Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on particular attributes or « protected categories ». The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but 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 prohibits discrimination in a variety of locations, including recruiting, hiring, task examinations, promo policies, employment training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers usually can not discriminate against workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible locals, momentary 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 straight resolve employment discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard 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 an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of « life, liberty, or property », without due procedure of the law. It likewise includes an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly forbids states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equal security. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with workers, previous workers, or job applicants unequally due to the fact that of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that government employees have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a « liberty » (such as the right to complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their particular government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a private business, including civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some defense from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just deal with prejudiced treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that control the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the « cops powers » teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to secure public health, security and morals. All States need to follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that provide additional work protection.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws offer security from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such types 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 implemented by the Wage and employment Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying various incomes based upon sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in employing. It provides that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner needing « equal skill, effort, and duty and carried out under similar working conditions, » they should be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in numerous more aspects of the employment relationship. « Title VII produced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It uses to many companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor organizations, and work agencies. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of work. Employment firms may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also prohibited from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 « forbids discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals ». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are nearly similar to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures workers in firms with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade obligatory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA contains specific guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot 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 against age discrimination amongst federal specialists ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary support. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be available to disabled employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators versus miners who experience « black lung illness » (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 « requires affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam age veterans by federal specialists ». [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids work discrimination on the basis of insolvency or bad debts. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than 3 staff members from discriminating against anyone (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or employment citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove inequitable barriers against qualified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based on real or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It likewise requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to workers who require them due to the fact that of an impairment to look for a job, perform the essential functions of a job, or delight in the advantages and advantages of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary hardship will result. There are stringent restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or require medical evaluations, and all medical information must be treated as private. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that « considerably restricts one or more major life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all individuals equivalent rights under the law and detail the damages readily 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 employers from utilizing individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and regions explicitly forbid harassment and predisposition in work decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: « Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job. » Many individuals in the have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her manager informed her that her presence may make other people feel uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal offices. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some opponents 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 complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of also, because federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – matriculation, employment personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government workers

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections versus work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal employment 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 orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits employees’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public workers retain 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 job. [93]

Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of issues for complainants.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are generally allowed to think about attributes that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd 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 shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when needed. For instance, if cops are running operations that include confidential informants, employment or undercover representatives, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the home entertainment industry, such as casting for films and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, employment sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the entertainment industry, particularly in performers. [95] This validation is special to the home entertainment industry, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense reason in wage gaps between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer needs to stabilize privacy and security worry about the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in backwoods can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with kids survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If an employer were attempting to prove that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task securely and efficiently or that it is not practical to figure out credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers also bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly necessary, and a lower discriminatory option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their employment because of their faith, their faiths and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a change in a work environment rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise consists of treating individuals in a different way in their employment since of their lack of religion or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are restricted from declining to work with a private based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to resolve this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, staff members are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to organizations or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different places, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed in time.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing religions versus altering the body and preventative medication as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to look for religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for workers to present evidence that it is a sincerely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has faced criticism for prohibiting women from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method which black men were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to defend the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits companies from discriminating against workers for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of females since there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim because there was no discriminatory intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a protected category may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate influence on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they relate to job efficiency.

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be connected to job performance, it is restricted, regardless of the company’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, however, does not require to demonstrate requirement; rather, it needs to just show that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and 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 developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative solutions by filing an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

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

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit report 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 original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b « Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended ». ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS ». Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b « The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ». Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the 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 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 initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Guide to Disability Rights Laws ». ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 30 USC Sec. 938 ». Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ « Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ». Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in 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 workplace bias against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald ». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). « Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment ». Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Sexual 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 original 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 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 initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2 ». Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination » ». Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Illinois Human Rights Act ». Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Indiana General Assembly ». iga.in.gov. Archived from the 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 original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040 » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352 ». Archived from the initial 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 original 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^  » § 213.055 R.S.Mo ». Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303 ». Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices ». Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12) ».
^ a b c « 2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « New York 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 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 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 Of The United States| ». www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A ». Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ « Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission » (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ « State of Rhode Island General Assembly ». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « South Carolina Human Affairs Law ». Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Tennessee State Government – TN.gov ». www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Virginia Human Rights Act ». Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease 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 viewed HIV or hepatitis 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 since of age of employee 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 original 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 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 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 PARTICIPATING 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 original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). « New Protections for employment Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009) ». The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b « Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC ». www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the 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 upon a Bona Fide 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 original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). « Prepare for more US females in battle ». CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). « Segregation in the 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 initial 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws ». Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC ». Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY ». Archived from the 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 initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

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