Something About Company

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and employment regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon specific characteristics or “safeguarded categories”. The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly 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 Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, job examinations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend security to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies normally can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent citizens, momentary locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly attend to employment discrimination, however 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 restrict the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or residential or commercial property”, without due procedure of the law. It also includes an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from breaching a person’s rights of due procedure and equal protection. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating staff members, previous employees, or task applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security requires that civil servant have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their particular government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal organization, consisting of civil liberties laws, originates from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some defense from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just deal with prejudiced treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that control the personal 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 adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that use extra employment security.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws offer security from work discrimination on the basis of political association, despite the fact that such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying various incomes based on sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in working with. It offers that where workers carry out equivalent operate in the corner requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions,” they must be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in numerous more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to many companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon secured attributes concerning terms, conditions, and opportunities of work. Employment companies might not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and associated medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “restricts discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, 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 changed in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly identical to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. An employee is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted obligatory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “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 contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits 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 requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

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

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove inequitable barriers against certified individuals with specials needs, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based on real or perceived physical or psychological specials needs. It likewise needs employers to provide sensible accommodations to staff members who need them because of a special needs to use for a job, perform the important functions of a job, or delight in the benefits and opportunities of work, unless the company can show that unnecessary hardship will result. There are stringent restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or need medical checkups, and all medical details should be dealt with as confidential. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “significantly restricts one or more significant life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all persons equal rights under the law and outline 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 individuals’ hereditary information when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promo 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 explicitly include sexual preference and 29 US states do not clearly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s prohibition 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; numerous states and regions clearly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions 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 workers; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to incorporate 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 individuals have actually experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the task.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her boss informed her that her presence might make other people 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 individuals in both public and personal offices. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, even though these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise recognized that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise supply extensive security from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense as supplied by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher defense to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, considering that 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 staff members

Title VII also applies to state, federal, local and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have extra defenses versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not impact job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has analyzed this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be broadened to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies deserve to limits employees’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal person (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational certifications

Employers are usually enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized 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 police surveillance can match races when required. For example, if authorities are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and work with officers that are proportionate to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, such as casting for movies and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the home entertainment market, particularly in entertainers. [95] This reason is special to the show business, employment and does not transfer to other markets, employment such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense reason in wage spaces in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when a company must balance privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were trying to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task securely and efficiently or that it is unwise to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers likewise carry the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly necessary, and a lesser discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their work since of their faith, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a change in a work environment rule or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It also includes treating people in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their absence of religious belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from declining to work with an individual based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If an employee believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they must address this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able 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 give particular exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been promoted and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using spiritual beliefs against altering the body and preventative medication as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are specific 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 permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for restricting ladies from serving in battle functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the country they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts employers from discriminating versus staff members for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to enforce systemic diverse treatment of females due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim since there was no prejudiced intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a secured classification might still be prohibited if they produce a diverse effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they are associated to task efficiency.

The Act needs the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to employment 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 revealed to be associated with task efficiency, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When resisting a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to show need; rather, it should simply show that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and employment 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, employment and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The was developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit match under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own guidelines that apply 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 restricts discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space 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 Rights 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 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 original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of 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 versus Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans workplace predisposition versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; 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 original 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 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 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 original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08”. Archived from the 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 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 original 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 prejudiced practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in particular activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the 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 original (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 Attorney General|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the 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 original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the 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 original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or employment perceived HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work since 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 Table of Contents”. 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 initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the 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 Rights 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 on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare for more US females 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 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 original 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 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 initial 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 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 Overview 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 protect older workers. Weak to begin with, she specifies that the ADEA has 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.