Take These 4 Steps to Combat

Gender Discrimination in the

Workplace
Laura Berlinsky-Schine,

10
in
Diversity & Gender Equality

Even though we live in the #MeToo and Time's Up age, when employers, businesses, and people
around the world are starting to take sexual harassment seriously and punishing the men and
women responsible for ignoring or refusing to adhere to standards (and laws) of gender equality,
gender discrimination in the workplace still exists.

What Is Gender Discrimination, and How

Prevalent Is It?
Gender discrimination occurs when someone is treated poorly because of his or her sex.

A Pew Research Survey conducted last year reveals that 42 percent of women say they have
faced discrimination while at work. The most prevalent examples include women reporting
earning less than men doing the same job or work as they are and being treated as incompetent.
A smaller but still significant percentage (16 percent and 15 percent respectively) reported
experiencing repeated, small slights at work and receiving less support from senior leaders
compared with their male counterparts in similar roles.

An online survey conducted by Stop Street Harassment reveals that 81 percent of women and 43
percent of men have experienced some type of sexual harassment—one form of gender
discrimination—in their lifetimes. And a Marist Poll finds that 22 percent of adults and 35
percent of women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.

4 Ways to Combat Gender Discrimination in

the Workplace
It is clear that something needs to change to protect both women and men in and out of the
workplace. What steps can companies and employers take to make all of their employees feel
safe and comfortable at work and home?

Here are four important ways companies can prevent gender discrimination from taking place in
their offices and address it appropriately when it does.

1. Create an equal opportunity policy.

Diversity is essential to keeping a company thriving. Not only will incorporating people of
different backgrounds, viewpoints, sexual orientations, ethnicities, and, yes, genders into your
work environment help you avoid committing employment discrimination, but it will also bolster
your business. After all, if everybody working at a particular brand or organization comes from
the same perspective and background, how will you develop new and diverse ideas?

This mindset is why Slack removed requirements related to a certain number of years of
experience required for positions from its job postings. Since many women take time off
for maternity leave, to raise their children, or care for other family members, they may appear to
have fewer years of experience on the job than male counterparts—while still having the same
level of knowledge and skills. Removing the requirement opened up positions to candidates who
may have otherwise assumed they were not qualified based on gaps in their resumes.

Creating an equal opportunity policy helps ensure that women and men have access to the same
positions, opportunities for advancement, and other job perks. In addition to having this policy,
make sure your employees actually follow it by sending out reminders (not just when incidents
occur) and posting your policy in several visible locations.

2. Educate employees about gender discrimination in the

workplace.
Gender-based discrimination isn't limited to passing qualified women over for promotions or
hiring (or refusing to hire) someone based on her gender or gender identity. It encompasses
harassment of many different types, using gender stereotypes, and in any way making someone
feel uncomfortable or discriminated against on the basis of his or her gender. (That's right: men
can be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, too.)

Hold events and workshops to inform employees about promote gender equality at work. You
might, for instance, engage outside speakers to conduct sessions on discrimination at work. To
liven up these workshops, you might incorporate them into company retreats or other outings—
that way, employees will associate them with fun events, rather than regard them as a "have to."
Along with teaching employees about what constitutes gender inequality and sex discrimination
at work, make sure employees understand what is not discrimination—such as asking a colleague
to lunch or congratulating her on a promotion.

3. Take immediate action to address complaints.

If anyone, male or female, lodges a complaint against someone at your organization for
discriminatory behavior or harassment, don't wait for the situation to escalate. Establish a clear
procedure for how you will handle situations like these, and follow suit as soon as this type of
behavior occurs. It will likely include interviewing the participants—the complainant and the
accused, as well as anyone else who may have witnessed the incident or was otherwise
involved—, thoroughly investigating the issue, coming up with a resolution, which may involve
putting the accused on paid or unpaid leave, depending on the circumstances, or dismissing the
employee altogether, and taking steps to prevent a similar incident from happening again.

Keeping the workplace safe

While you don't want to jump to conclusions, you need to make sure your employees know that
their voices are being heard and that they feel safe at work. Take steps to ensure that the
employee who has complained does not have to work one-on-one with the person she has
accused while you are investigating the incident. This might mean having her report to another
person in her chain of command at least temporarily if the person against whom she has
leveraged the complaint is her direct manager.

