Ignitionadvertising

About Us

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the typical law, and is codified in various state, federal, and regional laws. These laws restrict discrimination based upon particular characteristics or « protected classifications ». The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public staff members. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has actually ended up being based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, working with, job examinations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend security to extra classifications or employers.

Under federal work discrimination law, companies typically can not discriminate against staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] nationwide origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, somalibidders.com including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, long-term homeowners, temporary locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight attend to employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to safeguard federal government workers.

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 an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of « life, liberty, or property », without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from breaching an individual’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 treating employees, previous staff members, or job candidates unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process defense requires that civil servant have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are ended if the termination is related 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 clause 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 private sector is not unconstitutional since Federal and most State Constitutions do not specifically give their particular federal government the power to enact civil rights laws that use to the economic sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to manage a private service, consisting of civil liberties laws, stems from their power to control 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 only deal with discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public company.

Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil liberties laws that manage the personal sector are generally Constitutional under the « cops powers » teaching or the power of a State to enact laws designed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States need to stick to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil rights laws that offer extra employment protection.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has developed gradually.

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 employers and unions from paying different incomes based on sex. It does not prohibit other inequitable practices in hiring. It supplies that where workers carry out equivalent work in the corner requiring « equal ability, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions, » they ought to be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in much more aspects of the employment relationship. « Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or national origin. It makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based upon secured qualities regarding terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment service might not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor companies are likewise forbidden from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act modified Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, giving birth, and related medical conditions. [4] A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

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

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are nearly similar to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards employees in firms with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has actually phased out and prohibited mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer big pensions). The ADEA consists of specific guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of most discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of « optimal ages of entry into work in 1956 » by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 « established a policy against age discrimination amongst federal specialists ». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal specialists with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action in addition to non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible 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 era veterans by federal professionals ». [14]

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than 3 employees from discriminating against anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate inequitable barriers versus qualified individuals with impairments, people with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered as having an impairment. It restricts discrimination based on genuine or perceived physical or mental disabilities. It also needs companies to provide affordable accommodations to staff members who need them because of a special needs to obtain a task, perform the important functions of a job, or delight in the advantages and benefits of employment, unless the company can reveal that unnecessary difficulty will result. There are strict restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or require medical checkups, and all medical info needs to be dealt with as personal. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that « substantially limits one or more major life activities.  » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, guarantee all individuals equal rights under the law and detail 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 employers from utilizing people’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, 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 [update], 28 US states do not clearly consist of 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 Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual preference and/or referall.us gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [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 staff members were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense to include 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 individuals have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job. » Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have actually lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her employer informed her that her existence might make other individuals feel uncomfortable. [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 private work environments. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, not beliefs. Courts have also determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]

State law

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

The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is consisted of too, considering that federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

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

Civil servant

Title VII likewise uses to state, federal, local and other public employees. Employees of federal and state federal governments have additional defenses versus employment discrimination.

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

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

Federal workers who have work discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the proper federal jurisdiction, which positions a various set of issues for plaintiffs.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational certifications

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

The only exception to this rule is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court guidelines that law enforcement surveillance can match races when essential. For example, if police are running operations that involve confidential informants, or undercover agents, 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 think about race-based policing and hire officers that are in proportion 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, manufacturers and casting personnel are permitted to cast characters based on physical qualities, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the home entertainment market, particularly in entertainers. [95] This reason is unique to the entertainment industry, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense reason in wage gaps in between different groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should stabilize privacy and safety issues with the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, customer preference alone can not be a justification unless there is a personal privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in backwoods can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that handle children survivors of sexual assault is allowed.

If an employer 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 not able to carry out the task securely and effectively or that it is impractical to figure out credentials on an individualized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the burden to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower inequitable alternative technique does not exist. [98]

Religious employment discrimination

« Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals differently in their work since of their religious beliefs, their spiritual beliefs and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a change in a workplace guideline or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It likewise consists of dealing with people in a different way in their employment because of their absence of religion or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are forbidden from declining to employ a specific based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a worker believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should address this to the supposed culprit. On the other hand, workers are safeguarded by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able to submit charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination versus atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different areas, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have been upheld and others reversed over time.

The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are utilizing faiths against modifying the body and preventative medication as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow workers to apply for spiritual exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are specific requirements for workers to present proof that it is a sincerely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has dealt with criticism for prohibiting ladies from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was modified to allow them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the method which black guys were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites offered the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The site states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were just allowed 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 resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the task rights of individuals who willingly or involuntarily leave work positions to undertake military service or certain types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise restricts companies from discriminating against employees for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer choice to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to enforce systemic disparate treatment of women due to the fact that there is a huge underrepresentation of ladies in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no inequitable intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate versus a protected classification may still be illegal if they produce a diverse effect on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they relate to task performance.

The Act requires the elimination of synthetic, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be related to task performance, it is forbidden, regardless of the employer’s lack of prejudiced intent. [107]

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

When resisting a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, nevertheless, does not require to demonstrate need; rather, it needs to simply reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translates and imposes the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and standards are consisted of in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to tire their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

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

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) imposes 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 play the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with criminal records in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit rating 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 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 initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b « Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 » (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). « Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy ». Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ « Family and Medical Leave Act ». Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). « Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application ». Law Notes for the 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 initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Guide to Disability Rights Laws ». ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 30 USC Sec. 938 ». Archived from the original 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 original on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the 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 original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA ». Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). « Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC ». The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. « EEOC: Federal law prohibits work environment bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald ». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). « Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment ». Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace ». FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). « The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked ». Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Code of Alabama 25-1-21 ». Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c « Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception ». touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f « Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ». California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the initial on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b « Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 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 original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine ». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the 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 original 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 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 initial on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040 » (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ « Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352 ». Archived from the 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 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 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 initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the original on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices ». Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12) ».
^ a b c « 2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced practice ». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296 ». Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain activities. – New York Attorney Resources – New York Laws ». law.onecle.com. Archived from the 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 Attorney General Of The United States| ». 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). [permanent 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 initial 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 initial on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « Virginia Human Rights Act ». Archived from the 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 perceived 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 since of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions ». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « State of West Virginia » (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents ». docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the initial on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [permanent dead link] ^ « 22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3 » (PDF). Archived from the 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 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 Preference 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 Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b « Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC ». www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil 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 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 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 initial 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 initial on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). « Prepare for more US females in battle ». 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 The Second World War|African American History Blog ». The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints ». Findlaw. Archived from the original 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 initial 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 initial on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b « Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination ». Archived from the initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503 ». Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ « An 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, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 fails to secure older employees. Weak to start with, she states that the ADEA has been devitalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.