Employment Discrimination Law in The United States
Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on particular qualities or „secured classifications“. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, job assessments, promotion policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to extra classifications or companies.
Under federal employment discrimination law, companies typically can not discriminate versus staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for people, permanent citizens, momentary citizens, 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 Rights Act of 1964
Title IX
Constitutional basis
The United States Constitution does not straight resolve employment discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure 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 likewise includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaking an individual’s rights of due procedure and equal defense. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, previous employees, or task applicants unequally due to the fact that of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that civil servant have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is related to a „liberty“ (such as the right to free speech) or residential or commercial 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 since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal service, including civil liberties laws, comes from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some defense from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just address inequitable 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 personal sector are typically Constitutional under the „police powers“ teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States need to comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil liberties laws that provide additional employment defense.
For instance, some State civil liberties laws use protection from work discrimination on the basis of political association, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.
History of federal laws
Federal law governing employment discrimination has established with time.
The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is implemented by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying different wages based upon sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in hiring. It offers that where workers perform equivalent operate in the corner needing „equivalent ability, effort, and obligation and performed under similar working conditions,“ they need to be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more elements of the employment relationship. „Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act“. [12] It uses to many companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII restricts discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it illegal for companies to discriminate based upon secured qualities relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment firms might not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor organizations are likewise forbidden from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on 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 specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal contractors“. [14]
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more employees 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 prohibited mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot 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 against age discrimination among federal professionals“. [15]
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary support. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to disabled workers. [16]
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 prohibits 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 handicapped and Vietnam era veterans by federal contractors“. [14]
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than 3 workers from victimizing anyone (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 remove inequitable barriers versus certified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or people who are regarded as having an impairment. It restricts discrimination based on genuine or perceived physical or mental disabilities. It also needs companies to supply sensible lodgings to staff members who require them because of a disability to use for a job, carry out the important functions of a job, or take pleasure in the benefits and privileges of work, unless the employer can reveal that undue hardship will result. There are strict restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical checkups, and all medical info should be dealt with as personal. A disability is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that „substantially limits several significant life activities. “ [5]
The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, make sure all persons equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages available 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 info when making hiring, firing, job positioning, job or promotion choices. [10]
The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not clearly consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not clearly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.
LGBT employment discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; numerous states and areas explicitly restrict harassment and predisposition in work 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 Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to include sexual orientation 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 kind of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.“ Many individuals in the LGBT community have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a lady who claims that her manager told her that her existence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]
Almost half of the United States also 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 couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty. [28]
State law
State statutes likewise offer substantial defense from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable protection as supplied by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer security 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 secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, given that federal law just covers workers over 40.
In addition,
– District of Columbia – matriculation, individual appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government employees
Title VII also applies to state, job federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional defenses against employment discrimination.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually translated this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]
Additionally, public workers retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies can limitations staff members‘ speech in particular methods. [93] Public workers 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 task. [93]
Federal employees who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which presents a different set of problems for plaintiffs.
Exceptions
Authentic occupational certifications
Employers are normally permitted to think about attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide 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 rules that police surveillance can match races when necessary. For instance, if police are running operations that include confidential informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]
BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment market, such as casting for movies and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based upon physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is special to the show business, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]
Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost justification in wage gaps in between various groups of workers. [96] Cost can be thought about when an employer needs to stabilize privacy and security interest in the variety of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]
Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that manage kids survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.
If an employer were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the task safely and effectively or that it is unwise to identify credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, job lack of a malevolent intention does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable effect. [97] Employers also carry the problem to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lower inequitable alternative method does not exist. [98]
Religious employment discrimination
„Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their work because of their religious beliefs, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in an office guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It likewise includes treating people in a different way in their work since of their lack of religion or practice“ (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from declining to employ an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, job and disability. If a worker thinks that they have 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 are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have stipulations that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been supported and others reversed over time.
The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing faiths versus modifying the body and preventative medication as a reason to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow staff members to make an application for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application may be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are particular requirements for staff members to present proof 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 versus members of the Communist Party.
Military
The military has faced criticism for restricting females from serving in battle functions. In 2016, however, the law was changed to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a possibility to show themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to defend the country they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of people who willingly or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids companies from discriminating against workers for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been declared to enforce systemic diverse treatment of ladies since there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim since there was no prejudiced intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]
Unintentional discrimination
Employment practices that do not directly victimize a secured classification may still be illegal if they produce a diverse effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work practices that have a prejudiced impact, unless they belong to task efficiency.
The Act requires the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with job performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the employer’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]
Height and weight requirements have been determined by the EEOC as having a diverse influence on nationwide origin minorities. [108]
When preventing a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it must simply reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]
Enforcing entities
The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and enforces the Equal Pay Act, 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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and standards are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA should exhaust their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with specials needs by federal contractors and subcontractors. [114]
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own policies that use to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary help. [16]
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) imposes the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]
State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) workplaces play the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit rating systems in the United States
References
^ a b c d e „Title VII of the Civil Rights 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 original 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 initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). „Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application“. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). „Age discrimination legislations in the United States“ (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d „Guide to Disability Rights Laws“. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „30 USC Sec. 938“. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ „Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986“. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ „42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law“. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work“. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial 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 versus 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. „EEOC: Federal law bans office predisposition versus 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 Preference Discrimination in the Workplace“. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). „The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked“. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ „Code of Alabama 25-1-21“. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c „Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception“. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f „Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)“. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial 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 original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Delaware Code Online“. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e „District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination“ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ „District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; 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 initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2“. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination““. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „Illinois Human Rights Act“. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Indiana General Assembly“. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Iowa Code 216.6“. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311“. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT“. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16“. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „M.G.L. 151B § 4“. Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „M.G.L 151B § 1“. Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08“. Archived from the original 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 initial 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 prejudiced practice“. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296“. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in particular activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York City Laws“. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “ § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the 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 original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Oklahoma Attorney General|“. 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 original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ „Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission“ (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ „State of Rhode Island General Assembly“. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the initial on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „South Carolina Human Affairs Law“. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ „Tennessee State Government – TN.gov“. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION“. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Utah Code 34A-5-106“. Archived from the initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act“ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ „Virginia Human Rights Act“. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or liver disease C infection“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment due to the fact that of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „State of West Virginia“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d „Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation“. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the 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 original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b „Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146“. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151“. Archived from the initial 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 PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION“. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights“. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). „New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)“. The New York Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b „Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC“. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the 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 hiring practices based upon 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 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 initial 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). „Get all set 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 posted on The (January 14, 2013). „Segregation in the Armed Forces 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 initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b „Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )“. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ „FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints“. Findlaw. Archived from the 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws“. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ „Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC“. Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ „42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions“. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial 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 initial 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 initial 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, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to protect older workers. Weak to begin with, she states that the ADEA has been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.
