Nextjobnepal

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in many state, federal, and local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on specific attributes or “secured classifications”. The United States Constitution also forbids discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, including recruiting, employing, job examinations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend security to extra categories or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, employers typically can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religious beliefs, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or uncollectable bills, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent homeowners, momentary homeowners, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly address work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to safeguard federal civil servant.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict 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 process of the law. It also contains an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from breaking an individual’s rights of due procedure and equal protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with workers, former staff members, or task applicants unequally since of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure protection needs that government workers have a fair procedural process 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 provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the personal sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically offer their particular federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to regulate a private business, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically pay for some security from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only attend to discriminatory treatment by the federal government, including a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the private sector are generally Constitutional under the “authorities powers” teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, security and morals. All States should comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that use extra work protection.

For instance, some State civil rights laws provide protection from work discrimination on the basis of political association, despite the fact that such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has developed over time.

The Equal Pay Act modified 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 prohibits companies and unions from paying different earnings based on sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in working with. It supplies that where workers carry out equal work in the corner needing “equivalent ability, effort, and obligation and carried out under similar working conditions,” they ought to be provided equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. “Title VII created the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It applies to a lot of companies engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment firms. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon protected qualities regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of employment. Employment service might not discriminate when working with or referring applicants, and labor companies are also restricted from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, specifying that illegal sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, 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 contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists”. [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 forbidden practices are nearly similar to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards employees in companies with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise supply large pensions). The ADEA includes explicit standards 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 “maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “developed a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal professionals”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial help. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and details technology be accessible to disabled workers. [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 “needs affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam period veterans by federal specialists”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 forbids work discrimination on the basis of insolvency or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than three staff members from discriminating versus anyone (other than an unapproved 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 inequitable barriers against certified people with specials needs, individuals with a record of an impairment, or people who are regarded as having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based on genuine or viewed physical or psychological disabilities. It likewise needs employers to supply affordable accommodations to employees who need them due to the fact that of an impairment to look for a task, carry out the important functions of a job, or take pleasure in the benefits and advantages of work, unless the company can reveal that excessive hardship will result. There are strict limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or need medical examinations, and all medical info should be dealt with as personal. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “considerably limits several major life activities. ” [5]

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

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from using individuals’ hereditary info when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promo decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 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 Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and areas clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work decisions 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 staff members; the EEOC’s figured out that transgender staff members were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass sexual in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a shocking 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who declares that her manager informed her that her presence might make other people feel uneasy. [26]

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

State law

State statutes likewise offer comprehensive protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend comparable defense 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 greater security to workers of the state or of state professionals.

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is included as well, considering that federal law only covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

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

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not impact job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has translated this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be expanded to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public employees keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private employers deserve to limits employees’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public workers retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

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

Exceptions

Authentic occupational credentials

Employers are generally enabled to consider characteristics that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the 2nd most typical BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used for discrimination on the basis of race.

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

BFOQs do not apply in the show business, such as casting for films 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, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are rare in the entertainment industry, particularly in performers. [95] This justification is special to the entertainment market, and does not transfer to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, companies will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage spaces between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company must stabilize personal privacy and safety interest in the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in rural locations can not prohibit African American clerks based upon the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that deal with children survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that employment discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to perform the task securely and efficiently or that it is unwise to determine qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious intention does not transform a facially inequitable policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced impact. [97] Employers also bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower inequitable option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

“Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals in a different way in their work because of their faith, their religions and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment since of their absence of spiritual belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from refusing to work with a specific based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to resolve this to the supposed transgressor. On the other hand, workers are secured by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have provisions that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States offer specific exemptions in these laws to services or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been promoted and others reversed with time.

The most current and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using spiritual beliefs versus changing the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to get religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the worker with employment discrimination on the basis of spiritual beliefs. However, there are certain requirements for workers to present proof that it is a sincerely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has dealt with criticism for prohibiting ladies from serving in fight functions. In 2016, however, the law was modified to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans an opportunity to show themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just enabled to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to safeguard the country they resided in, they were denied the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of individuals who willingly 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 against staff members for past or present participation or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of ladies due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has actually declined this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards ladies in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected classification may still be unlawful if they produce a diverse effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to task efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of synthetic, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that runs to omit Negroes can not be revealed to be related to job performance, it is forbidden, regardless of the company’s lack of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When preventing a disparate effect claim that declares age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to show requirement; rather, it needs to just show that its practice is reasonable. [citation needed]

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 Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are included in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wanting to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative treatments by filing an administrative problem with the EEOC prior employment to submitting their suit in court. [113]

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

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company 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) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions 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]

See likewise

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 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 original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the 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 Family Doctor. 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 original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the 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 work environment predisposition against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial 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 initial on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; 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 original 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 original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the initial on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the initial 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 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 initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08″. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial 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 city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in specific activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the initial 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 original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Chief Law Officer|”. 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 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or hepatitis C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed 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 initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [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 original 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 Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York 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 initial 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 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 upon a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the 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). “Get prepared 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 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 initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the 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 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 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 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 initial on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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 secure older employees. Weak to begin with, she specifies 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.