No matter what the issue is, if one of your employees feel uncomfortable or has been made to
feel uncomfortable by another employee, you need to take it seriously. Whether or not you are
friends with the person she is accusing should not play a factor in the measures you take, nor
should the employee's stellar reputation or work ethic come into play. It's important to resolve
issues quickly and effectively because they can impact not just the people involved, but your
whole organization, if left unresolved. Avoid letting the issue escalate any further by taking
immediate action.

4. Check your own unconscious biases—and make sure

your employees do, too.
We all have unconscious biases, whether we realize it or not (in fact, the whole notion
of unconscious bias is that we may NOT be aware of our preconceived notions about people or
groups of people).

As part of educating your employees about discrimination, address unconscious bias and how it
can play a role in the ways in which colleagues talk to one another, communicate in general, and
make decisions. Use examples—for instance, asking a woman if she has children or intends to in
the future does not affect her skills and ability to do her job any more than it affects a male
candidate's.

Spotting unconscious bias at work

Pay attention to the way you and others treat women and men in the workplace. Are you giving
some people unfair advantages or even talking to them differently because of their gender? Do
you prioritize the needs of certain groups of people over others?

Having unconscious biases doesn't make you a bad person. What's important is that you are
aware of the biases you do have and take care to avoid letting them affect your job and how you
treat other people. Work to promote a culture that is welcoming to all different people, their
views, and their unique perspectives and ideas.

FAQs
Is it illegal to discriminate based on gender?
Yes. Gender discrimination doesn't just make men and women feel uncomfortable—it's also
illegal.

What is the law on gender discrimination?

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may not discriminate against
employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Private employers, state
and local government organizations, and any agencies with 15 or more employees must comply
with these guidelines. Additionally, many states have additional legal protections to prevent sex
discrimination in the workplace.

Don’t miss out on articles like these. Sign up!

No Comments Yet ...

 Workplace discrimination is
illegal. But our data shows it’s
still a huge problem.
Thousands of people report job discrimination to the
government each year. Employers are rarely held
accountable.
By Maryam Jameel and Joe Yerardi Updated Feb 28, 2019, 8:29am EST
Co-published in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity

Share this story

  S h aSSrH
heaArt heRiEtshAoi lsnl oF a c e b iotot ekr ((ooppeennss i inn nneeww wwi innddooww))
snh aTr w
ing options

MOBILE, Alabama — Ron Law walked into the break room at work one morning
and found a noose hanging from the ceiling.

It was one of eight nooses that black employees reported discovering at the Austal
USA shipyard, according to court filings. They were part of a chilling pattern, the
workers alleged: Racist graffiti regularly appeared in the men’s restrooms — the
workers described images of hanging men, threats against specific employees, and Ku
Klux Klan references scribbled inside stalls and on mirrors and walls.

Sometimes, workers said, slurs were etched into the ships Law and others helped
build for the US Navy. Law also said he heard a white supervisor refer to black
employees as “monkeys” over his walkie-talkie. Austal, which denied in court filings
that its employees experienced any illegal treatment, did not respond to multiple
interview requests.
 Ron Law, 43, stands in front of his home in Mobile, Alabama. He was a fitter for Austal from 2005 to
2008, where he and other black workers said they experienced a hostile work environment and other
forms of racial discrimination. Right, the Austal shipyard in Mobile. Maryam Jameel/Center for Public
Integrity

In late 2006, Law and 18 of his fellow black coworkers sought relief through the US
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency created to investigate
workers’ complaints of job discrimination. A year later, their case still not resolved,
they gave up waiting on the EEOC for help.

That’s how it often goes. Each year, the EEOC and its state and local partner agencies
close more than 100,000 cases — but workers receive some form of assistance, such
as money or a change in work conditions, only 18 percent of the time. Employees
seeking help are even less likely to get it now than when Law went to the agency.
No group of workers alleging discrimination — age, gender, disability, or otherwise
— fares well. Race claims, however, are among the most commonly filed and have
the lowest rate of success, with just 15 percent receiving some form of relief, often
compensation.
 This image contains sensitive or violent content
Tap to display
One of eight nooses Austal employees reported finding at work. Courtesy of Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher
& Goldfarb LLC

John Hendrickson, who spent 36 years as an EEOC attorney in Chicago before

retiring in 2017, said too many cases are falling through the cracks. “In some offices it
was really amazing how little discrimination they found,” said Hendrickson, who was
head of litigation for a six-state region. “Many of [the cases] weren’t professionally
investigated.”

