Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon certain qualities or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has actually become 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 examinations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to additional classifications or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers normally can not discriminate versus staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for people, permanent residents, 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 Liberty 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 work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to protect 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 a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with staff members, previous employees, or task candidates unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense requires that civil servant have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the 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 expressly offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a private organization, including civil liberties laws, originates from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some protection from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address inequitable treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the “cops powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to protect public health, security and morals. All States should follow the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that provide extra employment protection.

For example, some State civil rights laws use defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such forms 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 implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts companies and unions from paying various salaries based on sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in hiring. It offers that where workers carry out equal work in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and responsibility and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they should be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to many employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor organizations, and employment agencies. 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 attributes regarding terms, conditions, employment and advantages of employment. Employment agencies might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “forbids discrimination by federal professionals 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 modified in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost similar to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects employees in companies with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A staff member is secured from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA includes specific standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of 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 “developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details technology be available to handicapped employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than 3 staff members from discriminating against 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 get rid of prejudiced barriers versus certified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are concerned as having a disability. It restricts discrimination based on real or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It likewise needs employers to provide sensible lodgings to staff members who need them since of a disability to make an application for a job, carry out the necessary functions of a job, or take pleasure in the benefits and advantages of employment, unless the company can show that excessive hardship will result. There are strict constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical assessments, and all medical information should be treated as private. A disability is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “significantly limits several significant life activities. ” [5]

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from using individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, task placement, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly consist of 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 Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference 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 protections for LGBT people were patchwork; numerous states and localities explicitly restrict harassment and predisposition in employment choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were secured 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 reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many people in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her boss informed her that her existence might make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private offices. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise recognized that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise supply extensive protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as offered 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 provide higher defense to workers of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, since federal law only 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 – Place of birth [76]
Civil servant

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra protections versus work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect task efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the interpretation would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies can limits staff members’ speech in specific ways. [93] Public workers maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal citizen (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are generally enabled to consider qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical 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 rules that police monitoring can match races when required. For circumstances, 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, employment police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are enabled to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, employment and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is special 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 an expense reason in wage spaces between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should balance personal privacy and security interest in the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in rural areas can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle children survivors of sexual assault 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 significantly all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task safely and efficiently or that it is impractical to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers likewise carry the problem to show that a BFOQ is fairly essential, and employment a lesser prejudiced option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a change in an office guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It likewise consists of treating individuals differently in their employment since of their lack of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to employ a specific based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they ought to resolve this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give particular exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have actually been upheld and others reversed with time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using religions against altering the body and employment preventative medication as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit staff members to get spiritual exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the staff member with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present proof 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 forbiding ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, however, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method in which black males were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites provided the African Americans a possibility to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the nation they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits companies from discriminating against workers for previous or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of women since there is a huge underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a secured category might still be unlawful if they produce a diverse influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be related to task performance, it is restricted, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to just show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative solutions by filing an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and imposes 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) implements the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based on 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 work 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 rating 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 original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the 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 initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the 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 initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans office 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 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 initial 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 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 Rights 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 original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the 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, employment Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial 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 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 original 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 city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against 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 initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the 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 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 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 liver disease 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 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 due to the fact that of age of worker 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 City Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for 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 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). “Get ready 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 posted 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 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 viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial 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 provisions”. 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 original 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 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 original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older employees. Weak to start with, she mentions that the ADEA has been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.