Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon certain attributes or « secured classifications ». The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become 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 number of areas, including recruiting, employing, task evaluations, promotion policies, training, employment payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend security to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers normally can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, 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 Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight resolve employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal government workers.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of « life, liberty, or property », without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with workers, previous workers, 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 process before they are ended if the termination is related to a « liberty » (such as the right to complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a personal business, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically manage some defense from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address prejudiced treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the personal sector are usually Constitutional under the « police powers » doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States need to adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil liberties laws that use extra employment defense.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established over time.

The Equal Pay Act modified the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids companies and unions from paying various salaries based on sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in employing. It provides that where workers perform equivalent work in the corner needing « equivalent skill, effort, and duty and performed under similar working conditions, » they should be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. « Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It applies to many employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon secured characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and advantages of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, 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 specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors ». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are nearly similar to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A staff member is secured from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of « maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956″ by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 « developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than 3 staff members from discriminating versus anybody (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers versus certified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are related to as having a disability. It forbids discrimination based on real or perceived physical or psychological disabilities. It also requires employers to supply sensible accommodations to employees who require them since of an impairment to look for a job, carry out the essential functions of a job, or take pleasure in the benefits and benefits of employment, unless the employer can show that unnecessary hardship will result. There are rigorous limitations on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical checkups, and all medical info must be treated as private. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that « considerably restricts several significant life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and outline 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 using people’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly 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 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and localities clearly restrict harassment and predisposition 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender workers were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to include 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 kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job. » Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her manager told her that her presence may make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or employment municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private offices. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on inequitable 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 protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply greater security to workers of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists categories not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of also, because federal law only covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – matriculation, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Civil servant

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

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

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies have the right to limitations employees’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal person (not on behalf of their company), 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) must take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational credentials

Employers are normally allowed to consider qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second 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 demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when needed. For circumstances, 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, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and employ officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, specifically in entertainers. [95] This validation is unique to the home entertainment market, and does not transfer to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage gaps in between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must stabilize privacy and safety issues with the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in rural locations can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle children survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If an employer were attempting to prove that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to perform the job securely and effectively or that it is unwise to determine certifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious intention does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers likewise carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly necessary, and a lesser discriminatory alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in a work environment guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their lack of religion or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from declining to employ an individual based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should resolve this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been supported and others reversed with time.

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

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for restricting ladies from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to defend the nation they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the job rights of people who willingly 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 prohibits employers from discriminating versus employees for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of ladies because there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a secured classification may still be unlawful if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be connected to job efficiency, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the company’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not need to show requirement; rather, it must merely show that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes 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 Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and implements its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary assistance. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit history systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e « Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ». US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « The Equal Pay Act of 1963 ». Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b « Pregnancy Discrimination Act ». Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b « Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended ». ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS ». Archived from the 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 initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). « Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application ». Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). « Age discrimination legislations in the United States » (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the 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 employment ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) ». Archived from the initial 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 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 office bias 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 original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c « Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception ». touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f « Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ». California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b « Colorado Civil 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 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 initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine ». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2 ». Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, employment 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040 » (PDF). Archived from the original (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, section 363A.08″. Archived from the initial 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 original 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 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 city 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 particular activities. – New York City 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 original 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 initial 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 initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Tennessee State Government – TN.gov ». www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 original (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 initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or 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 employment since of age of worker 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 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 original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ « 22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3 » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ « 22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5 » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b « Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146 ». Archived from the 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 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 Times. Archived from the initial 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 an employer to discriminate in their employing practices based upon a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification? ». University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness ». www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace ». www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination? ». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). « Get ready 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 posted 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 initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the original 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 initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Shaping Employment Discrimination Law ». Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws ». Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Pre 1965: Events Causing 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 initial on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ». Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b « Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination ». Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503 ». Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ « An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices ». Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to protect older workers. Weak to start with, she mentions that the ADEA has actually been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.