To understand how well the nation protects victims of employment discrimination,

the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in Washington,
DC, analyzed eight years of complaint data from the EEOC as well as its state and
local counterparts. It reviewed hundreds of court cases and interviewed dozens of
people who filed EEOC claims, which are made under penalty of perjury.

What emerged is a picture of a system that routinely fails workers.

Complaint data obtained from the EEOC for fiscal years 2010 through 2017 — a rare
window into a largely obscured problem in America’s workplaces — shows that the
agency closes most cases without concluding whether discrimination occurred.
Sometimes, workers’ lawyers say, an EEOC investigation involves no more than
asking the employer for a response.

A key part of the issue, according to experts and former EEOC employees, is that the
agency doesn’t have the resources for its mammoth task. It has a smaller budget today
than it did in 1980, adjusted for inflation, and 42 percent less staff. At the same time,
the country’s labor force increased about 50 percent, to 160 million.

If the agency had additional staff, former EEOC Chair Jenny Yang said, it would
likely confirm more workers’ allegations of discrimination. It generally takes more
time for investigators to make a finding of discrimination than to close a case based
on insufficient evidence, she said.

The system’s weaknesses disproportionately hurt black workers. Just over a quarter of
all EEOC complaints came from black employees alleging racial discrimination.

EEOC Commissioner Charlotte Burrows, appointed by President Barack Obama in

2014, defended the agency’s efforts while acknowledging that it is stretched thin. She
said it tries to widen its impact through strategic lawsuits and public outreach. Last
year, the EEOC filed 199 lawsuits against employers and won $505 million for
workers.

The agency isn’t even seeing the full picture, Burrows said. “The people who come
and report to us,” she said, “are sort of a tip of the iceberg of what the problems are.”

The EEOC, in short, can’t come close to fulfilling the mission Congress gave it more
than 50 years ago. The agency was the Civil Rights Act’s attempt to eradicate job
discrimination from a nation plagued with it, but it’s never had the money and support
to do it.

Discrimination at work is a problem. It’s not being properly addressed.

The problem of workplace discrimination in the US — treating people unequally

because of their race, gender, religion, or other fundamental part of who they are —
isn’t usually expressed through slurs or physical threats of the sort alleged by the
Austal workers. Complaint data shows that it can often manifest in more subtle ways,
such as the assignments workers are given, the pay or benefits they receive, and the
ways their performance is judged and rewarded.

It can also happen in the hiring process, before an applicant even begins a job. A
groundbreaking study published in 2003 found that employers were more likely to
consider white candidates with criminal records than black candidates with no such
history.

Though the law places the burden on employees to prove discriminatory intent or
impact, when hard evidence of unequal treatment exists, it is often buried in personnel
records only the employer can access. And even making an accusation can come at a
price: Almost 40 percent of people who filed complaints with the EEOC and partner
agencies from 2010 through 2017 reported retaliation.

“Over time, the way in which people discriminate, what they acknowledge and admit
out loud, has changed,” said Chicago lawyer Linda Friedman, who represented 700
workers in a race discrimination lawsuit against Merrill Lynch that resulted in a $160
million settlement in 2013. “But the ultimate end, which is differential treatment —
treating whites more favorably than African Americans — has not changed.”

Black workers are 13 percent of the US workforce, but racial discrimination against
this group accounts for 26 percent of all claims filed with the EEOC and its partner
agencies.
Some of those claims in recent years came from employees of UPS who went to court
after getting nowhere through the EEOC. Their lawsuits alleged discriminatory
actions including assignments, discipline, terminations, and promotions — ordinary
business practices the workers said were warped to produce unjust results.

Frank Schirripa, a lawyer for one of the UPS workers, said he sees this all the time.
“Management will create a fiction to try and make it look like the victim was doing
something wrong,” he said.

When his client, Jason Jessup, was fired by UPS in 2015, the company pointed to a
long list of alleged performance problems. None of them, on the surface, had anything
to do with race.

Prior to his termination, Jessup, a black driver based in Uniondale, New York, was
regularly disciplined, UPS records show. Among the alleged infractions: failure to
take lunch, not wearing UPS socks, making an unsafe turn, absences, and tardiness.
One time, he said, a manager called him in for breaking a driving rule that didn’t
exist. “I would have to always look back and double-check and triple-check,” Jessup
said. “I knew anything I did, if I did anything wrong, they were looking for it.”
Jason Jessup, 39, worked as a driver for UPS on Long Island for nine years. He and other black drivers
sued UPS, saying they received racially discriminatory work assignments and discipline. Maryam
Jameel/Center for Public Integrity
Today, as he has all along, Jessup disputes each of the company’s allegations, saying
they were either false or the result of misunderstandings. For example, he said, UPS
would claim it hadn’t received his sick leave notices, even though he’d filed them. He
began making copies and saving his fax machine receipts.

