About Us

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based upon specific qualities or “secured categories”. The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic 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 number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, task evaluations, promo policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies usually can not discriminate against employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for people, permanent homeowners, temporary 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 work discrimination, 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 limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly forbids states from breaking a person’s rights of due procedure and equivalent protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with employees, previous employees, or somalibidders.com job applicants unequally since 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 terminated if the termination is associated with a “liberty” (such as the right to complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal company, including civil liberties laws, comes from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly manage some security from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only resolve inequitable treatment by the federal government, including a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the personal sector are typically Constitutional under the “police powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States should stick to the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil rights laws that provide additional employment defense.

For example, some State civil rights laws provide protection from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, 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 in time.

The Equal Pay Act modified the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids companies and unions from paying different incomes based upon sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in working with. It provides that where employees carry out equivalent work in the corner needing “equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under comparable working conditions,” they need to be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in lots of more elements of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to the majority of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and work agencies. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded attributes regarding terms, conditions, and opportunities of employment. Employment service may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor companies are also forbidden from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on 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 “prohibits discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, forbids companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly identical to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in companies with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of discussion 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 contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and info innovation be accessible to disabled employees. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators versus miners who suffer from “black lung disease” (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 financial obligations. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than three workers from discriminating against anyone (other than an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate discriminatory barriers against qualified individuals with impairments, people with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are concerned as having a special needs. It restricts discrimination based on real or viewed physical or mental impairments. It likewise needs employers to supply affordable lodgings to staff members who need them because of a disability to request a job, perform the essential functions of a task, or referall.us enjoy the advantages and benefits of employment, unless the employer can show that undue difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical checkups, and all medical information needs to be dealt with as private. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that “substantially restricts one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and lay out 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 employers from using individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, task positioning, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not clearly consist of sexual preference 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 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and regions explicitly forbid harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to include 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 type of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her manager told her that her existence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private work environments. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have also identified that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, given that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Government workers

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

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

Additionally, public employees keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers deserve to limitations staff members’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public employees retain 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 concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal workers who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are usually allowed to consider attributes that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second 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 police monitoring can match races when necessary. For circumstances, if authorities are running operations that include 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 hire officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the home entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the entertainment market, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is distinct to the show business, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage gaps in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company needs to stabilize privacy and safety issues with the variety of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in rural locations can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that handle children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and effectively or that it is unwise to figure out credentials on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious intention does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable impact. [97] Employers also carry the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly essential, and a lower discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their faith, their religions and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a change in an office rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their work since of their lack of faith or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to employ an individual based upon their faith- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they must resolve this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are safeguarded 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 clauses that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer specific exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been maintained and adremcareers.com others reversed in time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing faiths against changing the body and preventative medication as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to get spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are particular requirements for employees to present evidence that it is a genuinely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly allows discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has dealt with criticism for forbiding females from serving in fight functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method in which black men were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits employers from victimizing 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 impose systemic disparate treatment of females due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no inequitable intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a protected category might still be prohibited if they produce a disparate influence on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they relate to job efficiency.

The Act needs the elimination of synthetic, approximate, 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 shown to be connected to job efficiency, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When safeguarding against a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to show requirement; rather, it needs to merely show that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the 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 initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the 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 initial 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 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 original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial 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 prohibits work environment 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 original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the 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 initial 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; 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 initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the 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 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 inequitable 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 initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. – New York City 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 original 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 Chief Law Officer|”. 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). [permanent dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the 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 original 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 employers”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment since of age of 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [irreversible dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original 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 initial 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 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 original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their hiring practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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 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 ready for more US females in battle”. CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the 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 viewpoints”. 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 Resulting In 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 JOB 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 Employment 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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to protect older employees. Weak to begin 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.