About Us

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the typical law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on certain or « secured categories ». The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a variety of areas, including recruiting, employing, job evaluations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers normally can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, long-term residents, short-term locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Liberty 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 address employment discrimination, somalibidders.com but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

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 a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of « life, liberty, or home », without due procedure of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbids states from breaking a person’s rights of due procedure and equivalent defense. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, former staff members, or job candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is connected to a « liberty » (such as the right to free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the « cops powers » doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to protect public health, security and morals. All States must abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil liberties laws that provide extra work defense.

For example, some State civil rights laws provide defense from work 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 work discrimination has developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying different incomes based on sex. It does not forbid other prejudiced practices in working with. It provides that where employees perform equal operate in the corner requiring « equivalent ability, effort, and duty and carried out under similar working conditions, » they ought to be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in a lot more elements of the work relationship. « Title VII produced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It applies to the majority of companies engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and privileges of work. Employment firms may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise forbidden from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 « forbids discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors ». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are nearly identical to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. An employee is secured from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of discussion 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 against age discrimination amongst federal specialists ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology be available to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts work discrimination on the basis of insolvency or bad debts. [9]

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of discriminatory barriers against certified people with impairments, people with a record of a special needs, or individuals who are regarded as having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or mental disabilities. It also requires companies to provide sensible lodgings to workers who need them because of a special needs to look for a job, carry out the necessary functions of a task, or take pleasure in the advantages and privileges of employment, unless the company can reveal that undue difficulty will result. There are rigorous limitations on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical details should be dealt with as personal. An impairment is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that « substantially restricts several significant life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, make sure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and outline the damages offered to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using people’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, job positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 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 people were patchwork; several states and regions clearly restrict harassment and predisposition in employment choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense 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 actually experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the task. » Lots of people in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who claims that her boss informed her that her existence may make other individuals feel uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal work environments. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public work environments. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also recognized that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply comprehensive protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as offered by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater security to workers of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists classifications not protected by federal law. Age is included too, 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 situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]

Government staff members

Title VII also applies to state, federal, regional and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state governments have extra securities against work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public staff members maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies can limitations staff members’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public staff members keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal employees who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of issues for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are normally permitted to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized 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 rules that law enforcement monitoring can match races when necessary. For example, if authorities are running operations that involve confidential 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 consider race-based policing and work with officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This justification is distinct to the home entertainment industry, 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 an expense reason in wage gaps in between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must stabilize privacy and safety interest in the variety of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that manage children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If a company were trying to prove that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to perform the job securely and effectively or that it is unwise to determine qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious intention does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers also bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is dealing with people in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their request for lodging (a modification in a work environment rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also includes treating individuals differently in their employment because of their absence of religious belief or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are restricted from declining to work with an individual based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, referall.us age, and special needs. If an employee believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they ought to resolve this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas 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 organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have actually been supported and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing religions against changing the body and preventative medication as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit employees to look for religious exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the worker 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 clearly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has actually dealt with criticism for forbiding females from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was amended to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method in which black guys were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites provided the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic site states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to safeguard the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of individuals who willingly 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 prohibits companies from discriminating versus workers for past or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to enforce systemic diverse treatment of ladies since there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate versus a secured category might still be prohibited if they produce a diverse impact on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be related to job efficiency, it is restricted, notwithstanding the employer’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When protecting against a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it needs to just reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates 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 established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative problem with the EEOC prior to filing their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which restricts discrimination versus qualified people with impairments by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive monetary assistance. [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 on citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit rating 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 initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS ». Archived from the 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 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 Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). « Age discrimination legislations in the United States » (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Guide to Disability Rights Laws ». ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 30 USC Sec. 938 ». Archived from the initial 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 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 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, states the EEOC ». The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. « EEOC: Federal law bans work environment predisposition versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald ». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). « Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment ». Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace ». FindLaw. Archived from the 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 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 original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f « Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ». California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the 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 original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ « District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions » (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine ». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the original 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 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 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312 ». Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311 ». Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ». www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16″. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L. 151B § 4 ». Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L 151B § 1 ». Archived from the initial 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 original 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 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 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific 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 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 original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A ». Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ « Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission » (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ « State of Rhode Island General Assembly ». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « South Carolina Human Affairs Law ». Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Tennessee State Government – TN.gov ». www.tn.gov. Archived from the 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 initial (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 employers ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or liver disease C infection ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or 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 staff member or applicant-Exceptions ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « State of West Virginia » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original 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 [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 original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451 ». Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR TAKING PART IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION ». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Addressing Sexual Preference 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 initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c « When is it legal for an employer 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 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 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 initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace ». www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination? ». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). « Prepare yourself for more US women 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 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 initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints ». Findlaw. Archived from the 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 Job 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 arrangements ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ». Archived from the original on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b « Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination ». Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503 ». Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ « An Overview 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 Employment 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 secure older workers. Weak to start with, she specifies that the ADEA has been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.