He also started keeping a voice-activated audio recorder in his pocket to have proof of
what he and anyone else said. When his dolly was stolen, he said, he was accused of
pilfering it himself to resell. According to a federal lawsuit Jessup filed against UPS
in 2017, a supervisor told Jessup, “I’ve seen this before. People like you are hard up
for cash.” Police later identified a nonemployee as the thief.

Four other black drivers who also worked at the Uniondale facility filed suit against
UPS in 2016 and 2017, alleging race discrimination. They weren’t able to discuss
their cases because of confidential settlement agreements or ongoing litigation.

In 2016, UPS settled a discrimination case — similar to Jessup’s — brought by a

black driver based in Aiken, South Carolina. Brady Kemp, a shop steward and 37-year
UPS employee, accused his supervisors of concocting reasons to discipline him and
justify his firing after he complained of racial inequity at the company. He alleged,
among other things, that they gave him a route so challenging he was virtually
guaranteed to make late deliveries.

In an email to the Center for Public Integrity, a UPS spokesperson wrote that while
the company couldn’t comment on these cases, the workers withheld relevant facts
about their situations and the claims aren’t representative of UPS’s culture or
leadership.

“Diversity and inclusion is a core UPS value,” the spokesperson wrote. “We do not
tolerate hate, bigotry or prejudice. When an allegation of perceived discrimination is
reported, UPS completes a thorough investigation and takes appropriate action.”

Jessup, however, said he had a different experience.

In 2012, he was appointed assistant union shop steward in Uniondale. One of his
duties was to accompany other workers to meetings when they were accused of
making mistakes. He and two other former shop stewards said they observed and
documented a pattern of black drivers being punished for transgressions that white
drivers got away with.

One former steward, Michael Costanza, has worked at three UPS facilities over 17
years. He overlapped with Jessup in Uniondale for seven. “I used to look at [Jessup]
and say, ‘How does this guy get out of bed every day knowing what he’s going to
have to deal with day in and day out?’”

Costanza, who is white, said he hopes to testify in court on Jessup’s behalf.

After submitting multiple complaints to the EEOC to no effect, Jessup filed his
lawsuit in 2017. In June 2018, UPS asked the judge to dismiss the case, a request that
is still pending in the Eastern District of New York.

Excerpt from UPS’s request to have Jessup’s case thrown out.

The company denied Jessup’s allegations, saying that even if Jessup had been
subjected to racist behavior, his allegations were insufficient to bring in front of a
jury: Of “approximately 2,261 working days, plaintiff identifies less than 20 allegedly
harassing incidents or statements — or less than .009 percent of the time,” the
company said in the court filing. “Put another way, this amounts to approximately one
incident every 113 working days — or about 2 to 3 instances per year. This is not
even close to ‘pervasive,’ or the requisite ‘steady barrage’ necessary for a viable
claim.”

More than three years after he was fired, Jessup said he hasn’t recovered from his time
at UPS. He can’t afford to see a therapist. “I’m still a wreck,” he said. “I’m still
depressed. I’m still stressed.”

Research has shown that chronic stress caused by discrimination can contribute to
mental and physical health problems. Dr. Monnica Williams, a clinical psychologist
and an expert in race-based stress and trauma who counsels people grappling with the
fallout from mistreatment at work, said the challenges of reporting such behavior
often take an additional toll.

“People think that there’s a safety net for them, but there isn’t,” she said, “and that’s
pretty difficult to understand and accept.”
The EEOC is weak by design

When the EEOC was created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was
initially given few tools to enforce the law. It could investigate complaints, try to
mediate between companies and employees, and recommend cases to the US attorney
general for litigation, but it couldn’t sue or issue cease-and-desist orders. If an
employer didn’t want to follow the law, there was little the agency could do about it.

”We’re out to kill an elephant with a fly gun,” then-EEOC Chair Stephen N.
Shulman told the Wall Street Journal in 1967.

Its weakness was by design. Many members of Congress were opposed to instituting
broad federal protections against workplace discrimination. More than 200 fair
employment measures failed in the two decades before the Civil Rights Act passed.

