Mastercare 23 views

About Us

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the typical law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on certain qualities or “safeguarded classifications”. The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has actually become based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, job examinations, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to extra categories or companies.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies typically can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, irreversible homeowners, short-term 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 address work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal government staff members.

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 an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or home”, without due procedure of the law. It also includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from breaching an individual’s rights of due process and equal protection. In the employment context, referall.us these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former staff members, or task candidates unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that federal government staff members have a reasonable procedural process before they are ended if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a personal company, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve inequitable treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that control the economic sector are generally Constitutional under the “police powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws developed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that provide additional work defense.

For instance, some State civil rights laws use defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political association, even though such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has actually established over time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying various salaries based upon sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in hiring. It supplies that where workers carry out equivalent operate in the corner needing “equal ability, effort, and obligation and performed under comparable working conditions,” they need to be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to most employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment companies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon secured characteristics relating to terms, conditions, and privileges of work. Employment service might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor companies are likewise prohibited from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and associated medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “prohibits discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide 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, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost identical to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms 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, the ADEA has phased out and forbade necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “maximum ages of entry into work in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “established a policy against age discrimination among federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details innovation be accessible to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three workers from victimizing anybody (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove prejudiced barriers versus certified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or people who are considered having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based on real or perceived physical or psychological specials needs. It likewise requires companies to supply reasonable lodgings to staff members who require them due to the fact that of a disability to make an application for a task, perform the vital functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and opportunities of work, unless the company can reveal that undue difficulty will result. There are stringent restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical exams, and all medical information should be treated as private. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “substantially restricts several major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all individuals equal rights under the law and lay out the damages readily available to plaintiffs 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 employers from using individuals’ genetic info when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promotion choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s 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 ), employment securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and areas clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to incorporate sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her employer told her that her presence might make other people feel uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private workplaces. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have also recognized that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise provide substantial protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar 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 supply greater security to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is included as well, given that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Civil servant

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

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

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, somalibidders.com whereas private employers deserve to limitations employees’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public employees keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private resident (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 employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of problems for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

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

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when needed. For example, if authorities are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the entertainment industry, specifically in performers. [95] This validation is unique to the show business, and does not move to other industries, 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 a cost justification in wage spaces in between various groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer must balance privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer preference alone can not be a validation unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For example, 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 facilities that deal with kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If a company were attempting to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for thinking that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to carry out the job securely and effectively or that it is not practical to determine qualifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent intention does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable result. [97] Employers likewise bring the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably necessary, and a lower discriminatory alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their demand for accommodation (a modification in an office guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It also consists of dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment because of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are restricted from refusing to employ an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a worker thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should address this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file 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 provide certain exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have been promoted and others reversed over time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using faiths against changing the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to make an application for religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are specific requirements for workers to present proof 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 permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for restricting females from serving in fight functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method in which black men were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to safeguard the nation they resided 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 voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also restricts employers from discriminating against staff members for previous or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of females since there is a huge underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim since there was no prejudiced intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a secured classification might still be illegal if they produce a diverse impact on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they are related to task performance.

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with job performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When protecting against a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate requirement; rather, it should simply reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

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 Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative remedies by filing an administrative grievance 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 forbids discrimination against certified individuals with impairments by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

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

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

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

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit history systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the 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 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 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 original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the 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 original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 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, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law prohibits office predisposition 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 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 Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, 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 initial 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 original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial 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 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 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 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 discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 City Attorney Resources – New York City 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the 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 initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or hepatitis 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 viewed HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work due to the fact that of age of worker 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 Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original 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 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 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 original 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 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 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 original 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 hiring practices based on 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 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 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 original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Get ready for more US ladies in fight”. 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 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 opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “A Summary of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the 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 Job 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 secure 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.