Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on specific attributes or “protected categories”. The United States also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of locations, consisting of recruiting, working with, task examinations, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies usually can not discriminate versus workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent residents, temporary 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 Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly address work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal civil servant.

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 residential or commercial property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equal protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating staff members, former staff members, or job applicants unequally due to the fact that of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that government workers have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is related 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 expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a personal organization, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some protection from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve inequitable treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the private sector are normally Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States should abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that provide extra work security.

For example, some State civil liberties laws offer security from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying various earnings based on sex. It does not restrict other discriminatory practices in hiring. It provides that where employees perform equivalent operate in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under similar working conditions,” they need to be supplied equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in a lot more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to most companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment companies may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor companies are also restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on 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 specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide big pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into employment in 1956″ by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy against age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial 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 available to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than 3 employees from victimizing anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove prejudiced barriers versus qualified individuals with impairments, individuals with a record of a disability, or people who are considered having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or psychological impairments. It also requires employers to offer reasonable lodgings to employees who require them because of a special needs to make an application for a job, perform the important functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and benefits of work, unless the employer can reveal that unnecessary challenge will result. There are stringent restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical examinations, and all medical details should be dealt with as personal. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially limits one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, make sure all individuals equal rights under the law and outline the damages readily 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 employers from using individuals’ hereditary information when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not explicitly consist of 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 employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and areas clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to include 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 individuals have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her boss informed 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 offices. 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, even though these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also recognized that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also offer comprehensive security from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as supplied by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply higher security to employees of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is consisted of also, because federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies have the right to limitations staff members’ 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 concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are generally permitted to consider attributes that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police security can match races when required. For example, if authorities are running operations that include personal informants, or undercover representatives, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and hire officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the entertainment industry, specifically 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 use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps in between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company must stabilize privacy and safety worry about the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were attempting to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to perform the job safely and adremcareers.com effectively or that it is impractical to determine qualifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not convert 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 discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their faith, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their demand for lodging (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their lack of religious belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to employ a specific based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker thinks that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they ought to address this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, staff members are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have stipulations that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and somalibidders.com the context; some of these have been supported and others reversed over time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using spiritual beliefs against modifying the body and preventative medication as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow employees to obtain spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the worker with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for workers 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 permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has faced criticism for forbiding women from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the way in which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to protect the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits employers from discriminating versus employees for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of females because there is a vast underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no prejudiced intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a secured classification might still be prohibited if they produce a disparate effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to job efficiency.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to job performance, it is restricted, notwithstanding the employer’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When protecting versus a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it must simply reveal that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and enforces the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty 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 policies and standards 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 must tire their administrative solutions by filing an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination against qualified people with specials needs by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive monetary help. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus 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 Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the 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 original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the 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 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 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 intentional 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 original 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 versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the 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 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 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; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the 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 initial 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 original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful 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 original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York 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 original 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. 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). [permanent 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 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 respect 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment because of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [irreversible 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 original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR 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 initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their employing practices based on an Authentic 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 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 referall.us Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US females 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 World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Resulting In the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the 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 workers. Weak to start with, she states 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.