One opponent of the act was Rep. Howard Smith (D-VA). Two days before the act
passed, he inserted sex discrimination into the protections afforded by Title VII — but
not for benevolent reasons. A supportive Democratic colleague, Rep. George
Andrews of Alabama, explained the logic. “Unless this amendment is adopted,”
Andrews said on the House floor, “the white women of this country would be
drastically discriminated against in favor of a Negro woman.”
Left to right: Everett M. Dirkson, Roger C. Slaughter, and Rep. Howard Smith at a Rules Committee
hearing on the Reorganization of the Congress Bill, circa 1944. Marie Hansen/The LIFE Picture
Collection/Getty Images
Another provision made it a criminal offense for the EEOC to reveal the identities of
employers accused of discrimination. That restriction remains to this day.

In 1972, though, the EEOC won the power to litigate against employers. At the same
time, schools and state and local governments lost their exemption from Title VII,
giving coverage to 10 million more workers. Separate laws granted protections against
discrimination based on age or disability.

While the EEOC’s responsibilities grew, its staffing dropped. Today, workers must
wait two to three months for an appointment to file a complaint. The share of EEOC
cases in which workers got relief fell from about 19 percent in 2007 to about 13
percent in 2017.

What happens to workers the agency doesn’t help is shrouded by a lack of data. But
large numbers appear to give up. Many workers who sue — generally permitted only
after they seek assistance from the EEOC or its partner agencies — file in federal
court, where workplace discrimination cases number less than 15 percent of annual
EEOC claims. An increasing share of workers are blocked from suing because their
employers require private arbitration, and research suggests that flaws in that system
have sharply limited the number of claims filed.

And now, to make matters worse, the EEOC’s leadership is in flux. Three of its five
commissioner seats are vacant. The Senate has delayed confirming President Donald
Trump’s nominees for more than a year — prompting one to withdraw — and didn’t
reconfirm Democratic Commissioner Chai Feldblum when her term expired in
December.

That’s left the bipartisan commission without the quorum the agency needs to file
higher-cost or higher-profile lawsuits against employers. The agency’s general
counsel nominee is also awaiting confirmation.

But even confirming these nominees may not solve much. Trump’s nominee for
EEOC chair, lawyer Janet Dhillon, has spent much of her career as a general counsel
for corporations. Litigation, she said in her testimony before a Senate committee in
September 2017, should be a “last resort.”

Civil rights advocates fear that having Dhillon at the helm will further hurt
employees’ chances at the agency. The NAACP said in a letter of opposition that her
record “demonstrates that her priorities lay solely with employers, not with the
workers.”

“The law was not written for us”

In 2005, the first year he worked at the Austal shipyard in Mobile, Ron Law had no
intention of speaking up about the written threats he said he found in the bathrooms or
the training opportunities he said he was denied.

Growing up, Law’s parents had taught him racism was a reality he would have to deal
with. The job itself offered a living wage (though Law said he heard of white
apprentices earning $17 per hour, while he initially made $15) and health insurance.
He had been honing his craft — shipfitting — for a few years before he got to Austal
and could read blueprints to piece together ships out of metal sheets. He wanted to
stay.

But by 2006, Law, along with welder Tesha Hollis and a few other black workers at
Austal, had had enough. They decided to find a lawyer and report their experiences to
the EEOC. The risk of retaliation held back some of their colleagues. “It was so many
people that didn’t want to get on the lawsuit when they had every right to get on it.
They were just job-scared,” Hollis said.
 This image contains sensitive or violent content
Tap to display
Workers documented racist threats and slurs they said appeared in the men’s bathrooms at
Austal. Courtesy of Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb LLC

To this day, Hollis can recite the racist jokes and slurs she said she heard and saw at
Austal. At one point, a few workers said they saw a picture of Hollis drawn in the
men’s restroom with a crude caption. She alleged that a supervisor, a white man, told
her about it while pretending to masturbate.

“It just got to be too much,” Hollis said. “People were just getting up to go to work to
make money to take care of their families, and they had to go and be subjected to
that.”

Soon, 19 workers, including Law and Hollis, had filed EEOC complaints.

The company, in response, denied that it acted illegally in any way. Among its
defenses: One-fourth of its workforce was black; the workers hadn’t reported the
alleged behavior to supervisors; and the company had an equal employment policy,
outlined in a handbook given to all employees. The workers who filed complaints had
claimed that there were no black supervisors at Austal, but the company corrected
them, saying eight of 111 were black.

