
Careerdevinstitute
Добавете рецензия ПоследвайПреглед
-
Дата на основаване май 23, 1911
-
Сектори Преводи
-
Публикувани работни места 0
-
Разгледано 6
Описание на компанията
Employment Discrimination Law in The United States
Employment discrimination law in the United States originates from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on particular characteristics or „secured classifications“. The United States Constitution also forbids 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 subject to 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 variety of locations, consisting of recruiting, employing, job examinations, promotion policies, training, payment and disciplinary action. State laws frequently extend defense to extra classifications or companies.
Under federal employment discrimination law, companies normally can not victimize workers on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] faith, [1] national origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for employees over 40), [7] military service or association, [8] insolvency or bad financial obligations, [9] hereditary information, [10] and citizenship status (for people, irreversible residents, short-lived locals, refugees, and asylees). [11]
List of United States federal discrimination law
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964
Title IX
Constitutional basis
The United States Constitution does not directly attend to employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal government staff members.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution restrict 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 procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit assurance that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating an individual’s rights of due process and equivalent security. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by dealing with workers, previous staff members, or task candidates unequally since of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection needs that government staff members have a fair procedural procedure before they are terminated if the termination is connected to a „liberty“ (such as the right to complimentary speech) or home interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the stipulation 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 due to the fact that Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly offer their respective federal government the power to enact civil liberties laws that use to the personal sector. The Federal federal government’s authority to control a private business, including civil rights laws, originates from their power to regulate all commerce in between the States. Some State Constitutions do specifically afford some security from public and personal employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just resolve prejudiced treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public employer.
Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that manage the personal sector are normally Constitutional under the „police powers“ doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, security and morals. All States need to follow the Federal Civil Rights laws, however States may enact civil liberties laws that use extra work security.
For example, some State civil rights laws use defense from employment discrimination on the basis of political association, despite the fact that such types of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.
History of federal laws
Federal law governing employment discrimination has established in time.
The Equal Pay Act changed 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 forbids companies and unions from paying different incomes based on sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in working with. It supplies that where employees carry out equal work in the corner needing „equal ability, effort, and responsibility and carried out under comparable working conditions,“ they ought to be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to companies taken part in some element of interstate commerce, or all of a company’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce. [citation required]
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts discrimination in many more elements of the employment relationship. „Title VII developed the Equal Job opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act“. [12] It applies to many employers taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 workers, labor companies, employment and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based on race, color, religious beliefs, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon safeguarded qualities relating to terms, conditions, and benefits of employment. Employment firms might not discriminate when employing or referring candidates, and labor organizations are also restricted from basing subscription or union classifications on race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended 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 „forbids discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or nationwide origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal professionals“. [14]
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are almost identical to those described in Title VII, other than that the ADEA protects employees in firms with 20 or more workers instead of 15 or more. A staff member is secured 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 also provide big pensions). The ADEA includes explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement strategies. [7] Though ADEA is the center of the majority of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of „maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956“ by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 „developed a policy versus age discrimination among federal professionals“. [15]
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 restricts work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, employment federal specialists with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action along with non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires sensible accommodation, and Section 508 needs that electronic and information technology be available to disabled staff members. [16]
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 forbids discrimination by mine operators versus miners who struggle with „black lung disease“ (pneumoconiosis). [17]
The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 „requires affirmative action for handicapped and Vietnam period veterans by federal contractors“. [14]
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 restricts employment discrimination on the basis of insolvency or uncollectable bills. [9]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 forbids companies with more than three workers from victimizing anybody (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 prejudiced barriers against certified people with disabilities, people with a record of an impairment, or individuals who are considered having an impairment. It prohibits discrimination based upon real or viewed physical or mental impairments. It also requires employers to provide reasonable lodgings to staff members who require them since of a special needs to make an application for a task, perform the necessary functions of a job, or enjoy the advantages and benefits of employment, unless the employer can show that undue challenge will result. There are stringent constraints on when an employer can ask disability-related concerns or require medical exams, and all medical details must be dealt with as private. A special needs is defined under the ADA as a psychological or physical health condition that „substantially restricts several major life activities. “ [5]
The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, modified in 1993, ensure all persons equal rights under the law and outline the damages available to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars companies from utilizing people’ genetic details when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promo decisions. [10]
The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] As of June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not explicitly consist of sexual preference and 29 US states do not explicitly consist of gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.
LGBT work discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is included by the law’s restriction 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 Job Opportunity Commission (2020 ), employment defenses for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and regions clearly prohibit harassment and predisposition in work choices on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock choice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) translated Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the defense 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 individuals have actually experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some type of harassment or mistreatment on the job.“ Lots of people in the LGBT community have lost their task, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who 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 private work environments. A couple of more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public offices. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would invade religious liberty, despite the fact that these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have actually also identified that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or spiritual liberty. [28]
State law
State statutes also offer substantial protection from work discrimination. Some laws extend comparable security as provided 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 offer greater defense to employees of the state or of state specialists.
The following table lists categories not secured by federal law. Age is consisted of also, because federal law only covers workers over 40.
In addition,
– District of Columbia – matriculation, individual appearance [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Place of birth [76]
Civil servant
Title VII likewise applies to state, federal, regional and other public staff members. Employees of federal and state governments have additional securities versus work discrimination.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect task efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually translated this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was announced that the analysis would be expanded to consist of gender identity. [92]
Additionally, employment public employees keep their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers can limits employees’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees retain 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 issue, and their speech is not interfering with their job. [93]
Federal workers who have employment discrimination claims, such as postal employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) should sue in the correct federal jurisdiction, which postures a different set of issues for complainants.
