Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the typical law, and is codified in various state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon particular attributes or „secured categories“. The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however 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, consisting of recruiting, employing, task evaluations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies typically can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and employment gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or employment psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for people, permanent residents, short-term locals, 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 straight resolve employment discrimination, however its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal government staff members.

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 individuals of „life, liberty, or property“, without due procedure of the law. It also contains an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from breaching a person’s rights of due process and equal protection. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating workers, former workers, or task candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that federal government staff members have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a „liberty“ (such as the right to free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the private sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a personal company, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to manage 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 only attend to inequitable treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the personal sector are normally Constitutional under the „authorities powers“ teaching or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States need to follow the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that use additional employment protection.

For example, some State civil liberties laws offer protection from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has actually 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 companies and unions from paying various salaries based on sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in hiring. It provides that where employees perform equivalent work in the corner needing „equivalent skill, effort, and duty and carried out under comparable working conditions,“ they should be offered equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. „Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act“. [12] It applies to most employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded attributes concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment service might not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination consists of discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and associated 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 „prohibits discrimination by federal professionals and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, 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, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are almost similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects workers in companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A staff member is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and forbade necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide large pensions). The ADEA includes specific guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of „maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956“ by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 „developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal specialists“. [15]

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

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators versus miners who experience „black lung illness“ (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 „needs affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam age veterans by federal professionals“. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts work discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or bad financial obligations. [9]

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of inequitable barriers against qualified people with specials needs, people with a record of a special needs, or individuals who are considered as having a special needs. It restricts discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental impairments. It likewise requires companies to provide sensible lodgings to staff members who require them due to the fact that of a disability to look for a task, perform the necessary functions of a task, or delight in the benefits and opportunities of employment, unless the employer can show that undue hardship will result. There are strict limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical information should be treated as private. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that „substantially restricts several significant life activities. “ [5]

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using individuals‘ genetic info when making hiring, firing, task positioning, 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 [upgrade], 28 US states do not clearly consist of sexual preference and 29 US states do not explicitly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and areas 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 Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender workers were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: „Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have actually experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the task.“ Lots of people in the LGBT community have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her manager told her that her existence might make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and employment transgender people in both public and personal work environments. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also identified that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise provide substantial protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as supplied by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply greater security to workers of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of too, because federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

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

Government staff members

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers retain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers have the right to limits workers‘ speech in certain methods. [93] Public staff members keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal citizen (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]

Federal staff members who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) must sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which poses a different set of concerns for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are typically enabled to think about qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be used 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 required. For example, if police are running operations that include confidential informants, or undercover agents, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are proportionate to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the home entertainment market, such as casting for motion pictures and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting staff are permitted to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, employment particularly in entertainers. [95] This validation is unique to the entertainment market, 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 employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to stabilize privacy and safety worry about the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a reason unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For instance, retail facilities in rural locations can not forbid African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with children survivors of sexual assault is permitted.

If an employer were attempting to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or all members of a class would be not able to carry out the task securely and efficiently or that it is impractical to figure out certifications on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser discriminatory alternative approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

„Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their work since of their faith, their religions and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It also consists of treating individuals in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their lack of religious belief or practice“ (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are restricted from refusing to employ a specific based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a worker believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they should resolve this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have provisions that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States provide specific exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and employment the context; some of these have actually been upheld and others reversed gradually.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using faiths versus altering the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members to obtain spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of spiritual beliefs. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a seriously held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has actually faced criticism for forbiding women from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was changed to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the way in which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites provided the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to defend the nation they resided 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 specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts employers from discriminating versus employees for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of ladies due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim because there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a safeguarded category may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a prejudiced effect, unless they belong to task performance.

The Act needs the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, employment and unneeded barriers to employment 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 revealed to be related to task performance, it is restricted, regardless of the employer’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When safeguarding versus a diverse impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it should merely reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes 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 area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to submit suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their suit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination against certified people with specials needs by federal specialists and employment subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own regulations that apply 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) enforces the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits 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 employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit report 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 original 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 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 initial 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 employment“. 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 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 bans office bias 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 initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ „Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace“. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). „The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked“. Media Matters for America. Archived from the initial 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 liberty Division 2008 Statutes“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60“. Archived from the initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Delaware Code Online“. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e „District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination“ (PDF). Archived from the 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 original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine“. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act“. Archived from the 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 initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Indiana General Assembly“. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Iowa Code 216.6“. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040“ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352“. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312“. Archived from the 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 original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16“. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „M.G.L. 151B § 4“. Archived from the original on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „M.G.L 151B § 1“. Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights 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 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 initial 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 against the engagement in specific activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York City Laws“. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “ § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “ § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d „North Dakota Human Rights Act“ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ „2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission“. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|“. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A“. Archived from the original 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 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 initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION“. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Utah Code 34A-5-106“. Archived from the original 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 respect to HIV or hepatitis C infection“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or 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 employment because of age of worker or applicant-Exceptions“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „State of West Virginia“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d „Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation“. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term dead link] ^ „22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3“ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ „22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b „Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146“. Archived from the 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 original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Addressing Sexual Preference Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights“. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). „New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)“. The New York 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 Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri“. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c „When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their employing 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 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 initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ „Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace“. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ „Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?“. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). „Get all set for more US ladies 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 Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog“. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original 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 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 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 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 original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ „An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices“. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older workers. Weak to start with, she mentions that the ADEA has been eviscerated 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.