 actually 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.