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 restrict discrimination based upon specific attributes or «protected categories». The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments against their public staff members. Discrimination in the personal sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, employing, task evaluations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to additional classifications or companies.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies typically can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or psychological, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] bankruptcy or bad financial obligations, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible locals, short-lived locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly deal with work discrimination, but its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to secure federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive people of «life, liberty, or property», without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaching a person’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 workers, former workers, or task applicants unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that government employees have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is connected to a «liberty» (such as the right to complimentary speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their respective federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a private business, consisting of civil rights laws, comes from their power to regulate all commerce in 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 just attend to 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 typically Constitutional under the «cops powers» doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws created to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States must stick to the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States may enact civil rights laws that provide additional employment defense.

For example, some State civil rights laws provide security from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has established over 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 prohibits employers and unions from paying different earnings based on sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in working with. It offers that where employees perform equal work in the corner needing «equal ability, effort, and obligation and performed under comparable working conditions,» they need to be offered equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in numerous more elements of the employment relationship. «Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act». [12] It applies to a lot of employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII restricts discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it prohibited for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded characteristics concerning terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies might not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, referall.us and labor companies are also restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and associated medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 «prohibits discrimination by federal specialists and subcontractors on account of race, color, faith, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are nearly similar to those outlined in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in companies with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and forbade mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply big pensions). The ADEA contains specific guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning 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 «established a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal contractors». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped staff members. [16]

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

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 «requires affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam period veterans by federal specialists». [14]

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

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

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to get rid of discriminatory barriers against certified individuals with impairments, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered as having an impairment. It restricts discrimination based on real or perceived physical or mental specials needs. It likewise needs companies to supply sensible accommodations to staff members who require them because of a disability to request a task, perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and privileges of employment, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary hardship will result. There are rigorous limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical examinations, and all medical info must be dealt with as personal. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that «considerably restricts several major life activities. » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, changed in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and lay out the damages available 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 people’ hereditary information when making hiring, shooting, job 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 explicitly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and regions explicitly forbid harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public staff members. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzed Title VII to cover LGBT workers; the EEOC’s determined that transgender employees were secured under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to incorporate 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 experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the task.» Many people in the LGBT community have lost their task, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender female who claims that her boss informed her that her presence might make other people feel unpleasant. [26]

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

State law

State statutes also provide extensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as supplied by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws offer greater defense to workers of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is included also, because federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

— District of Columbia — admission, personal look [35]- Michigan — height, weight [53]- Texas — Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont — Birthplace [76]
Government staff members

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

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

Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal companies can limitations employees’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public staff members retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a personal resident (not on behalf of their employer), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are typically permitted to think about attributes that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be utilized for discrimination on the basis of race.

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

BFOQs do not apply in the home entertainment industry, such as casting for movies 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 declares for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the entertainment industry, particularly in entertainers. [95] This justification is unique to the show business, and does not transfer to other markets, 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 reason in wage spaces between different groups of workers. [96] Cost can be considered when a company needs to balance privacy and somalibidders.com safety worry about the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

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

If a company were attempting to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there must be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be unable to perform the job safely and effectively or that it is impractical to identify credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, absence of a sinister motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

«Religious discrimination is dealing with people differently in their work since of their religion, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a change in a workplace guideline or policy) of their religions and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals differently in their work because 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 work with a specific based on their faith- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced religious discrimination, they ought to address this to the alleged culprit. On the other hand, employees are secured by the law for reporting job discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have stipulations that prohibit discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer specific exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, however, to differing degrees in various areas, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been maintained and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing religious beliefs versus altering the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not enable workers to request spiritual exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the staff member with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for employees to present evidence that it is a best regards held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has faced criticism for restricting women from serving in fight roles. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was changed to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black men were treated in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites offered the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war. The National Geographic site 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 roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to safeguard the nation 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 people who willingly or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service or certain kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids employers from discriminating versus staff members for past 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 ladies due to the fact that there is a large underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has rejected this claim due to the fact that there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a protected category may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate impact on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they belong to task performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to work that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be associated with task performance, it is forbidden, notwithstanding the company’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When safeguarding against a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, an employer, however, does not require to demonstrate necessity; rather, it needs to just show that its practice is affordable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates 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 developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its regulations and guidelines are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA must tire their administrative solutions by filing an administrative grievance 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 forbids discrimination versus certified individuals with specials needs by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each firm has and enforces its own policies that use to its own programs and to any entities that receive monetary assistance. [16]

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit history 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 original 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 initial 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 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 initial 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 initial 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 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 initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). «Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States». American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA». Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). «Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC». The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. «EEOC: Federal law prohibits workplace bias against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). «Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment». Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ «Sexual 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 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 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act». Archived from the original 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 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 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 original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312». Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311». Archived from the 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 initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Minnesota Statutes, 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 original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices». Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)».
^ a b c «2006 New Mexico Statutes — Section 28-1-7 — Unlawful prejudiced practice». Justia Law. Archived from the 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 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 initial (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|». www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A». Archived from the original on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ «Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission» (PDF). [irreversible dead link] ^ «State of Rhode Island General Assembly». www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original 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 original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Utah Code 34A-5-106». Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act» (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ «Virginia Human Rights Act». Archived from the initial 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 respect 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 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 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 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 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 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 TAKING PART 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 for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)». The New York City 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 original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Liberties Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri». www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c «When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based upon an Authentic Occupation Qualification?». University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c «CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications». US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b «United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )». Justia Law. Archived from the 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 original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace». www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). «Get all set for more US females 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 The Second World War|African American History Blog». The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b «USERRA — Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b «Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions». Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ «Shaping Employment Discrimination Law». Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws». Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Pre 1965: Events Leading to the Creation of EEOC». Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 — Enforcement arrangements». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original 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 original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ «An Overview of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices». Archived from the 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 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, 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 specifies that the ADEA has actually 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.