About a year after they filed complaints with the EEOC, the initial group of
employees asked the agency for permission to go to court. Four of their colleagues
joined them in the lawsuit.

Austal asked a federal judge to dismiss the cases without going to trial. “When taken
as a whole,” the company wrote in a filing about Law’s claim, the “allegations lack
the frequency, severity, threatening nature, and impact required to maintain an action
for hostile environment.”

US District Judge Kristi DuBose, nominated to the Southern District of Alabama by

President George W. Bush in 2005, threw out 13 of the workers’ cases, including
Law’s and Hollis’s. The judge said the cases weren’t strong enough to meet the legal
standard. (The other 10 workers went to trial and lost.)
The USS Gabrielle Giffords, a Naval littoral combat ship built at the Austal USA shipyards, seen docked
on the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama, on November 30, 2016. Brynn Anderson/AP
DuBose supported her decision by citing a 2005 lawsuit that didn’t survive the so-
called summary judgment stage, when a judge can toss a complaint without a trial.
In that older case, she wrote in the Austal ruling, threats to “kick plaintiff’s ‘black
ass’” and the use of racial slurs, including the n-word and “boy,” reflected conduct
that was “isolated,” “sporadic,” and “random.”

In Law’s case, DuBose wrote, the evidence did not show “the conduct — apart from
the racially offensive graffiti — was frequent, severe, physically threatening (with the
exception of the nooses), humiliating, demeaning and/or unreasonably interfered with
his job.”

“I don’t know what else you have to do to make it hostile,” Law said in a recent
interview. For him, the nooses at the shipyard posed a palpable threat: After all, one of
the last documented lynchings in the United States took place in Mobile in 1981.
“That was a kicker for me — like, you know this really could happen,” Law said.

When an appeals court reevaluated the 13 workers’ claims in June 2014, it agreed
with DuBose’s judgment for six of them but decided that what the others said they
had endured actually did meet that standard.

It didn’t make a difference, though. The jury sided with Austal when those seven
remaining cases, including Law’s and Hollis’s, went to trial the following year. Not a
single employee was compensated. Most were eventually laid off, workers said.
 This image contains sensitive or violent content
Tap to display
In May 2008, several Austal employees found a noose hanging in the work break room. Workers reported
seeing eight nooses at Austal on separate occasions. Courtesy of Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb
LLC

Workers face steep odds when employers in the Southern District of Alabama seek
summary judgment like Austal did. In 2016 and 2017, 89 percent of employment
discrimination cases in which employers requested summary judgment in that district
were fully or partially dismissed, a Center analysis found.

Interpretations of hostile work environment standards can differ between courts and
judges — in 2017, for example, a Third Circuit Court of Appeals judge in
Philadelphia wrote that a supervisor calling a subordinate a slur even once could be
sufficient.

Birmingham lawyer Heather Leonard, who has represented workers in discrimination

cases in Alabama for 20 years, said it’s frustrating to compare notes with lawyers in
other parts of the country. “Cases that they get tremendous verdicts on, we’re like,
‘We wouldn’t be able to even accept that here because we couldn’t get it through
summary judgment,’” she said.

For Ron Law’s wife, Marsha, the Austal case’s outcome was disappointing but not
surprising. “I’ve said it and I’ll say it probably till the day I die,” she said. “The law
was not written for us.”

Their case has had damaging ripple effects for other employees. In 2017, for instance,
Judge W. Keith Watkins of the Middle District of Alabama, who, like DuBose, was
appointed by former President Bush, cited Austal as he dismissed seven of 12
workers’ claims in a hostile work environment case out of Enterprise, Alabama.

Black welders and painters testified to regularly hearing slurs, threats, and other
derogatory comments over years of employment at a trailer manufacturing company.
Watkins pointed to several Austal employees who had experienced “much worse” but
were nonetheless unsuccessful in the appeals court.

Employment Discrimination Based on Religion,

Ethnicity, or Country of Origin
Anger at those responsible for the tragic events of September 11 should not be misdirected against innocent
individuals because of their religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. Employers and labor unions have a special
role in guarding against unlawful workplace discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin,
race, color, or sex. At this time, employers and unions should be particularly sensitive to potential
discrimination or harassment against individuals who are - or are perceived to be - Muslim, Arab, Afghani,
Middle Eastern or South Asian (Pakistani, Indian, etc.).

