Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on specific characteristics or « safeguarded classifications ». The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually become based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, working with, job assessments, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies generally can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent 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 deal with work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to protect federal government employees.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of « life, liberty, or home », without due process of the law. It likewise contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating an individual’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 dealing with workers, previous employees, or task candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure security 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 residential or commercial 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 personal sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their respective federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a personal service, including civil liberties laws, stems from their power to manage all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some security from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only deal with prejudiced treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that control the personal sector are generally Constitutional under the « police powers » teaching or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States must follow the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that use extra employment defense.

For example, some State civil liberties laws offer security from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids employers and unions from paying different wages based on sex. It does not prohibit other inequitable practices in working with. It provides that where workers carry out equivalent operate in the corner needing « equal skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under similar working conditions, » they need to be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more elements of the work relationship. « Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It uses to most companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor organizations, and employment companies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon protected attributes relating to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment companies might not discriminate when employing or candidates, and labor companies are likewise forbidden from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

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

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade mandatory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer big pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation 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 « developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details technology be accessible to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove prejudiced barriers against qualified people with specials needs, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are related to as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based upon genuine or perceived physical or psychological impairments. It likewise requires companies to supply reasonable lodgings to workers who need them due to the fact that of a special needs to get a task, carry out the important functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and privileges of work, unless the employer can reveal that undue difficulty will result. There are stringent limitations on when a company can ask disability-related questions or need medical exams, and all medical information should be treated as private. An impairment is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that « substantially limits several significant life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, changed in 1993, make sure all persons equal rights under the law and lay out the damages readily available to plaintiffs 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 using people’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, task positioning, or promotion choices. [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 include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not clearly include 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 preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s prohibition 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 defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and regions clearly forbid harassment and bias 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 choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender workers were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to incorporate 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 people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job. » Many individuals in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her boss informed her that her existence might make other people 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 people in both public and personal offices. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade spiritual liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have also determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise supply substantial protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply defense 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 categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, considering that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, individual 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, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have extra protections against work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public employees keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers deserve to limitations employees’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public staff members keep 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) need to sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational credentials

Employers are usually enabled to think about attributes that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement security can match races when needed. For circumstances, if cops are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are in proportion to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting staff are allowed to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the home entertainment industry, particularly in entertainers. [95] This validation is distinct to the show business, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

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

Additionally, client 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 prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and efficiently or that it is unwise to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable impact. [97] Employers likewise bring the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly necessary, and a lower discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their work since of their faith, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in an office rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise includes dealing with people differently in their employment due to the fact that of their absence of faith or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to hire an individual based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a worker believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to resolve this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been promoted and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using faiths versus altering the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers 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 certain requirements for workers to present evidence that it is a regards 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 armed force has faced criticism for restricting women from serving in combat functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black males were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a possibility to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, somalibidders.com however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to protect the country they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids employers from discriminating against staff members for past or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of females because 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 directly victimize a secured category may still be illegal if they produce a diverse impact on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment 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 task performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When safeguarding against a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it needs to simply show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and imposes 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 included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination against qualified people with impairments by federal contractors and subcontractors. [114]

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

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work 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 Liberty 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 original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b « Pregnancy Discrimination Act ». Archived from the 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 original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b « Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 » (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). « Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy ». Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ « Family and Medical Leave Act ». Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). « Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application ». Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). « Age discrimination legislations in the United States » (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Guide to Disability Rights Laws ». ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 30 USC Sec. 938 ». Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ « Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ». Archived from the 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 original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) ». Archived from the initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). « Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination 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 prohibits work environment 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 Preference Discrimination in the Workplace ». FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). « The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked ». Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Code of Alabama 25-1-21 ». Archived from the 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 initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f « Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ». California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b « Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60 ». Archived from the original 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; Table of Contents, General Provisions » (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine ». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 initial 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 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 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 original 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 original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices ». Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12) ».
^ a b c « 2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York City 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 original 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 initial (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 Chief Law Officer| ». 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). [irreversible dead link] ^ « State of Rhode Island General Assembly ». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « South Carolina Human Affairs Law ». Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Tennessee State Government – TN.gov ». www.tn.gov. Archived from the 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 companies ». 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 viewed HIV or liver disease C infection ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work 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 Table of Contents ». docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original 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 initial (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 original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451 ». Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION ». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 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 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 initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the 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 ready 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 published 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 initial 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 initial 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 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 provisions ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ». Archived from the initial 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 initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ « A Summary 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older employees. Weak to start with, she mentions 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.