Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon certain attributes or «safeguarded categories». The United States Constitution also restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, working with, job assessments, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to extra categories or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers usually can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic info, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible residents, momentary citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly 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 people of «life, liberty, or property», without due process of the law. It likewise includes an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equal protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional arrangements would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with employees, former employees, or task applicants unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that federal government employees have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related 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 personal sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their particular government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a personal company, consisting of civil rights laws, originates from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some defense from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, job most State Constitutions only resolve inequitable treatment by the government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that control the private sector are typically Constitutional under the «cops powers» teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States should abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that offer extra work protection.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws offer protection from employment 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 work discrimination has established over 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 forbids employers and unions from paying different earnings based upon sex. It does not restrict other discriminatory practices in working with. It offers that where workers perform equivalent work in the corner needing «equivalent ability, effort, and obligation and performed under comparable working conditions,» they should be supplied equal 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 enterprise 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 a lot more aspects of the work relationship. «Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act». [12] It uses to a lot of employers participated in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon protected attributes concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment service might not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, and labor companies are likewise prohibited from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes 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 «forbids discrimination by federal contractors 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 modified in 1978 and 1986, restricts employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are almost similar to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA safeguards workers in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A worker is secured from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and restricted compulsory retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer big pensions). The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning 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 «established a policy versus age discrimination among federal contractors». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal monetary help. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs reasonable lodging, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to disabled employees. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids employers with more than 3 workers from victimizing anybody (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 eliminate discriminatory barriers against certified people with specials needs, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are considered having a special needs. It restricts discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or mental specials needs. It likewise requires employers to supply affordable lodgings to employees who require them due to the fact that of an impairment to look for a job, perform the necessary functions of a job, or take pleasure in the benefits and privileges of employment, unless the company can reveal that excessive difficulty will result. There are rigorous constraints on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical evaluations, and all medical information should be treated as confidential. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that «significantly restricts one or more major life activities. » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and outline the damages offered to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using individuals’ hereditary info when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promotion decisions. [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 clearly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not clearly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is incorporated by the law’s prohibition of work discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; several states and localities clearly restrict harassment and bias in employment choices on the basis of sexual preference 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 workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender staff members were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to incorporate 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 people have experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.» Lots of people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who declares that her manager informed her that her presence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private offices. A few more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws think that it would intrude on spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise recognized that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also provide comprehensive defense from . Some laws extend similar protection as provided by the federal acts to employers 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 specialists.

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

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, personal appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government workers

Title VII also uses to state, federal, local and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional securities versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not impact task performance. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as restricting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the interpretation would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers have the right to limits staff members’ speech in certain ways. [93] Public workers maintain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a private person (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

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

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, job Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police surveillance can match races when required. For example, if authorities are running operations that include personal informants, or undercover representatives, sending an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, police departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not use in the home entertainment industry, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based upon physical attributes, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination declares for Disparate Treatment are rare in the entertainment industry, specifically in entertainers. [95] This justification 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 spaces in between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to balance privacy and security interest in the variety of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a validation unless there is a privacy or safety defense. [96] For instance, 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 centers that deal with children survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be not able to perform the task safely and efficiently or that it is unwise to determine certifications on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a malicious motive does not convert a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers also carry the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is fairly required, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

«Religious discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in an office guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise includes treating people differently in their employment because of their absence of spiritual belief or practice» (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to hire an individual based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If an employee thinks that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they need to resolve this to the supposed wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in different places, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed over time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using spiritual beliefs against modifying the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable staff members 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 certain requirements for staff members to present evidence that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has faced criticism for prohibiting females from serving in fight roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method which black males were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, job however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only enabled to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to defend the nation they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) secures the job rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids employers from discriminating against staff members for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that provide choice to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of females since there is a vast underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually rejected this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a safeguarded category might still be prohibited if they produce a diverse influence on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they are associated to job efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, regardless of the employer’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate effect claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not require to show need; rather, it should simply show that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]

Enforcing entities

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

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination versus qualified people with disabilities by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and imposes its own policies 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) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts 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 work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage space 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 Liberty Act of 1964». US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «The Equal Pay Act of 1963». Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b «Pregnancy Discrimination Act». Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b «Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended». ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS». Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b «The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967». Archived from the original 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 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA». Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). «Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC». The Washington Post. Archived from the original 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 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 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 Rights 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 original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Delaware Code Online». delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e «District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination» (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ «District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions» (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act». Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2». Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination»». Archived from the 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 original 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 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original 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 original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303». Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act». Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices». Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)».
^ a b c «2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful discriminatory practice». Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «New York State Executive Law, Article 15, 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 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 Liberty 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 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). [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 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 initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ «Virginia Human Rights Act». Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of employers». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or liver disease C infection». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or hepatitis C infection». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work due to the fact that of age of employee 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 [irreversible dead link] ^ «22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ «22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b «Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146». Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151». Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451». Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights». Archived from the original 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 original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c «When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their hiring practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?». University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c «CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications». US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b «United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )». Justia Law. Archived from the 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 initial 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 fight». CNN. Archived from the initial 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 initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b «USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act». DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b «Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and 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 Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws». Archived from the initial 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 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY». Archived from the initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b «Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination». Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503». Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ «An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices». Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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 fails to protect older workers. Weak to start with, she mentions 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.