Exceptions
Bona fide occupational certifications
Employers are generally permitted to think about qualities that would otherwise be inequitable if they are authentic occupational credentials (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second 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 guidelines that law enforcement monitoring can match races when essential. For example, if cops are running operations that include personal 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 consider race-based policing and hire officers that are in proportion to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]
BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment market, such as casting for motion pictures and television. [95] Directors, producers and casting personnel are enabled to cast characters based upon physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the entertainment market, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is distinct to the home entertainment industry, and does not transfer to other industries, such as retail or food. [95]
Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense justification in wage spaces between various groups of staff members. [96] Cost can be thought about when a company should stabilize personal privacy and safety interest in the number of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]
Additionally, consumer choice alone can not be a justification unless there is a privacy or security defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in backwoods can not prohibit African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the customer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that manage children survivors of sexual abuse is permitted.
If a company were trying to show that employment discrimination was based on a BFOQ, there should be a factual basis for believing that all or considerably all members of a class would be not able to carry out the job safely and efficiently or that it is not practical to determine qualifications on a customized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a malevolent intention does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably essential, and a lesser prejudiced alternative technique does not exist. [98]
Religious employment discrimination
„Religious discrimination is dealing with individuals in a different way in their work due to the fact that of their religious beliefs, their religions and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a work environment rule or policy) of their faiths and practices. It also consists of dealing with individuals differently in their work due to the fact that of their absence of religion or practice“ (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission, employers are restricted from refusing to employ a private based upon their religion- alike race, sex, age, and special needs. If a staff member believes that they have actually experienced spiritual discrimination, they need to resolve this to the alleged transgressor. On the other hand, workers are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some locations in the U.S. now have provisions 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 religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to varying degrees in different locations, depending upon the setting and the context; some of these have actually been maintained and others reversed gradually.
The most current and example of Religious Discrimination is the widespread rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many workers are using spiritual beliefs against modifying the body and preventative medication as a justification to not receive the vaccination. Companies that do not allow employees to look for religious exemptions, or employment decline their application might be charged by the worker with work discrimination on the basis of faiths. However, there are particular requirements for workers to present proof that it is a sincerely held belief. [101]
Members of the Communist Party
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 clearly allows discrimination against members of the Communist Party.
Military
The armed force has actually faced criticism for restricting ladies from serving in combat functions. In 2016, nevertheless, the law was amended to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the short article published on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the method in which black males were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, throughout that time the whites provided the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them get involved in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was limited to the functions of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to defend the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the task rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave work positions to carry out military service or specific kinds of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law likewise forbids companies from victimizing employees for past or present involvement or subscription in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been declared to impose systemic diverse treatment of ladies due to the fact that there is a vast underrepresentation of females in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim because there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]
Unintentional discrimination
Employment practices that do not straight victimize a safeguarded category may still be prohibited if they produce a disparate influence on members of a safeguarded group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 prohibits work practices that have an inequitable effect, unless they belong to job performance.
The Act needs the removal of synthetic, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment that run 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 job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the company’s absence of discriminatory intent. [107]
Height and weight requirements have been recognized by the EEOC as having a disparate effect on nationwide origin minorities. [108]
When safeguarding versus a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, a company, however, does not require to show requirement; rather, it must just reveal that its practice is affordable. [citation needed]
Enforcing entities
The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyzes and implements the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Liberty Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was developed by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are consisted of in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA need to exhaust their administrative remedies by submitting an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court. [113]
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids discrimination versus certified people with impairments by federal professionals and subcontractors. [114]
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and enforces its own policies that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial help. [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 prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status or nationwide origin. [115]
State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) workplaces play the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]
See likewise
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination against persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay gap in the United States
Criticism of credit report 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 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 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 initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act“. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b „Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008“ (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the 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 General Practitioner. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). „Age discrimination legislations in the United States“ (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d „Guide to Disability Rights Laws“. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „30 USC Sec. 938“. Archived from the initial on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ „Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986“. Archived from the 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 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, states the EEOC“. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. „EEOC: Federal law prohibits workplace 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 original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b „Colorado Civil liberty Division 2008 Statutes“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60“. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Delaware Code Online“. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the 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 initial (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine“. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act“. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2“. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination““. Archived from the initial on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „Illinois Human Rights Act“. Archived from the 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 original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352“. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312“. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311“. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT“. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16“. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „M.G.L. 151B § 4“. Archived from the 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 original 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 initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c „New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296“. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b „New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination versus the engagement in certain activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York City 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 Rights 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 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 initial on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „Utah Code 34A-5-106“. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act“ (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ „Virginia Human Rights Act“. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b „RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or 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 perceived HIV or hepatitis C infection“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in work since of age of worker or applicant-Exceptions“. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ „State of West Virginia“ (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d „Wisconsin Statutes Table of Contents“. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original 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 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 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 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 Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri“. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the initial on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c „When is it legal for an employer to discriminate in their working with practices based on a Bona Fide 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 Authentic Occupational Qualifications“. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the original on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b „United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )“. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ „Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )“. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ „Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness“. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the original on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ „Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace“. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the original 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). „Get all set for more US females in fight“. CNN. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally published on The (January 14, 2013). „Segregation in the Army During The Second World War|African American History Blog“. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the 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 opinions“. 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 Employment 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 original 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 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 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 Employment Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, a lawyer and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to safeguard older workers. 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.