Ezelogs

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon certain attributes or “protected classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, including recruiting, working with, task evaluations, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies usually can not discriminate against workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent citizens, temporary locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Liberty Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly resolve work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government employees.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific 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 restricts states from breaking a person’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, former employees, or job candidates unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense needs that federal government staff members have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the personal sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their particular federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a private business, consisting of civil liberties laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some security from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just deal with prejudiced treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the personal sector are generally Constitutional under the “police powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, safety and morals. All States need to follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that offer extra employment security.

For example, some State civil liberties laws use defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political association, although such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually established 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 various wages based on sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in working with. It provides that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner requiring “equal skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,” they ought to be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to the majority of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and work firms. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon protected attributes relating to terms, conditions, and advantages of work. Employment service might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are also restricted from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

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

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures employees in firms with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A worker is secured from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists”. [15]

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

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three staff members 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 get rid of inequitable barriers against certified people with impairments, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered as having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or psychological disabilities. It also needs companies to offer sensible accommodations to employees who require them due to the fact that of a special needs to look for a task, carry out the necessary functions of a task, or enjoy the advantages and advantages of employment, unless the employer can reveal that undue difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when a company can ask disability-related questions or need medical examinations, and all medical information must be treated as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, make sure all persons equal rights under the law and detail the damages available to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from utilizing individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference 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 include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and areas clearly restrict harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to include sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

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

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private offices. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise recognized that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also offer extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as provided by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher protection to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, since federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, individual 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, employment 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 affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public employees maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies have the right to limitations employees’ speech in specific ways. [93] Public employees retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), employment they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are typically enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

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

BFOQs do not use in the entertainment industry, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting staff are enabled to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the entertainment market, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is distinct to the show business, 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 a cost justification in wage gaps between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company should stabilize privacy and security issues with the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For instance, retail facilities in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle kids survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task safely and effectively or that it is impractical to determine qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister intention does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers also carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly essential, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their work because of their faith, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their demand for lodging (a modification in an office rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise includes treating people differently in their work because of their absence of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from declining to employ an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, employees are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different places, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have been promoted and others reversed over time.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religions against changing the body and preventative medication as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit staff members to make an application for religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for workers to present proof that it is a regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has dealt with criticism for restricting women from serving in combat roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the job rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits employers from victimizing workers for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of women due to the fact that there is a large underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a secured category may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate impact on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they relate to job performance.

The Act needs the removal of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with task performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the employer’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When resisting a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to merely reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates 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 developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative remedies by filing an administrative grievance 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 impairments by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own policies 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) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin. [115]

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) workplaces take the function of the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit rating systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil 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 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 original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original 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 initial 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 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 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 initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits workplace predisposition versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the 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 liberty Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “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 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 original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the 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 original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the 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 initial 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 original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: employment Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived 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 due to the fact that of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 [long-term dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the 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 original 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 a company to discriminate in their employing practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare yourself for more US ladies 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 Armed Forces During The Second World War|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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. 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 original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL 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 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 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 stops working to secure older workers. Weak to start with, she specifies that the ADEA has been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.