Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States stems from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on particular characteristics or «secured categories». The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, however has 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 number of areas, including recruiting, working with, task examinations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend protection to additional categories or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies typically can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] insolvency or bad debts, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible citizens, temporary locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Liberty Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight address work discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal government employees.

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 deprive people of «life, liberty, or home», without due procedure of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent defense. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by treating employees, former employees, or job candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure security needs that federal government staff members have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is related to a «liberty» (such as the right to complimentary 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 due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their particular government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a private company, including civil rights laws, comes from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some protection from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only deal with discriminatory treatment by the federal government, including a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that regulate the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the «authorities powers» teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States might enact civil liberties laws that provide additional employment security.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws offer defense from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has established with time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act restricts employers and unions from paying various wages based on sex. It does not forbid other discriminatory practices in employing. It provides that where employees carry out equal operate in the corner needing «equivalent ability, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,» they should be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies taken part in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a considerable amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. «Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act». [12] It applies to many companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon protected attributes regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of employment. Employment firms might not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 «restricts discrimination by federal specialists 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 changed in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly identical to those laid out in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards workers in companies with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A staff member is protected from discrimination based upon age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise provide large pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and employment 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 «optimal ages of entry into work in 1956» by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 «established a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal monetary assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and info innovation be available to disabled workers. [16]

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

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 «needs affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam age veterans by federal specialists». [14]

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers versus certified people with specials needs, individuals with a record of a special needs, or people who are regarded as having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or perceived physical or mental impairments. It also requires companies to offer affordable accommodations to workers who require them because of a special needs to use for a job, carry out the necessary functions of a job, or delight in the benefits and advantages of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary challenge will result. There are rigorous restrictions on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or require medical checkups, and all medical info should be dealt with as confidential. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a psychological or employment physical health condition that «substantially limits one or more major life activities. » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, ensure all persons equivalent rights under the law and detail the damages available to plaintiffs in 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 using people’ hereditary info when making hiring, shooting, job placement, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not explicitly consist of sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition 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 individuals were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly restrict harassment and bias in work choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to include sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: «Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have actually experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.» Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her manager told her that her existence 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 private work environments. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, even though these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have also recognized that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply comprehensive protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as supplied by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply higher security to employees of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of too, considering 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 situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Government employees

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public workers. Employees of federal and state governments have extra securities against work discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually interpreted this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the interpretation would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members retain their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers can limits staff members’ speech in specific ways. [93] Public workers keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (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) need to take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of issues for complainants.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational certifications

Employers are usually permitted to think about characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory 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 used for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that law enforcement security can match races when needed. For instance, if police are running operations that involve private informants, or undercover agents, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, cops departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can think about race-based policing and employ officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting staff 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 uncommon in the show business, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is unique to the show business, and does not move to other industries, 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 reason in wage gaps between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should balance personal privacy and security worry about the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in rural areas can not restrict African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the consumer 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 need to be a factual basis for employment believing that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to carry out the task safely and effectively or that it is impractical to figure out credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable effect. [97] Employers likewise carry the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

«Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their work because of their religion, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a work environment rule or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It also consists of dealing with people differently in their employment due to the fact that of their absence of faith or practice» (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from declining to hire a specific based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If a staff member believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting task discrimination and employment are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have clauses that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer particular exemptions in these laws to organizations or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in various places, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have been promoted and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using religions versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable employees to get religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the staff member with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for employees to present proof that it is a regards 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 actually faced criticism for forbiding women from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was modified to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method in which black males were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites gave the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with 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 desired to safeguard the country they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or particular types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits employers from victimizing workers for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic disparate treatment of ladies since there is a huge underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected category may still be unlawful if they produce a disparate effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they are related to job performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to work that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be related to task efficiency, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the company’s lack of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When resisting a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it must just show that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and imposes 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 Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file fit under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own policies 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) enforces 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]

See also

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay space 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 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 initial 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 original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). «Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application». Law Notes for the 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 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 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 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 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 original 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 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 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 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 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; 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 initial on August 14, employment 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination»». Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Illinois Human Rights Act». Archived from the 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ «Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352». Archived from the 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 initial 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 original 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, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 213.055 R.S.Mo». Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303». Archived from the 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 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 inequitable practice». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296». Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain 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 initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «North Dakota Human Rights Act» (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 employers». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents». docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the 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 initial (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 original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451″. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR 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 working with practices based upon a Bona Fide 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 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 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 original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). «Prepare yourself 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 posted on The (January 14, 2013). «Segregation in the Army During World War II|African American History Blog». The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b «USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b «Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints». Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Shaping Employment Discrimination Law». Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws». Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Pre 1965: Events Resulting In the Creation of EEOC». Archived from the original on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement arrangements». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ «An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices». Archived from the 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 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 secure 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.