Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon particular characteristics or “secured categories”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the personal sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, task evaluations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies normally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or bad debts, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, long-term locals, short-lived citizens, 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 Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight attend to employment discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due procedure of the law. It likewise contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaking a person’s rights of due procedure and equivalent defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating employees, former employees, or task candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure security requires that government workers have a fair procedural procedure before they are ended 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 provision 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 specifically provide their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a private business, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some security from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just deal with discriminatory treatment by the government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the private sector are generally 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 need to follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States might enact civil rights laws that provide additional employment defense.

For example, some State civil rights laws offer defense from work discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established with time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers and unions from paying different earnings based upon sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in employing. It supplies that where employees perform equal operate in the corner needing “equivalent skill, effort, and obligation and performed under comparable working conditions,” they should be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to the majority of employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon protected qualities relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment service may not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor companies are also forbidden from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on 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 “forbids discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures workers in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted mandatory retirement, except for high-powered (that likewise supply big pensions). The ADEA includes explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [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 work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “developed a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and information technology be available to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids work discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or bad debts. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than 3 employees from discriminating against anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate prejudiced barriers against certified people with specials needs, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered as having a disability. It forbids discrimination based on genuine or perceived physical or mental impairments. It likewise requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to employees who require them because of a special needs to obtain a task, perform the vital functions of a task, or take pleasure in the benefits and advantages of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary difficulty will result. There are rigorous limitations on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or employment need medical evaluations, and all medical info must be treated as private. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all individuals equal rights under the law and outline the damages offered 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 companies from using people’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, job placement, employment or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit 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 consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference 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 employees; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

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

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

State law

State statutes likewise supply extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable 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 employees of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, because federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Civil servant

Title VII also uses to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal 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 task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually interpreted this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies deserve to limitations employees’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public staff members retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal workers who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

Employers are normally permitted to think about attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

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

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based upon physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the show business, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when a company should stabilize personal privacy and security concerns with the number of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in rural locations can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that manage kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If a company were trying to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for thinking that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to perform the job safely and efficiently or that it is impractical to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister intention does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory result. [97] Employers also carry the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably essential, and a lower inequitable alternative method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment because of their religion, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a change in a work environment rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise includes dealing with 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 forbidden from refusing to work with an individual based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they ought to address this to the alleged culprit. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded 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 stipulations that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer specific exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed gradually.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using religions versus changing the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers to get religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are particular requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The military has actually faced criticism for forbiding ladies from serving in fight functions. In 2016, however, the law was modified to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method in which black males were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to safeguard the nation they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise prohibits employers from discriminating versus workers for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of women because there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a secured classification might still be illegal if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they belong to job efficiency.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, employment and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be revealed to be related to task efficiency, employment it is prohibited, notwithstanding the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When safeguarding against a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to show necessity; rather, it should merely reveal that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job 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 established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint 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 versus certified individuals with disabilities by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own guidelines that use to its own programs and to any entities that receive monetary help. [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 prohibits discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space 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 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 original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the 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 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 intentional discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the 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 bias 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 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 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 initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty 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 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 initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the 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 original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the 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 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 inequitable practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in specific activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the 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 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 initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 viewed HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment because of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial 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 original 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 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 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 initial 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 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 Authentic 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 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 yourself for more US women in combat”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the 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 viewpoints”. 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 original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Leading to 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 original on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “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 Job 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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to secure older employees. Weak to start with, she mentions 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.

Please follow and like us: