Homebasework

About Us

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain qualities or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being subject to 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 areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, task examinations, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to extra categories or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers normally can not discriminate versus workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, 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 citizens, long-term citizens, 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 Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight resolve employment discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaking a person’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with employees, previous employees, or job candidates unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that civil servant have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is associated with 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 costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the personal sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal company, consisting of civil rights laws, originates from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some protection from public and private 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 an in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the personal sector are typically Constitutional under the “cops powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States must adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that provide additional employment protection.

For example, some State civil liberties laws offer defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed over time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids companies and unions from paying various incomes based on sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in hiring. It provides that where workers carry out equal operate in the corner requiring “equal skill, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,” they must be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to many companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities concerning terms, conditions, and advantages of employment. Employment service might not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are also restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and related 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 specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly identical to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A staff member is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, employment except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting 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 contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and info innovation be accessible to disabled staff members. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three workers from discriminating against 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 get rid of inequitable barriers against qualified individuals with impairments, people with a record of a disability, or people who are related to as having a disability. It restricts discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It also needs companies to provide reasonable accommodations to workers who need them since of an impairment to make an application for a job, carry out the important functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and advantages of work, unless the employer can show that excessive hardship will result. There are strict constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical examinations, and all medical info needs to be dealt with as personal. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “considerably limits several significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages offered 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 people’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, task positioning, or promotion decisions. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and regions clearly prohibit harassment and bias in work decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to encompass sexual orientation 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 form of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Many people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her manager told her that her presence may make other individuals feel uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and personal workplaces. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also identified that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise provide extensive security from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply higher defense to workers of the state or of state professionals.

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

In addition,

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

Government workers

Title VII also uses to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra defenses against work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers have the right to limitations workers’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public employees retain 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 concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are generally enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common 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 guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police surveillance can match races when necessary. For circumstances, if police are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are in proportion to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, 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 unique to the home entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage gaps between different groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must stabilize personal privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

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

If a company were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to carry out the job securely and effectively or that it is impractical to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable impact. [97] Employers likewise carry the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lesser inequitable option method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their work since of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their absence of religious belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from refusing to hire a private based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they must resolve this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer particular exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been upheld and others reversed in time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religious beliefs against changing the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow staff members to request religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of spiritual beliefs. However, there are particular requirements for employees 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 explicitly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has faced criticism for restricting women from serving in fight functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method in which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity 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 just allowed to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job 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 staff members for previous or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to enforce systemic diverse treatment of ladies because there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no prejudiced intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

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

The Act needs the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that runs to leave out Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to task performance, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When resisting a diverse impact claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it should simply reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and employment 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 liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 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 match under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative treatments by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

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

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

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

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

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space 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 Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the 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 original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the 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 deliberate discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits office bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the original 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 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 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 original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the original (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 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the 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 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 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08”. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the 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 prejudiced 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. 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 initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. 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 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 due to the fact that of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 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 original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Preference Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York City Times. Archived from the 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 original 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 initial 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 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 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the 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 provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original 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.
^ “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 Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to safeguard older employees. Weak to begin with, she states that the ADEA has 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.