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 regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on particular qualities or «protected categories». The United States Constitution likewise prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight 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 Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of locations, consisting of recruiting, hiring, job assessments, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to extra classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies normally can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary info, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, long-term citizens, momentary residents, 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 directly resolve employment discrimination, job but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deny people of «life, liberty, or property», without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaking a person’s rights of due procedure and equal protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating workers, previous employees, or job candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is associated with a «liberty» (such as the right to complimentary 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 because Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a private organization, including civil liberties laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some defense from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to prejudiced treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the economic sector are typically Constitutional under the «cops powers» teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States must stick to the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States might enact civil rights laws that use extra work security.

For example, some State civil rights laws use security from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has developed in 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 companies and unions from paying various salaries based on sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in hiring. It supplies that where employees perform equivalent work in the corner requiring «equivalent ability, effort, and responsibility and carried out under comparable working conditions,» they should be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to companies participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in much more aspects of the work relationship. «Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act». [12] It uses to most employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and work firms. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or job nationwide origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment companies might not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and related 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 «restricts discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide 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, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA protects workers in companies with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A staff member is secured from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade obligatory 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 plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting 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 «developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal professionals». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and details innovation be available to handicapped employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators against miners who struggle with «black lung illness» (pneumoconiosis). [17]

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

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of prejudiced barriers versus certified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered as having a special needs. It forbids discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or mental impairments. It likewise needs companies to supply affordable accommodations to staff members who require them because of a disability to obtain a job, perform the vital functions of a job, or take pleasure in the benefits and opportunities of employment, unless the employer can show that excessive difficulty will result. There are stringent constraints on when a company can ask disability-related questions or need medical evaluations, and all medical information needs to be dealt with as confidential. A disability is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that «considerably restricts several significant life activities. » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, changed in 1993, ensure all individuals equal rights under the law and describe the damages offered to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from utilizing people’ hereditary details when making hiring, shooting, job positioning, or promotion choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual preference and 29 US states do not explicitly 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 preference or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s prohibition of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and regions explicitly forbid harassment and predisposition in work decisions on the basis of sexual orientation 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 employees; the EEOC’s determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the security to encompass 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 type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the task.» Many people in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her boss told her that her presence may make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal workplaces. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise determined that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also offer extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense 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 staff members of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists classifications not protected by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, because federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Government employees

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, local and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional securities against work discrimination.

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

Additionally, public employees keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers can limitations staff members’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

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

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational certifications

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

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement security can match races when needed. For circumstances, if authorities are running operations that include confidential informants, or undercover agents, 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 think about race-based policing and work with officers that are proportionate to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for films and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are permitted 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 home entertainment market, specifically in performers. [95] This validation is unique to the show business, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps in between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company should balance privacy and security interest in the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer preference alone can not be a reason unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural locations can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage children of sexual abuse is allowed.

If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to perform the job securely and efficiently or that it is impractical to determine credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory result. [97] Employers also carry the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser inequitable option method does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

«Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their demand for lodging (a change in an office guideline or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment because 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 a private based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they should resolve this to the supposed transgressor. On the other hand, employees are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide particular exemptions in these laws to services or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have actually been maintained and others reversed gradually.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using religions against modifying the body and preventative medication as a reason to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow employees to make an application for religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the staff member with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain 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 military has actually dealt with criticism for forbiding ladies from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was amended to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the way in which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to defend the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of people who willingly or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids companies from victimizing staff members for past or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of ladies due to the fact that there is a vast 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 versus a secured classification may still be unlawful if they produce a diverse influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act requires the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the employer’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not need to show need; rather, it should merely reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and enforces 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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative solutions 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 individuals with disabilities by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and imposes its own policies that use to its own programs and to any entities that receive monetary support. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment 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 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 Liberty 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 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 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 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 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 original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). «Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application». Law Notes for the 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 original 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 initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ «42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 initial 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 initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. «EEOC: Federal law prohibits workplace 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 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 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 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; Table of Contents, General Provisions» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act». Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2». Archived from the 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 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 initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ «Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352». Archived from the original 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT». www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16». Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «M.G.L. 151B § 4». Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «M.G.L 151B § 1». Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices». Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)».
^ a b c «2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296». Archived from the original 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 Attorney Resources – New York Laws». law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «North Dakota Human Rights Act» (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ «2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission». Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|». www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A». Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ «Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission» (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ «State of Rhode Island General Assembly». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «South Carolina Human Affairs Law». Archived from the original on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ «Tennessee State Government – TN.gov». www.tn.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the 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 original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.60.172: job Unfair practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis 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 hepatitis 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 employment since of age of staff member 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 original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation». docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term dead link] ^ «22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ «22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5» (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b «Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146». Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151». Archived from the 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 initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). «New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)». The New York City 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 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 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications». US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b «United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )». Justia Law. Archived from the 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). «Get all set for more US women in combat». 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 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 original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions». Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Shaping Employment Discrimination Law». Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws». Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Pre 1965: Events Resulting In 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 original 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 initial 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 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 fails to secure older workers. Weak to start with, she specifies 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.