Indianpharmajobs

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 local laws. These laws restrict discrimination based on specific characteristics or «safeguarded classifications». The United States Constitution likewise restricts discrimination by federal and state federal governments versus their public employees. Discrimination in the economic sector is not straight constrained by the Constitution, but has actually become based on a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, working with, task evaluations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws typically extend defense to additional classifications or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies usually can not discriminate versus employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual preference and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] nationwide origin, [1] disability (physical or psychological, consisting of status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] bankruptcy or uncollectable bills, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for citizens, irreversible homeowners, short-lived citizens, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

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

Title IX

Constitutional basis

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

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of «life, liberty, or residential or commercial property», without due procedure of the law. It likewise includes an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent protection. In the work context, these Constitutional arrangements would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with staff members, former staff members, or task applicants unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection needs that government staff members have a reasonable procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is associated with a «liberty» (such as the right to totally free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision 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 personal sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a personal company, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some security from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only attend to inequitable treatment by the federal government, including a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the economic sector are normally Constitutional under the «authorities powers» doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to secure public health, safety and morals. All States need to adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States might enact civil liberties laws that provide extra work security.

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

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has developed with time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is imposed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act prohibits companies and unions from paying different wages based upon sex. It does not restrict other inequitable practices in working with. It offers that where employees perform equivalent operate in the corner requiring «equivalent skill, effort, and obligation and carried out under comparable working conditions,» they need to be supplied equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s employees if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation needed]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in a lot more aspects of the work relationship. «Title VII produced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act». [12] It applies to many companies engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor organizations, and work firms. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it unlawful for companies to discriminate based upon protected characteristics relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment agencies may not discriminate when employing or referring applicants, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing membership or union categories on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [4] An associated 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 nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal professionals». [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, restricts companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost identical to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA secures workers in companies with 20 or more employees rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based on age if she or he is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also offer big pensions). The ADEA contains explicit standards 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 «maximum ages of entry into work in 1956» by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 «established a policy versus age discrimination amongst federal professionals». [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of impairment by the federal government, federal professionals with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial support. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 needs affordable accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped workers. [16]

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

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

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

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 restricts companies with more than 3 workers from victimizing anybody (other than 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 prejudiced barriers versus certified people with disabilities, people with a record of a special needs, or people who are considered having a disability. It forbids discrimination based on real or perceived physical or mental specials needs. It likewise requires companies to supply affordable accommodations to workers who require them since of a special needs to request a task, perform the essential functions of a job, or delight in the advantages and privileges of employment, unless the company can reveal that excessive challenge will result. There are stringent restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related concerns or need medical examinations, and somalibidders.com all medical info needs to be treated as personal. A disability is specified under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that «substantially limits several significant life activities. » [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, changed in 1993, guarantee all persons equivalent rights under the law and describe the damages readily 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’ hereditary information when making hiring, shooting, job positioning, or promotion decisions. [10]

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

LGBT employment 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 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; numerous states and regions explicitly restrict harassment and bias in employment choices 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 employees; the EEOC’s identified that transgender staff members were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: «Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.» Many individuals in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender lady who declares that her boss informed her that her presence might make other individuals feel uneasy. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private workplaces. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. [27] Some challengers of these laws believe that it would invade spiritual liberty, although these laws are focused more on inequitable actions, referall.us not beliefs. Courts have actually also identified that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes likewise offer extensive security from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as provided by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide greater security to employees of the state or of state professionals.

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

In addition,

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

Civil servant

Title VII also applies to state, federal, regional and other public workers. Employees of federal and state governments have extra securities against employment discrimination.

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

Additionally, public employees keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers deserve to limitations staff members’ speech in particular ways. [93] Public staff members keep 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 concern, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal staff members who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to sue in the proper federal jurisdiction, which poses a various set of issues for complainants.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational certifications

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

The only exception to this guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, where the court rules that police surveillance can match races when necessary. For example, if cops are running operations that include 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 work with officers that are proportional to the community’s racial makeup. [94]

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

Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be a cost validation in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must balance personal privacy and safety worry about the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]

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

If an employer were trying to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for believing that all or substantially all members of a class would be unable to carry out the task securely and efficiently or that it is impractical to determine certifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious motive does not transform a facially prejudiced policy into a neutral policy with an inequitable effect. [97] Employers also bring the burden to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lower prejudiced option technique does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

«Religious discrimination is treating people in a different way in their work since of their religious beliefs, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a change in a workplace rule or policy) of their spiritual beliefs and practices. It also includes dealing with individuals in a different way in their employment due to the fact that of their lack of faith or practice» (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from refusing to work with a private based on their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, adremcareers.com age, and disability. If a staff member thinks that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they should resolve this to the supposed transgressor. On the other hand, employees are by the law for reporting task discrimination and are able 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 particular exemptions in these laws to companies or institutions that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been upheld and others reversed in time.

The most recent and pervasive example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many staff members are using religions against changing the body and preventative medicine as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow staff members to request religious exemptions, or decline their application might be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are specific requirements for staff members to present proof that it is a genuinely held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

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

Military

The armed force has dealt with criticism for restricting ladies from serving in combat functions. In 2016, however, the law was modified to enable them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the article published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. discusses the way in which black guys were treated in the military throughout 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 website states, however, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their involvement was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to defend the country they resided in, they were rejected the power to do so.

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

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly victimize a protected category may still be prohibited if they produce a diverse effect on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a discriminatory effect, unless they belong to job performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, approximate, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to leave out Negroes can not be shown to be related to task efficiency, it is restricted, notwithstanding the employer’s absence of inequitable intent. [107]

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

When safeguarding versus a diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer, however, does not require to show necessity; rather, it should just show that its practice is affordable. [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 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 developed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its policies and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to file match under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]

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

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

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

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

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus individuals with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage gap in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit report systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e «Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964». US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «The Equal Pay Act of 1963». Archived from the initial on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b «Pregnancy Discrimination Act». Archived from the original on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b «Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended». ADA.gov. Archived from the 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 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 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 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 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 original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). «Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, states the EEOC». The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. «EEOC: Federal law prohibits work environment bias 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 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 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 original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b «Colorado Civil liberty 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 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; Tabulation, General Provisions» (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine». www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act». Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2». Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination»». Archived from the 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 initial 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 initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ «Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352». Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312». Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311». Archived from the original 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 initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «M.G.L 151B § 1». Archived from the original on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Elliott-Larsen Civil liberty Act» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c «Minnesota Statutes, area 363A.08». Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 213.055 R.S.Mo». Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303». Archived from the initial on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act». Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b «NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the initial on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b «Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices». Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d «New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)».
^ a b c «2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful 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 city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York City Laws». law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the 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 original 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 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 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 companies». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with regard to HIV or hepatitis C infection». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or viewed HIV or hepatitis C infection». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work since of age of employee or applicant-Exceptions». apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «State of West Virginia» (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the 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 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 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 PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION». statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ «Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights». Archived from the original on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). «New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)». The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023.
^ a b «Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC». www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the initial on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ «Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri». www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c «When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their hiring practices based on 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 original 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 original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). «Get all set for more US females in combat». 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 posted on The (January 14, 2013). «Segregation in the Armed Forces During World War II|African American History Blog». The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the 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 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 Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws». Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «Pre 1965: Events Resulting In 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 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 initial on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ «The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503». Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ «An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices». Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal 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 safeguard older employees. Weak to begin with, she states that the ADEA has actually been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.