Employment Discrimination Law in The United States
Employment discrimination law in the United States obtains from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws forbid discrimination based on specific characteristics or « protected categories ». The United States Constitution likewise forbids discrimination by federal and state governments versus their public workers. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, however has ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law forbids discrimination in a number of areas, consisting of recruiting, hiring, task examinations, promo policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend security to additional categories or companies.
Under federal work discrimination law, companies usually can not victimize staff members on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] special needs (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or somalibidders.com affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] hereditary details, [10] and citizenship status (for residents, permanent citizens, short-lived 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 attend to employment discrimination, however its restrictions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to protect federal civil servant.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has a specific requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of « life, liberty, or residential or commercial property », without due process of the law. It likewise contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from breaking an individual’s rights of due procedure and equivalent security. In the employment 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 workers, or job candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due procedure defense needs that government workers have a fair procedural process before they are ended if the termination is associated with a « liberty » (such as the right to complimentary speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the provision that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination expenses (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.
Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly provide their particular federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government’s authority to manage a personal company, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some security from public and personal work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only address inequitable treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.
Absent of an arrangement in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that control the economic sector are usually Constitutional under the « cops powers » doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to safeguard public health, safety and morals. All States must comply with the Federal Civil liberty laws, but States might enact civil liberties laws that provide additional employment security.
For example, some State civil rights laws offer defense from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, despite the fact that such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil liberties laws.
History of federal laws
Federal law governing work discrimination has established in time.
The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids companies and unions from paying various incomes based on sex. It does not forbid other inequitable practices in working with. It offers that where employees perform equivalent work in the corner requiring « equivalent ability, effort, and obligation and performed under similar working conditions, » they ought to be supplied equal pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the business is engaged as a whole in a substantial amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more elements of the work relationship. « Title VII developed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act ». [12] It uses to a lot of employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon protected attributes concerning terms, conditions, and benefits of work. Employment service might not discriminate when working with or referring candidates, and labor companies are also prohibited from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, and associated 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, religion, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal specialists ». [14]
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and changed in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The forbidden practices are almost similar to those detailed in Title VII, except that the ADEA secures employees in firms with 20 or more employees instead of 15 or more. A worker is protected from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and restricted obligatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit standards for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of many discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning 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 among federal contractors ». [15]
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It needs affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires reasonable lodging, and Section 508 needs that electronic and infotech be available to handicapped employees. [16]
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 prohibits 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 handicapped and Vietnam era veterans by federal professionals ». [14]
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of personal bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three employees from discriminating versus anyone (except an unapproved immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [18]
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove discriminatory barriers versus certified individuals with specials needs, people with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered as having an impairment. It forbids discrimination based upon real or perceived physical or psychological impairments. It likewise requires companies to supply sensible lodgings to staff members who require them because of a disability to make an application for a task, carry out the vital functions of a task, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of work, unless the employer can show that unnecessary difficulty will result. There are rigorous limitations on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical checkups, and all medical info must be treated as personal. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that « considerably restricts one or more major life activities. » [5]
The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, modified in 1993, make sure all individuals equivalent rights under the law and lay out the damages readily available to plaintiffs in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from utilizing people’ genetic information when making hiring, shooting, task positioning, or promotion decisions. [10]
The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [upgrade], 28 US states do not explicitly 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 Liberty Act of 1964 forbids 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 ), work defenses for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and areas explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public workers. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s determined that transgender employees were safeguarded under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to incorporate sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]
According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: « Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the work environment. Moreover, an incredible 90 percent of transgender employees report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job. » Many individuals in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her employer told her that her existence may make other individuals feel unpleasant. [26]
Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and personal work environments. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in just public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws think that it would invade religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also determined that these laws do not infringe free speech or spiritual liberty. [28]
State law
State statutes likewise supply comprehensive defense from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar defense as supplied by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply security to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide higher defense to employees of the state or of state specialists.
The following table lists classifications not secured by federal law. Age is included too, given that federal law only covers workers over 40.
In addition,
– District of Columbia – admission, individual look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]
Government employees
Title VII also uses to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have extra defenses versus employment discrimination.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has analyzed this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the interpretation would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]
Additionally, public staff members keep their First Amendment rights, whereas private companies have the right to limits workers’ speech in specific methods. [93] Public staff members keep 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 issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]
Federal employees who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which poses a various set of problems for complainants.
