Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon specific characteristics or “protected classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the personal sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of locations, including recruiting, working with, job evaluations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers typically can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of 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] personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent homeowners, 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 directly address work discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due process of the law. It likewise includes an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. 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 staff members, previous employees, or task applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense needs that government staff members have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or employment residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional because 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 federal government’s authority to control a personal company, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some protection from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve 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 usually Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States should adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil rights laws that provide additional work defense.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established with time.

The Equal Pay Act modified 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 restricts companies and unions from paying different salaries based upon sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in employing. It provides that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner requiring “equivalent skill, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,” they must be supplied equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to many employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, employment and employment firms. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, employment color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon protected qualities regarding terms, conditions, and opportunities of employment. Employment firms might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination consists of 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 “restricts discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA protects workers in companies with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. An employee is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide big pensions). The ADEA consists of specific standards for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “maximum ages of entry into work 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 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped workers. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators versus miners who suffer from “black lung illness” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

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

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

The Immigration Reform and employment Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than three staff members from victimizing anybody (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 inequitable barriers versus certified people with specials needs, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are concerned as having a disability. It forbids discrimination based on genuine or perceived physical or psychological impairments. It also requires employers to offer sensible lodgings to workers who require them due to the fact that of a disability to look for a task, carry out the important functions of a task, or take pleasure in the benefits and opportunities of work, unless the company can show that undue difficulty will result. There are rigorous restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical exams, and all medical info needs to be treated as personal. An impairment is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “significantly restricts several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all persons equivalent 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 individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, task placement, or promo choices. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; a number of states and localities clearly restrict harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to encompass sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her manager told her that her existence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and personal workplaces. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade spiritual liberty, even though these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, employment not beliefs. Courts have also determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as offered by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher security to employees of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is included too, since federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state governments have extra defenses versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 restricts discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not impact job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually translated this as restricting 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 retain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers deserve to limitations workers’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public employees maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private citizen (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the proper federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are normally permitted to think about characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when required. For instance, if authorities are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, 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 community’s racial makeup. [94]

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

Often, companies will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage spaces between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer should stabilize privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For instance, retail facilities in rural locations can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If a company were trying to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, employment there should be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the task safely and efficiently or that it is not practical to determine certifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious intention does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lower discriminatory option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their employment because of their religion, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a change in a workplace rule or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with individuals differently in their work because of their lack of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from refusing to employ a private based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If an employee believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they ought to address this to the supposed transgressor. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer particular exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in various areas, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing faiths versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to look for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present proof that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has faced criticism for restricting ladies from serving in combat roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the way in which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans a possibility to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or particular types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts companies from victimizing staff members for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of ladies since there is a vast underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no prejudiced intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a secured classification may still be prohibited if they produce a diverse influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they relate to job efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with job efficiency, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not need to show requirement; rather, it must merely show that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and enforces 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 contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and implements its own regulations that apply 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 arrangements 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) 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 space in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit report 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 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 original 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 original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the 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 initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate 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 original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the original 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, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits office predisposition versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the 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 original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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; Table of Contents, 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 initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial 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 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the 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, 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 initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original 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 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 against the engagement in particular activities. – New York City 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 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [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 initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial 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 initial 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 original 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment because 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 initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [irreversible dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the 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 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 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 Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for a company 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 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 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 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 original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare yourself for more US women in combat”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the 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 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 original 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 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 Introduction 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to secure older employees. Weak to begin with, she specifies that the ADEA has actually 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.