Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on particular characteristics or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of locations, including recruiting, working with, job assessments, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies generally can not staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible residents, short-lived citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

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

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny people of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from violating a person’s rights of due procedure and equal defense. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating staff members, previous employees, or task candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense requires that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is connected 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a personal service, including civil liberties laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some defense from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only deal with discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that regulate the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that offer additional work protection.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established gradually.

The Equal Pay Act modified 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 different salaries based upon sex. It does not restrict other discriminatory practices in hiring. It supplies that where workers carry out equivalent operate in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and obligation and performed under comparable working conditions,” they should be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits 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 companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and work firms. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of employment. Employment companies might not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also restricted from basing membership or union classifications 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 related 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, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects employees in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A staff member is protected from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary support. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and details innovation be accessible to handicapped employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators against miners who struggle with “black lung illness” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids employers with more than three workers 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 remove inequitable barriers versus qualified individuals with specials needs, individuals with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered having a special needs. It restricts discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental disabilities. It also needs employers to provide sensible accommodations to workers who require them since of an impairment to make an application for a job, perform the important functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of work, unless the employer can reveal that excessive difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical assessments, and all medical info needs to be dealt with as private. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all persons equal rights under the law and describe the damages 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 employers from using people’ hereditary info when making hiring, shooting, task placement, or promotion decisions. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not clearly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s prohibition 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 ), work securities for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities clearly forbid harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender staff members were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to include sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many individuals in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her employer told her that her existence may make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private work environments. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have also determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, considering that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, individual appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government staff members

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, local and other public workers. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra defenses against work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public workers keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies deserve to limits staff members’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which positions a different set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are normally enabled to think about attributes that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second 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 demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement monitoring can match races when necessary. For example, if cops are running operations that include confidential informants, or undercover representatives, 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 think about race-based policing and employ officers that are proportionate to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the home entertainment market, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the home entertainment industry, particularly in performers. [95] This validation is special to the show business, and does not transfer to other markets, 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 a cost validation in wage gaps between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company must balance privacy and safety interest in the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural areas can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for thinking that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to perform the job safely and effectively or that it is impractical to determine certifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly needed, and a lesser inequitable option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their work due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a change in a work environment rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with people differently in their work since of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are restricted from declining to hire a specific based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should address this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been maintained and others reversed in time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing faiths versus changing the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable employees to obtain religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present proof that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has actually faced criticism for restricting females from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method 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 possibility to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard 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 people who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids employers from victimizing employees for referall.us previous or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic diverse treatment of ladies due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim because there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a safeguarded category may still be unlawful if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they are associated to job performance.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded 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 revealed to be associated with job performance, it is forbidden, regardless of the employer’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When defending versus a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to show need; rather, it should just show that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and enforces the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative problem 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 restricts discrimination against certified people with disabilities by federal contractors 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 receive financial help. [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 forbids discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT 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 gap 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 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 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 original 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 initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the initial 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 employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits work environment bias against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial 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 initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty 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 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 initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 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 liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the 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 original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. – New York 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 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 initial 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). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the 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 original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment 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 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 initial 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 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 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 Liberties 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 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 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 all set for somalibidders.com more US ladies in fight”. 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 Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the 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 viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the 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 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older employees. Weak to begin with, she mentions 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.