The law's prohibitions include harassment or any other employment action based on any of the following:

 Affiliation: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because an individual is affiliated with a particular

religious or ethnic group. For example, harassing an individual because she is Arab or practices Islam,
or paying an employee less because she is Middle Eastern.

 Physical or cultural traits and clothing: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of physical,
cultural, or linguistic characteristics, such as accent or dress associated with a particular religion,
ethnicity, or country of origin. For example, harassing a woman wearing a hijab (a body covering and/or
head-scarf worn by some Muslims), or not hiring a man with a dark complexion and an accent believed
to be Arab.

 Perception: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of the perception or belief that a person is a
member of a particular racial, national origin, or religious group whether or not that perception is correct.
For example, failing to hire an Hispanic person because the hiring official believed that he was from
Pakistan, or harassing a Sikh man wearing a turban because the harasser thought he was Muslim.

 Association: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of an individual's association with a person

or organization of a particular religion or ethnicity. For example, harassing an employee whose husband
is from Afghanistan, or refusing to promote an employee because he attends a Mosque.

Harassment
Employers must provide a workplace that is free of harassment based on national origin, ethnicity, or religion.
They may be liable not only for harassment by supervisors, but also by coworkers or by non-employees under
their control. Employers should clearly communicate to all employees - through a written policy or other
appropriate mechanism - that harassment such as ethnic slurs or other verbal or physical conduct directed
toward any racial, ethnic, or religious group is prohibited and that employees must respect the rights of their
coworkers. An employer also should have effective and clearly communicated policies and procedures for
addressing complaints of harassment and should train managers on how to identify and respond effectively to
harassment even in the absence of a complaint.

Religious Accommodation
Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or
prospective employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. Some reasonable
religious accommodations that employers may be required to provide workers include leave for religious
observances, time and/or place to pray, and ability to wear religious garb.

Filing a Charge
Anyone who believes that s/he has been subjected to discrimination in violation of Title VII may file a
charge with the nearest field office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Persons who file a
charge, oppose unlawful employment discrimination, participate in employment discrimination proceedings, or
otherwise assert their rights under the laws enforced by the Commission are protected against retaliation. An
EEOC charge must be filed within 180 days -- or 300 if the state has a fair employment practices agency -- of
the date of the disputed conduct. Field offices are located throughout the United States. To be connected to
the appropriate office, call 1-800-669-4000. EEOC's TTY number is 1-800-800-3302.
Racial and Gender Bias at
Work Harmful for Women of
Color and their Health
February 15, 2018

New Research Shows Unfair Treatment

of Asian, Black, Latinx and Multiracial
Women in US Workplaces Is Detrimental
to Both Employees and Companies; In
Spite of Challenges, Women of Color
Continue to be Driven to Succeed and
Contribute at Work
New York City, N.Y. (February 15, 2018)—Catalyst today released a new report, Day-to-Day
Experiences of Emotional Tax Among Women and Men of Color in the Workplace, finding that a
majority of women of color—specifically individuals who identify with Asian, Black, Latinx and
multiracial backgrounds—experience an “Emotional Tax” in US workplaces affecting their
overall health, well-being and ability to thrive. As a result of some workplaces undervaluing their
unique contributions, as well as acts of bias or discrimination in society, women of color are in a
constant state of being “on guard” because of their gender, race and/or ethnicity.

“Women of color continue to deal with some of the workplace’s most entrenched hurdles such as
pay inequities and near invisibility in top leadership roles, as well as daunting roadblocks that
stifle the meaningful dialogue that would help make real progress,” says Dnika J. Travis, PhD,
Vice President, Research, Catalyst. “Over time, these daily battles take a heavy toll on women of
color, creating a damaging link between their health and the workplace. And because of
consequences associated with Emotional Tax, companies must begin to take intentional action to
avoid possible harm to their businesses and employees’ health and well-being.”

Key findings include:

  Emotional Tax—There is an undue burden levied on women of color because of exclusionary
behaviors, affecting their overall health and well-being as well as making them feel constantly
on guard. The 58% of Asian, Black and Latinx employees who are on guard report they are also
more likely to have sleep problems. This loss of sleep also jeopardizes employees’ productivity
and ability to fully contribute at work. In addition, being on guard factors into their career
decision-making, with 38% reporting they are more likely to frequently consider leaving their
jobs.
 On Guard—When feeling on guard, women of color feel they have to outwork and outperform
their colleagues. Asian women (51%), Black women (58%), Latinas (56%) and multiracial women
(52%) all report being highly on guard. Over 40% of Asian, Black, Latinx and multiracial
employees feel on guard because they anticipate racial/ethnic bias. Multiracial women (58%),
who identify as two or more of Asian, Black and Latina, are the most likely to be on guard due to
their race/ethnicity.
 Highly Motivated Top Talent—Despite being on guard, nearly 90% of women of color want to
be influential leaders, have challenging and intellectually stimulating work, obtain high ranking
positions and stay at the same company. Asian, Black and Latinx employees who are highly on
guard also report higher creativity (81%) and are more likely to speak up (79%)—demonstrating
the benefit to companies of attracting and retaining top talent from all backgrounds.

