Employment Discrimination Law in The United States
Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon particular characteristics or “protected classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the personal sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, employment consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job examinations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend security to extra categories or employers.
Under federal employment discrimination law, companies generally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (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] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for people, permanent residents, short-term 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964
Title IX
Constitutional basis
The United States Constitution does not straight resolve work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government workers.
The Fifth and employment Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due process of the law. It likewise includes an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and equal defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with staff members, previous staff members, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure security needs that federal government staff members have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or home 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 economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective federal 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, consisting of civil liberties laws, originates from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some from public and private work discrimination, employment such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve inequitable treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.
Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that regulate the personal sector are typically Constitutional under the “police powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, security and morals. All States should adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer extra employment security.
For instance, some State civil rights laws use security from work discrimination on the basis of political association, although such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.
History of federal laws
Federal law governing employment discrimination has established with time.
The Equal Pay Act amended 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 restricts employers and unions from paying different wages based upon sex. It does not forbid other discriminatory practices in hiring. It supplies that where workers carry out equivalent work in the corner requiring “equivalent ability, effort, and duty and carried out under similar working conditions,” they need to be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor employment organizations, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and employment privileges of work. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are likewise prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination consists of discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]
Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors”. [14]
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into employment in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy against age discrimination amongst federal specialists”. [15]
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary support. [16] It requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped workers. [16]
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators against miners who experience “black lung disease” (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 employment discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three employees from discriminating versus anyone (except 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 individuals with specials needs, individuals with a record of a special needs, or people who are considered as having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or psychological specials needs. It also requires employers to offer affordable lodgings to staff members who need them since of an impairment to look for a job, perform the important functions of a task, or enjoy the advantages and benefits of employment, unless the employer can show that undue difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical examinations, and all medical details needs to be dealt with as private. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially limits several major life activities. ” [5]
The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee 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’ hereditary info when making hiring, shooting, job positioning, or promotion decisions. [10]
The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not clearly include sexual preference and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.
LGBT employment discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 ), employment protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and localities clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to incorporate sexual preference 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 kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims 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 personal workplaces. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually likewise determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]
State law
State statutes also offer extensive protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar security as offered by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater security to staff members of the state or of state specialists.
The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included as well, because federal law only covers employees over 40.
In addition,
– District of Columbia – enlisting, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Government employees
Title VII also uses to state, federal, local and other public workers. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections versus employment discrimination.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the interpretation would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]
Additionally, public workers keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limitations staff members’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal citizen (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]
Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of concerns for complainants.
Exceptions
Authentic occupational credentials
Employers are usually enabled to consider qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.
The only exception to this rule is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when necessary. For example, if police are running operations that involve personal informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]
BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, particularly 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 utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage spaces in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must balance privacy and safety interest in the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]
Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for employment staffing at facilities that handle kids survivors of sexual assault is allowed.
If an employer were attempting to prove that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to 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 efficiently or that it is impractical to determine credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent motive does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers likewise bring the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]
Religious employment discrimination
“Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their employment since of their religion, their religions and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It also consists of dealing with individuals differently in their work since of their absence of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from declining to work with an individual based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If an employee thinks that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they should resolve this to the alleged culprit. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer particular exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been upheld and others reversed over time.
The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using religions versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present proof that it is a genuinely held belief. [101]
Members of the Communist Party
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly allows discrimination against members of the Communist Party.
Military
The military has actually faced criticism for restricting ladies from serving in battle functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout 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 site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their involvement was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to protect 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 work positions to carry out military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits companies from discriminating against workers for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to impose systemic disparate treatment of females because there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]
Unintentional discrimination
Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a safeguarded category may still be unlawful if they produce a diverse impact on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they relate to job efficiency.
The Act requires the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to job performance, it is restricted, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]
Height and weight requirements have actually been determined by the EEOC as having a disparate effect on nationwide origin minorities. [108]
When safeguarding versus a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to merely reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]
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 Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines 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 need to tire their administrative solutions by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs implements Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which restricts discrimination against qualified people with impairments by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and implements its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get financial support. [16]
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) implements the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based upon citizenship status or national origin. [115]
State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) workplaces play 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 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 initial 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 original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the 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 initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans work environment predisposition against 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 original 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 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 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 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 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the 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 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 original 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 initial 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, section 363A.08”. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York 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 original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Chief Law Officer|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term 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 original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment 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 initial 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 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 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART 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 Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based upon a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic 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 employment 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US ladies in combat”. 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 original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the original 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 Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the 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 original 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 Employment 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 begin with, she specifies that the ADEA has actually 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.
