Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon certain characteristics or “secured categories”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, task examinations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to extra categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies normally can not discriminate against staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent locals, short-term residents, 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight address employment discrimination, employment however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal government staff members.

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 deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from breaking a person’s rights of due process and equivalent defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, former staff members, or task applicants unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection needs that government workers have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a private business, including civil liberties laws, comes from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some security from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the “authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to secure public health, safety and morals. All States must follow the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that offer extra employment defense.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws use defense from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has developed in 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 prohibits employers and unions from paying different incomes based upon sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in employing. It provides that where workers carry out equal operate in the corner requiring “equivalent ability, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,” they should be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to the majority of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon secured attributes relating to terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment companies may not discriminate when employing or referring applicants, and labor companies are likewise prohibited from basing membership or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, employment the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures employees in companies with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956″ by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists 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 accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be available to disabled workers. [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 handicapped and Vietnam era veterans by federal specialists”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of insolvency or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than 3 employees from victimizing anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate prejudiced barriers versus certified people with impairments, people with a record of a special needs, employment or individuals who are regarded as having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental impairments. It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who need them because of a special needs to obtain a task, perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and opportunities of employment, unless the company can show that excessive hardship will result. There are rigorous restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical checkups, and all medical information needs to be treated as confidential. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially limits several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, changed in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages readily available to plaintiffs 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 individuals’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, task positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities clearly forbid harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender workers were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to include sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

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

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal workplaces. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise determined that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists classifications not secured by federal law. Age is included as well, because federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII also uses to state, employment federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have additional protections against employment discrimination.

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

Additionally, public workers maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers deserve to limits employees’ speech in specific ways. [93] Public workers keep 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 concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are usually enabled to consider attributes that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized 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 guidelines that police monitoring can match races when needed. For example, if cops are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the home entertainment industry, employment particularly in entertainers. [95] This validation is distinct to the entertainment market, and does not transfer to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost reason in wage spaces between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should balance privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural areas can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that deal with kids survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If an employer were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task securely and effectively or that it is unwise to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister motive does not convert a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers also carry the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly necessary, and a lower prejudiced alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their work due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a change in a workplace rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with individuals differently in their work due to the fact that of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from declining to hire an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they must address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, workers are secured 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 provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to services or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed over time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religions versus modifying the body and preventative medication as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or reject 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 a truly held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has actually dealt with criticism for restricting ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method which black men were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the country they resided 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 undertake military service or specific types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits companies from victimizing workers for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of ladies because there is a huge underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards ladies 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 diverse effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to job performance.

The Act needs the removal of synthetic, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be related to task performance, it is restricted, regardless of the company’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When protecting versus a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to simply show that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job 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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA should exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit 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 professionals and subcontractors. [114]

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

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) enforces the anti-discrimination 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) workplaces take the function of the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap 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 initial 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 original 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 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 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 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 initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans office bias versus 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 Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the 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 original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the 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 original 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 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original 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 initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the 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 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 inequitable practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific 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 Rights 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 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 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 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 hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: employment Unfair practices in employment due to the fact that 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the 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 initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York 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 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 an employer to discriminate in their employing practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic 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 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 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). “Get prepared for more US females in battle”. 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 published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army During The Second World War|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 initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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 Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Resulting In 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 original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the original on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment 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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older employees. Weak to begin with, she specifies 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.