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 restrict discrimination based upon particular qualities or “secured categories”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and employment state governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has 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 restricts discrimination in a number of locations, consisting of recruiting, employing, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend protection to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies generally can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] impairment (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, long-term residents, short-term homeowners, 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 directly resolve work discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to safeguard federal government staff members.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit 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 residential or commercial property”, without due procedure of the law. It also includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from breaking a person’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, former staff members, or job candidates unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection requires that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision 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 economic sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private company, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some defense from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States should abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that offer extra work protection.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually established in time.

The Equal Pay Act changed 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 wages based upon sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in working with. It offers that where workers carry out equal operate in the corner needing “equal ability, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they must be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to a lot of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon protected qualities concerning terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment service might not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise prohibited from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination consists of 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 “forbids discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal contractors”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly similar to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in companies with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A worker is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide big pensions). The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [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 “developed a policy against age discrimination amongst federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal professionals with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped staff members. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators versus miners who suffer from “black lung disease” (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 bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove prejudiced barriers against certified people with disabilities, people with a record of an impairment, or people who are regarded as having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or mental specials needs. It likewise requires companies to supply sensible accommodations to employees who require them since of a disability to look for a task, carry out the necessary functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and advantages of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary challenge will result. There are strict constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or require medical exams, and all medical details needs to be treated as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, employment modified in 1993, make sure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and lay out 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 information when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promotion 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 orientation and 29 US states do not clearly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or employment 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; numerous states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection 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 kind of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some type 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 her that her presence might make other people 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 people in both public and private workplaces. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise identified that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply substantial defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as supplied by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater defense to workers of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is included as well, given that federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, personal appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Government employees

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state governments have extra defenses versus work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits employees’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public workers maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal resident (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of problems for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are usually permitted to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement monitoring can match races when essential. 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, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the entertainment industry, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the show business, and does not transfer to other markets, 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 a cost reason in wage spaces between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company must balance personal privacy and safety issues with the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer preference alone can not be a validation unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in rural areas can not forbid African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with kids survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, employment there must be a factual basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and effectively or that it is not practical to figure out qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister intention does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers likewise carry the concern to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser prejudiced option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their work because of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a work environment rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with people in a different way in their employment since of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to work with an individual based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If an employee believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they ought to address this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have clauses that prohibit 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, however, to differing degrees in various areas, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have been maintained and others reversed with time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religions against altering the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to get religious exemptions, or decline their application may 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 genuinely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly allows discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has faced criticism for restricting women from serving in combat roles. In 2016, however, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method in which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a chance to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits companies from discriminating versus employees for previous or present involvement or subscription 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 due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim since there was no prejudiced intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a protected classification may still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they are associated to job performance.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be connected to task performance, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to show necessity; rather, it should just show that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and imposes the Equal Pay Act, employment 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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and imposes its own guidelines that use to its own programs and to any entities that get financial assistance. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit scoring 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 original 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 original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional 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 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 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 prohibits work environment bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual 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 original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, employment 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 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 original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the 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 original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial 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 original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original 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 city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the 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 Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. 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). [irreversible 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 original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: employment 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 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 employment since of age of employee 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 Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term 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 initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 a company to discriminate in their hiring practices based upon a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare yourself for more US women in combat”. 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 Army During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the original 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 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Overview 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 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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to secure older employees. Weak to begin with, she specifies that the ADEA has actually been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.