Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on particular characteristics or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has actually become 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, including recruiting, employing, task evaluations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to additional categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers usually can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent locals, short-term citizens, 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 deal with work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating staff members, former workers, or job candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense needs 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 complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the private sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a private company, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some defense from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the personal sector are normally Constitutional under the “police powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States should follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that provide extra employment security.

For example, some State civil rights laws provide security from work discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually established in time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers and unions from paying different wages based upon sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in hiring. It provides that where workers carry out equivalent work in the corner needing “equivalent skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they need to be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in many more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to a lot of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon safeguarded attributes regarding terms, conditions, employment and advantages of employment. Employment service may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also prohibited from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

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

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide large pensions). The ADEA includes explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning 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 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, employment and programs getting federal financial support. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and employment infotech be accessible to disabled workers. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or bad financial obligations. [9]

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of prejudiced barriers against certified individuals with specials needs, individuals with a record of a special needs, or individuals who are considered as having a disability. It restricts discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or mental specials needs. It likewise needs companies to offer reasonable accommodations to staff members who need them due to the fact that of an impairment to get a job, carry out the vital functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and opportunities of employment, unless the company can reveal that excessive difficulty will result. There are rigorous limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical checkups, and all medical info should be treated as private. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially restricts several significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all persons equal rights under the law and detail 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 utilizing people’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promo choices. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and regions clearly restrict harassment and bias in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender workers were protected 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 reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her employer informed her that her existence might make other people feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal workplaces. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would intrude on religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise identified that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included too, considering that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional defenses against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers can limitations workers’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational credentials

Employers are normally allowed to consider qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide 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 essential. For example, if authorities are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, 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 consider race-based policing and employ officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the home entertainment market, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the entertainment market, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is unique to the show business, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps in between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer should stabilize privacy and security issues with the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in backwoods can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage children survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.

If a company were attempting to prove that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be a factual basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to perform the job safely and efficiently or that it is not practical to figure out credentials on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers also carry the problem to show that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower inequitable alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a change in a workplace guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It also consists of treating individuals in a different way in their employment since of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to hire a private based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they must resolve this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and employment are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have stipulations that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to services or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in various locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been upheld and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using spiritual beliefs versus altering the body and preventative medication as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow staff members to obtain spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the worker with employment discrimination on the basis of spiritual beliefs. However, there are certain 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 against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has dealt with criticism for prohibiting ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black males were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their involvement 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 people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids companies from discriminating against employees for past or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of women since there is a huge underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a secured category might still be unlawful if they produce a disparate influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they are associated to job 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 leave out Negroes can not be revealed to be related to job efficiency, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When defending against a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it should just show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates 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 provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and standards are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file fit under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which restricts discrimination against qualified people with disabilities by federal specialists 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 monetary assistance. [16]

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

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

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the 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 original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of 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, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits office predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the 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 original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original 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 ” General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 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 original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the 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 inequitable practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original 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 initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with 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 liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work because 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 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 [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 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 original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the 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 original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based on a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the 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 original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the 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). “Prepare yourself for more US women in fight”. 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 original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the 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 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 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 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 stops working to safeguard older employees. Weak to begin with, she specifies that the ADEA has been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.