Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on specific attributes or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however 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 restricts discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, task evaluations, promo policies, training, payment and referall.us disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies normally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent homeowners, short-lived 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 Liberty 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, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from violating a person’s rights of due procedure and equivalent defense. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with workers, previous workers, or job applicants unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection needs that federal government staff members have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the private sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically provide their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a private business, including civil liberties laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address inequitable treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the “authorities powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, security and morals. All States must abide by the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that use additional employment protection.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed over time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers and unions from paying various wages based upon sex. It does not restrict other prejudiced practices in hiring. It provides that where employees carry out equal work in the corner requiring “equivalent skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under comparable working conditions,” they must be supplied equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies taken part in some element 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 needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 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 a lot of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise forbidden from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, 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 “prohibits discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal specialists”. [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 prohibited practices are almost identical to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply big pensions). The ADEA consists of specific standards for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot 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 “established a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

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

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove discriminatory barriers against certified people with disabilities, people with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or psychological impairments. It likewise requires companies to offer sensible accommodations to workers who need them because of a disability to get a job, carry out the essential functions of a task, or enjoy the benefits and benefits of employment, unless the employer can reveal that unnecessary challenge will result. There are strict constraints on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or require medical evaluations, and all medical information should be dealt with as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially limits several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages readily available to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from utilizing 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] Since June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not clearly include sexual orientation 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 employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and areas explicitly prohibit harassment and predisposition in employment choices on the basis of sexual orientation 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 workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her boss informed her that her existence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private work environments. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also recognized that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also offer substantial defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as supplied 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 supply greater defense to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, considering that federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Government staff members

Title VII also applies to state, federal, local and other public workers. Employees of federal and adremcareers.com state federal governments have extra protections versus employment discrimination.

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

Additionally, public workers retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits staff members’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public staff members retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (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 workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of issues for complainants.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational credentials

Employers are usually enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized 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 monitoring can match races when essential. For example, if police are running operations that involve confidential 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 employ officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment market, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the home entertainment market, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification is unique to the show business, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage spaces in between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must stabilize personal privacy and security interest in the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, 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 handle children survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the job safely and efficiently or that it is not practical to determine qualifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers also carry the problem to show that a BFOQ is reasonably essential, and a lower discriminatory option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It also consists of treating people in a different way in their work since of their lack of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from declining to hire a private based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member thinks that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they ought to resolve this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, staff members are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to businesses or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different places, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been maintained and others reversed in time.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing faiths against altering the body and preventative medication as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to request spiritual exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, somalibidders.com there are specific requirements for staff members to present proof that it is a sincerely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has faced criticism for restricting females from serving in fight functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method in which black males were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites provided the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids companies from victimizing workers for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to impose systemic diverse treatment of ladies because there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a secured category may still be unlawful if they produce a disparate effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they are related to task efficiency.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be related to job efficiency, it is restricted, notwithstanding 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 preventing a disparate effect claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate requirement; rather, it must simply reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and implements 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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative solutions by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against certified individuals with impairments by federal contractors and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and enforces its own policies that use to its own programs and to any entities that get financial assistance. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit history 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 original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the 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 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 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 initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination 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 work environment predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original 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 initial 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 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 inequitable practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York City Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (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 Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [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 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 original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect 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 perceived HIV or hepatitis 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 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 original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the 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 original 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 initial 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 working with 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the 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). “Prepare for more US women in fight”. 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 Army 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 original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal 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 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 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.
^ “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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to protect older employees. Weak to start 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.