Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon specific attributes or «protected categories». The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has actually become based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of locations, consisting of recruiting, employing, task evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to additional categories or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers 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 mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible citizens, short-lived homeowners, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly deal with employment discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government employees.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny people of «life, liberty, or home», without due process of the law. It also consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from breaching a person’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with employees, previous employees, or job candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security requires that federal government employees have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a «liberty» (such as the right to free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their respective federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to control a personal business, consisting of civil rights laws, stems from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some security from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the «cops powers» doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States need to adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that use extra employment security.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually established in time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids employers and unions from paying various salaries based on sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in employing. It offers that where employees perform equal operate in the corner requiring «equal ability, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,» they ought to be supplied equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in numerous more aspects of the employment relationship. «Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act». [12] It applies to the majority of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon safeguarded attributes relating to terms, job conditions, and benefits of work. Employment firms might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union categories on race, color, job faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination consists of discrimination based upon 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 «forbids discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists». [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 almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures employees in companies with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, job the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited obligatory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply large pensions). The ADEA includes explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of «optimal ages of entry into employment in 1956» by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 «developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors». [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 assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details innovation be accessible to handicapped employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators versus miners who experience «black lung illness» (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 «needs affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam period veterans by federal professionals». [14]

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids employers with more than 3 employees from victimizing anybody (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 eliminate discriminatory barriers against certified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based on real or viewed physical or psychological specials needs. It also requires companies to provide sensible lodgings to staff members who need them because of a special needs to use for a task, perform the vital functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and opportunities of employment, unless the company can show that unnecessary challenge will result. There are strict constraints on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical exams, and all medical information needs to be treated as personal. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that «considerably limits several significant life activities. » [5]

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from utilizing individuals’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promo choices. [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 consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not clearly include 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 preference 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for job LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and localities explicitly forbid harassment and bias in work choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or job gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s determined that transgender workers were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass 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 type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some type 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 declares that her manager informed her that her presence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [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 prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would invade religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise recognized that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is included as well, because federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, individual look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Civil servant

Title VII also applies to state, job federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections against employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the interpretation would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies deserve to limitations staff members’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public employees keep 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 job. [93]

Federal staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of problems for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are typically allowed to consider qualities that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd 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 security can match races when required. For example, if authorities are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel 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 unusual in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is special 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 a cost validation in wage spaces in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must stabilize personal privacy and safety interest in the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

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

If a company were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the job securely and effectively or that it is impractical to figure out qualifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable effect. [97] Employers also carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably essential, and a lesser inequitable alternative method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

«Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their employment since of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a change in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also consists of treating individuals differently in their work because of their lack of religion or practice» (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to work with a specific based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If an employee believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they should address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, employees are protected 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 clauses that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide certain exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in various locations, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been maintained and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using faiths versus altering the body and preventative medication as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow staff members to look for religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 explicitly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has faced criticism for forbiding women from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was modified to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black guys were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites gave the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them get involved 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 limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to safeguard the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts employers from victimizing employees for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of females due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no inequitable intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a safeguarded category might still be prohibited if they produce a diverse effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they belong to job performance.

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

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

When resisting a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, however, does not need to show necessity; rather, it must just reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative solutions by filing an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

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

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

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records 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 original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b «Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008» (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). «Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy». Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ «Family and Medical Leave Act». Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). «Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application». Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). «Age discrimination legislations in the United States» (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «Guide to Disability Rights Laws». ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «30 USC Sec. 938». Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ «Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986». Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ «42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 against Openly Gay Men in the United States». American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). «Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC». The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. «EEOC: Federal law bans office bias against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). «Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment». Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ «Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace». FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). «The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked». Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ «Code of Alabama 25-1-21». Archived from the 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 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 initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ «District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions» (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 original 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 original 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 original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices». Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)».
^ a b c «2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced practice». Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296». Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain 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 original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ «2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty 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 original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «South Carolina Human Affairs Law». Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ «Tennessee State Government – TN.gov». www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Utah Code 34A-5-106». Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ «Virginia Human Rights Act». Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies». 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 perceived HIV or liver disease 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 work since of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «State of West Virginia» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term dead link] ^ «22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3» (PDF). Archived from the initial (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 original 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 PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Addressing Sexual Preference Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights». Archived from the initial 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 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 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness». www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace». www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). «Prepare for more US ladies in battle». CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). «Segregation in the Armed Forces During The Second World War|African American History Blog». The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b «USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b «Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions». Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Shaping Employment Discrimination Law». Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws». Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Pre 1965: Events Causing the of EEOC». Archived from the initial 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 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 initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ «A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices». Archived from the initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to protect 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.