Exceptions
Bona fide occupational certifications
Employers are normally allowed to think about attributes that would otherwise be inequitable if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). The most common BFOQ is sex, and the second most typical BFOQ is age. Authentic 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 needed. For example, if cops are running operations that involve confidential informants, or undercover representatives, sending out 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 makeup. [94]
BFOQs do not use in the show business, such as casting for movies and adremcareers.com television. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting staff are enabled to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, etc. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the entertainment market, specifically in performers. [95] This justification is special to the entertainment market, and does not move to other industries, 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 a cost reason in wage gaps in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company should stabilize privacy and security worry about the variety of positions that an employer are attempting to fill. [96]
Additionally, consumer preference alone can not be a validation unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail facilities in backwoods can not restrict African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at facilities that handle children survivors of sexual assault is allowed.
If a company were attempting to show that work discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there need to be an accurate basis for thinking that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to perform the job securely and efficiently or that it is not practical to identify credentials on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malicious intention does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. [97] Employers also carry the concern to reveal that a BFOQ is reasonably required, and a lesser prejudiced alternative approach does not exist. [98]
Religious work discrimination
« Religious discrimination is treating people differently in their work since of their religious beliefs, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for lodging (a modification in a workplace guideline or policy) of their faiths and practices. It likewise includes treating people in a different way in their employment since of their absence of faith or practice » (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are forbidden from refusing to employ a private based upon their religious beliefs- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a staff member thinks that they have experienced religious discrimination, they need to address this to the alleged wrongdoer. On the other hand, staff members are protected by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability 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 provide particular exemptions in these laws to businesses or organizations that are spiritual or religiously-affiliated, referall.us however, to varying degrees in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have been upheld and others reversed gradually.
The most recent and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the prevalent rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are utilizing faiths versus altering the body and preventative medication as a validation to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to make an application for religious exemptions, or decline their application may be charged by the employee with work discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for workers to present evidence that it is a truly held belief. [101]
Members of the Communist Party
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 explicitly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.
Military
The military 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 short article posted on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. blogs about the method which black men were dealt with in the military throughout the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic website states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans desired to defend the nation 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 people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or specific types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also forbids employers from victimizing employees for past or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that give preference to veterans versus non-veterans has actually been alleged to impose systemic disparate treatment of females due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim due to the fact that there was no prejudiced intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]
Unintentional discrimination
Employment practices that do not straight discriminate against a protected classification might still be unlawful if they produce a diverse influence on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they relate to job efficiency.
The Act needs the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that runs to leave out Negroes can not be revealed to be connected to task efficiency, it is prohibited, regardless of the company’s absence 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 diverse impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, nevertheless, does not need to demonstrate need; rather, it should merely reveal that its practice is sensible. [citation needed]
Enforcing entities
The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets 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 Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement arrangements are consisted of in section 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 wanting to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative treatments by submitting an administrative grievance with the EEOC prior to submitting their lawsuit in court. [113]
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified people with disabilities by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own policies 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) implements the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination based upon citizenship status or nationwide 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 scoring 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 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 original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b « Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 » (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the initial on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). « Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy ». Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ « Family and Medical Leave Act ». Archived from the initial on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). « Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application ». Law Notes for the 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 original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ « Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ». Archived from the original on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « 42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of deliberate discrimination in employment ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) ». Archived from the initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). « Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination versus Openly Gay Men in the United States ». American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA ». Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). « Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC ». The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. « EEOC: Federal law bans office predisposition versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald ». Miamiherald.com. Archived from the original on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). « Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment ». Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ « Sexual Preference Discrimination in the Workplace ». FindLaw. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). « The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked ». Media Matters for America. Archived from the 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 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 initial on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Delaware Code Online ». delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e « District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination » (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ « District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Table of Contents, General Provisions » (PDF). Archived from the 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 initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2 ». Archived from the initial on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination » ». Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « Illinois Human Rights Act ». Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Indiana General Assembly ». iga.in.gov. Archived from the 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 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 initial 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 initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ». www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16 ». Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L. 151B § 4 ». Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « M.G.L 151B § 1 ». Archived from the original 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, section 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 original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act ». Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ». www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b « Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices ». Archived from the original on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12) ».
^ a b c « 2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful prejudiced practice ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c « New York State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296 ». Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b « New york city Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain 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 initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ » § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d « North Dakota Human Rights Act » (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ « 2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Liberty Commission ». Justia Law. Archived from the initial on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ « Oklahoma 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 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 original (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 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 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 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 Tabulation ». 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 initial (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 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 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 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 on an Authentic Occupation Qualification? ». University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c « CM-625 Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications ». US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the 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 original on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination? ». www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). « Prepare for more US women 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 initial on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b « USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ». DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b « Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 ) ». Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ « FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions ». Findlaw. Archived from the initial on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ « Shaping Employment Discrimination Law ». Archived from the initial on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Federal Equal Job Opportunity (EEO) Laws ». Archived from the original on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ « Pre 1965: Events 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 arrangements ». LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original 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 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 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 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 stops working to safeguard older employees. Weak to begin with, she mentions that the ADEA has 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.
