Employment Discrimination Law in The United States
Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon particular qualities or „safeguarded classifications“. The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of areas, including recruiting, working with, task evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to additional classifications or companies.
Under federal employment discrimination law, companies generally can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or bad financial obligations, [9] genetic details, [10] and citizenship status (for people, irreversible homeowners, short-term 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 Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964
Title IX
Constitutional basis
The United States Constitution does not directly attend to work discrimination, however its prohibitions 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 deny people of „life, liberty, or home“, without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equal defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with staff members, previous employees, or task candidates unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that government employees have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is associated with a „liberty“ (such as the right to free speech) or employment home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.
Employment discrimination or harassment in the private sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a personal service, including civil liberties laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some defense from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public company.
Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the economic sector are generally Constitutional under the „police powers“ doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States should adhere to the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil liberties laws that use additional work defense.
For instance, some State civil liberties laws provide security from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.
History of federal laws
Federal law governing work discrimination has actually developed gradually.
The Equal Pay Act modified the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying different incomes based upon sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in employing. It provides that where workers carry out equal work in the corner needing „equivalent ability, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,“ they need to be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’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 prohibits discrimination in a lot more elements of the work relationship. „Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act“. [12] It applies to the majority of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for companies to discriminate based upon protected attributes regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment firms may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination consists of 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 „restricts discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] requires 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 similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of „optimal ages of entry into work in 1956“ by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 „established a policy against age discrimination among federal professionals“. [15]
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal professionals with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs sensible lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled staff members. [16]
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators versus miners who experience „black lung disease“ (pneumoconiosis). [17]
The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 „requires affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam period veterans by federal specialists“. [14]
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids work discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than 3 employees from discriminating versus anybody (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate discriminatory barriers versus certified individuals with disabilities, people with a record of a special needs, or individuals who are considered having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or psychological impairments. It likewise requires companies to provide reasonable lodgings to employees who require them because of an impairment to get a job, carry out the important functions of a task, or enjoy the benefits and benefits of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary hardship will result. There are stringent limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical exams, and all medical details should be treated as personal. An impairment is specified under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that „substantially limits 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 complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from utilizing people‘ genetic details when making hiring, shooting, task placement, or promo choices. [10]
The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] Since 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 Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 ), employment protections for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias 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 employees; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to incorporate sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]
According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: „Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have 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 task.“ Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her employer told her that her presence might 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 individuals in both public and personal work environments. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]
State law
State statutes also offer comprehensive defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as supplied by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher security to staff members of the state or of state contractors.
The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included too, given that federal law just covers workers over 40.
In addition,
– District of Columbia – matriculation, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Civil servant
Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have additional securities versus employment discrimination.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has analyzed this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]
Additionally, public workers maintain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies can limitations workers‘ speech in particular methods. [93] Public employees retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private citizen (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]
Federal staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the correct federal jurisdiction, which poses a various set of concerns for complainants.
Exceptions
Authentic occupational credentials
Employers are generally allowed to consider attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced 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 shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when required. For circumstances, if cops are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]
BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This justification is unique to the home entertainment industry, and does not transfer 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 a cost validation in wage spaces between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to balance personal privacy and safety interest in the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]
Additionally, client choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For circumstances, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage kids survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.
If an employer were trying to prove that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job securely and efficiently or that it is not practical to determine qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is fairly necessary, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]
Religious employment discrimination
„Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a work environment rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also consists of treating people differently in their employment because of their lack of faith or practice“ (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to work with a specific based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a staff member thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged culprit. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to organizations or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been supported and others reversed with time.
The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using religions versus altering the body and preventative medicine as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members to apply for religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for workers to present evidence that it is a best regards held belief. [101]
Members of the Communist Party
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.
Military
The military has actually faced criticism for prohibiting females from serving in battle roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method which black males were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites provided 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 allowed to work as servants; their participation was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to defend the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or particular kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids employers from discriminating against staff members for previous or present participation or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of ladies because there is a vast underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined 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 directly victimize a secured classification may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate impact on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they belong to task performance.
The Act needs the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to omit Negroes can not be shown to be connected to task efficiency, it is restricted, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]
Height and weight requirements have actually been identified by the EEOC as having a diverse effect on nationwide origin minorities. [108]
When resisting a diverse effect claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not need to show requirement; rather, it needs to just reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]
Enforcing entities
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and imposes the Equal Pay Act, employment Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty 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 developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit match under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which restricts discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and enforces its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial assistance. [16]
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) implements the anti-discrimination arrangements 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) workplaces take the role of the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals with rap sheets 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 Liberty Act of 1964“. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „The Equal Pay Act of 1963“. Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b „Pregnancy Discrimination Act“. Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b „Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended“. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS“. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b „The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967“. Archived from the initial 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 initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). „Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy“. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ „Family and Medical Leave Act“. Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). „Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application“. Law Notes for the General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). „Age discrimination legislations in the United States“ (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d „Guide to Disability Rights Laws“. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the 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 original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ „42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law“. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate 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 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 prohibits office bias against 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 original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ „Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace“. FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). „The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked“. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ „Code of Alabama 25-1-21“. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c „Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception“. touchngo.com. Archived from the 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 Rights 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 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 original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ „District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine“. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act“. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2“. Archived from the 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352“. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312“. Archived from the 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 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, 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 initial 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 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 discriminatory practice“. Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „New York State Executive Law, Article 15, employment 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 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 Liberty Commission“. Justia Law. Archived from the initial 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 original 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 original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION“. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Utah Code 34A-5-106“. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ „Virginia Human Rights Act“. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or hepatitis C infection“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or 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 due to the fact that of age of employee 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 Tabulation“. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial 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 original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ „22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5“ (PDF). Archived from the original (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 PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION“. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights“. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). „New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)“. The New York Times. Archived from the original 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 a company to discriminate in their hiring practices based upon a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?“. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c „CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications“. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b „United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )“. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ „Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )“. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ „Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness“. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ „Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace“. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ „Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?“. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). „Get ready for more US women 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 published on The (January 14, 2013). „Segregation in the Army During The Second World War|African American History Blog“. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b „USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act“. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b „Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )“. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ „FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions“. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ „Shaping Employment Discrimination Law“. Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ „Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws“. Archived from the original 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 provisions“. 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 original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ „The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503“. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ „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 Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to protect older employees. 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.
