Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on certain qualities or ”secured categories”. The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the private 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 restricts discrimination in a variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, working with, task evaluations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to additional classifications or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies typically can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for people, permanent homeowners, short-lived locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly attend to employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to protect federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 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 individuals of ”life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It also consists of an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating workers, former workers, or job candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is related to a ”liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (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 offer their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a private business, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some security from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve inequitable treatment by the government, including a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the ”authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, security and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States may enact civil rights laws that offer extra work defense.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed 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 offers that where employees perform equivalent operate in the corner needing ”equal ability, effort, and duty and performed under similar working conditions,” they need to be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. ”Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, job and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 ”restricts discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost identical to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of ”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 amongst federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary help. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts 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 era veterans by federal contractors”. [14]

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers against certified individuals with specials needs, people with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered as having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based on real or perceived physical or mental disabilities. It also needs employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers who require them because of an impairment to make an application for a task, perform the important functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and privileges of employment, unless the company can show that undue difficulty will result. There are stringent constraints on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical exams, and all medical information should be dealt with as private. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that ”considerably limits several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all individuals equivalent rights under the law and lay out the damages 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 companies from using people’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s restriction of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), job employment protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and areas clearly restrict harassment and predisposition in employment choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to encompass sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: ”Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her manager told her that her existence may make other people feel uncomfortable. [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 personal offices. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would invade religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

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

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

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Civil servant

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has analyzed this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the interpretation would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]

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

Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which poses a various set of problems for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are usually permitted to think about characteristics that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. 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 guidelines that police security can match races when essential. For circumstances, if authorities are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover representatives, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, job Missouri, can think about race-based policing and hire officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the entertainment market, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the entertainment market, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, job companies will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company needs to stabilize privacy and security concerns with the number of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, client choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in rural locations can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that manage kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to perform the task securely and efficiently or that it is unwise to determine qualifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers also bring the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly needed, and a lower prejudiced alternative method does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

”Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also includes treating people in a different way in their employment since of their absence of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from declining to work with a private based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If an employee believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they should address this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have stipulations 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 religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been maintained and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are utilizing religious beliefs versus altering the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit staff members to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the worker with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for staff members to present proof that it is a seriously 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 armed force has actually faced criticism for prohibiting females from serving in combat functions. 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. blogs about the method in which black males were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to show themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to safeguard the country they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts companies from discriminating against workers for previous or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to enforce systemic diverse treatment of women due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no prejudiced intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected category may still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they are associated to task efficiency.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be shown to be associated with task performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the company’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to show requirement; rather, it needs to merely reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements 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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards 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 need to tire their administrative solutions by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and implements its own regulations 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) imposes the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based on citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit rating systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e ”Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b ”The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b ”Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b ”Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b ”The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the 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 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 initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ ”Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ ”42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 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, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. ”EEOC: Federal law bans office bias against 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 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 Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b ”Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b ”Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c ”Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the 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 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, job section 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b ”Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b ”Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b ”NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b ”Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d ”New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c ”2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced 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 particular 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 initial 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 Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”Oklahoma Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c ”Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the 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 initial 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 initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b ”Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ ”Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b ”RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed 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 because of age of worker or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ”State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d ”Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ ”22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ ”22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b ”Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial 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 City Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b ”Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ ”Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c ”When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their employing practices based upon an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c ”CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b ”United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 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 initial 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 more US ladies 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 Armed Forces 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 viewpoints”. 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 original 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 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the original on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b ”Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ ”The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ ”An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to safeguard 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.