Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain qualities or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of locations, including recruiting, employing, job examinations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend security to additional categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers usually can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible homeowners, short-lived locals, 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight address work discrimination, employment but its prohibitions 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 federal 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 process of the law. It also contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent defense. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating staff members, former workers, or job candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense needs that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation 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 employment is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their particular government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a personal company, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some security from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve prejudiced treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the private sector employment are normally Constitutional under the “authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States should adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that provide extra work security.

For instance, some State civil rights laws use protection from work discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed in 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 restricts employers and unions from paying various wages based upon sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in employing. It supplies that where employees perform equivalent operate in the corner requiring “equal ability, effort, and duty and carried out under similar working conditions,” they should be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies taken part 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 Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to many employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, employment faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities concerning terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment service might not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes 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 changed in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies 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 companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer big pensions). The ADEA includes explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion 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 versus age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial help. [16] It requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details innovation be available to handicapped staff members. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 prohibits discrimination by mine operators against 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 specialists”. [14]

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers versus qualified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered as having a disability. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It also needs employers to offer reasonable accommodations to workers who need them due to the fact that of a disability to get a task, perform the vital functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and opportunities of work, unless the employer can show that undue challenge will result. There are rigorous limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical info should be dealt with as confidential. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially restricts one or more major life activities. ” [5]

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using individuals’ hereditary info when making hiring, shooting, 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 [update], 28 US states do not clearly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not clearly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and localities explicitly forbid harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender staff members were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass 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 actually experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her manager told her that her existence may 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 couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise offer comprehensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable protection as provided by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater security to employees of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included too, because federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in on the basis of conduct that does not impact job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be broadened to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public employees maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits staff members’ speech in specific ways. [93] Public employees retain 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 concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are usually allowed to think about attributes that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (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, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement surveillance can match races when required. For circumstances, if cops are running operations that involve confidential informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are proportionate to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is special to the entertainment market, 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 work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should stabilize personal privacy and safety issues with the variety of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer preference alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For instance, retail facilities in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and effectively or that it is unwise to identify certifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their work since of their faith, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It also includes treating people differently in their work due to the fact that of their absence of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from refusing to employ a specific based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they must address this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, staff members are safeguarded by the law for reporting task 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 offer certain exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different places, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have been promoted and others reversed over time.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing spiritual beliefs against modifying the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow staff members to make an application for religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a truly held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has faced criticism for restricting ladies from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method in which black men were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just enabled to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the nation they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits employers from victimizing workers for past or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to enforce systemic diverse treatment of ladies because there is a large underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a secured category might still be illegal if they produce a diverse influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they belong to task performance.

The Act requires the removal of artificial, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be connected to job efficiency, it is restricted, regardless of the employer’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When resisting a diverse impact claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to show necessity; rather, it must simply show that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

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 provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination against certified individuals with impairments by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own policies 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) imposes the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which forbids discrimination based upon citizenship status or national 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 against individuals with criminal records 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 original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the 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 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 against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans 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 Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; 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 initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 original 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 prejudiced 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 against the engagement in specific activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the 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 initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or 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 hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in 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 Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the 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 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 original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York 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 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 a company to discriminate in their working with practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Bona Fide 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, employment 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 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 battle”. CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army 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 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 Leading to 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 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.
^ “An Introduction 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 Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to safeguard older employees. Weak to start with, she specifies that the ADEA has actually been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.