Jobs 4u

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon specific characteristics or “protected classifications”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, employing, task examinations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to additional classifications or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers usually can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for people, long-term homeowners, 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 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 work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due process of the law. It likewise consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly restricts states from breaking an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent defense. In the work context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating staff members, previous staff members, or job applicants unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that civil servant have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is connected to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation 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 economic sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a private organization, including civil rights laws, originates from their power to control all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some defense from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only address inequitable treatment by the government, including a public company.

Absent of an arrangement 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 developed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States might enact civil rights laws that offer additional work protection.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established in time.

The Equal Pay Act changed 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 companies and unions from paying various incomes based upon sex. It does not prohibit other prejudiced practices in working with. It provides that where employees perform equal operate in the corner requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under comparable working conditions,” they should be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s employees if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a substantial quantity of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of companies participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor employment organizations, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon secured qualities relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment firms may not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also forbidden from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and employment Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “restricts discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal professionals”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and modified in 1978 and 1986, forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are almost identical to those described in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also supply large pensions). The ADEA consists of explicit standards for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of “optimal 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 amongst federal specialists”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary help. [16] It needs affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped workers. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators against miners who struggle with “black lung illness” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “needs affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam period veterans by federal specialists”. [14]

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove discriminatory barriers versus certified people with impairments, people with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are related to as having a special needs. It prohibits discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or psychological impairments. It also needs companies to offer reasonable lodgings to workers who require them since of a special needs to look for a job, carry out the important functions of a job, or delight in the advantages and advantages of work, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary challenge will result. There are rigorous limitations on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or require medical examinations, and all medical info must be dealt with as confidential. A special needs is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “significantly restricts one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, changed in 1993, ensure all persons equal rights under the law and lay out the damages readily available to plaintiffs 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 utilizing individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promotion choices. [10]

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

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed 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 ), employment securities for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly restrict harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass sexual preference in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have actually experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her employer told her that her presence may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning 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 invade spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise identified that these laws do not infringe totally free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also provide extensive protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes offer protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer higher defense to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is included also, since federal law just covers workers over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – admission, personal look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Government employees

Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, local and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional protections against employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be broadened to consist of gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public employees retain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies can limits staff members’ speech in particular methods. [93] Public staff members keep their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are normally enabled to think about characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is shown in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that police security can match races when essential. For instance, if police are running operations that include private informants, or undercover representatives, 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 employment employ officers that are in proportion to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for films and tv. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based on physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are uncommon in the entertainment industry, specifically in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the home entertainment industry, and does not move to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage gaps in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must balance privacy and safety worry about the variety of positions that a company are attempting to fill. [96]

Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a reason unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in backwoods can not forbid African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the client base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle kids survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If a company were attempting to prove that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the task securely and effectively or that it is not practical to determine qualifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not convert a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory impact. [97] likewise carry the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower prejudiced option method does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their employment because of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also consists of treating individuals in a different way in their employment since of their lack of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from declining to work with a specific based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they ought to resolve this to the supposed offender. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some areas in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to organizations or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been upheld and others reversed with time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using faiths versus changing the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not allow staff members to look for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are particular requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is a sincerely 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 armed force has faced criticism for prohibiting ladies from serving in fight roles. In 2016, however, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the way in which black males were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans an opportunity to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just permitted to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the task rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or specific types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits employers from discriminating versus workers for previous or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to enforce systemic diverse treatment of women because there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no inequitable intent towards women in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a safeguarded classification might still be illegal if they produce a disparate influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they belong to task efficiency.

The Act needs the removal of synthetic, arbitrary, 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 connected to job efficiency, it is restricted, regardless of the employer’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to demonstrate need; rather, it must just reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and imposes 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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and standards are included 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 solutions by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their claim in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and imposes its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get monetary assistance. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against individuals 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 Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the initial on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the 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 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 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 General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the 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 employment”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial 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 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans work environment 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 original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil liberty Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the initial 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 original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the 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 original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the 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 initial 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 liberty Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the 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 discriminatory practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, employment 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 particular activities. – New York 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 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 Liberty Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [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 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 initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or employment liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work due to the fact that of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [long-term dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual 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 City Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil 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 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, employment 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 original 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 original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare yourself for more US women in battle”. CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army During 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 original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Causing the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 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 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 safeguard older workers. Weak to start with, she states 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.