In addition to examining women of color, the report’s data reveal the Emotional Tax experiences
of men of color in US workplaces: over one-quarter of Asian, Black, Latinx and multiracial men
who are on guard anticipate bias because of their gender, and, in general, far more experience
Emotional Tax. Through its Engaging Men efforts and Men Advocating Real
Change community, Catalyst believes men of color may also be penalized for demonstrating
“masculine behaviors” such as being assertive—even though they are well-positioned to be allies
for gender equality—while White men often are rewarded for exhibiting the same mannerisms.

“Women and men of color have unique talents and valuable creativity that adds up to a highly
motivated and talented group of employees. Your employees should not only be fully leveraged
to help address the country’s limited pool of talent, but they also bring a wealth of benefits and a
competitive edge to companies,” says Deborah Gillis, President and CEO, Catalyst. “In times of
talent and skill scarcity, companies must focus inward on employee retention and create
inclusive workplaces; otherwise, every business becomes vulnerable to a major talent drain.”

The Day-to-Day Experiences of Emotional Tax Among Women and Men of Color in the
Workplace findings are based on a survey of nearly 1,600 professionals working in corporate and
non-corporate organizations—including nonprofits, educational institutions or government
entities—in the United States at the time of data collection.

The report builds on a previously released Catalyst report, Emotional Tax: How Black Women
and Men Pay More at Work and How Leaders Can Take Action (October 2016), focusing only
on Black women and men. The term Emotional Tax was coined in the first report by Catalyst
researchers Dnika Travis, PhD, Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, PhD and Courtney McCluney, PhD.

Learn more or download the full report, Day-to-Day Experiences of Emotional Tax Among
Women and Men of Color in the Workplace, at catalyst.org.
Join the social conversation following Catalyst
on Facebook.com/catalystinc, Instagram.com/catalystinc and Twitter.com/catalystinc. Use the
hashtags #EmotionalTax and #WomenOfColorAtWork.

###

Racial and Gender Bias at

Work Harmful for Women of
Color and their Health
February 15, 2018

New Research Shows Unfair Treatment

of Asian, Black, Latinx and Multiracial
Women in US Workplaces Is Detrimental
to Both Employees and Companies; In
Spite of Challenges, Women of Color
Continue to be Driven to Succeed and
Contribute at Work
New York City, N.Y. (February 15, 2018)—Catalyst today released a new report, Day-to-Day
Experiences of Emotional Tax Among Women and Men of Color in the Workplace, finding that a
majority of women of color—specifically individuals who identify with Asian, Black, Latinx and
multiracial backgrounds—experience an “Emotional Tax” in US workplaces affecting their
overall health, well-being and ability to thrive. As a result of some workplaces undervaluing their
unique contributions, as well as acts of bias or discrimination in society, women of color are in a
constant state of being “on guard” because of their gender, race and/or ethnicity.

“Women of color continue to deal with some of the workplace’s most entrenched hurdles such as
pay inequities and near invisibility in top leadership roles, as well as daunting roadblocks that
stifle the meaningful dialogue that would help make real progress,” says Dnika J. Travis, PhD,
Vice President, Research, Catalyst. “Over time, these daily battles take a heavy toll on women of
color, creating a damaging link between their health and the workplace. And because of
consequences associated with Emotional Tax, companies must begin to take intentional action to
avoid possible harm to their businesses and employees’ health and well-being.”

Key findings include:

 Emotional Tax—There is an undue burden levied on women of color because of exclusionary

behaviors, affecting their overall health and well-being as well as making them feel constantly
on guard. The 58% of Asian, Black and Latinx employees who are on guard report they are also
more likely to have sleep problems. This loss of sleep also jeopardizes employees’ productivity
and ability to fully contribute at work. In addition, being on guard factors into their career
decision-making, with 38% reporting they are more likely to frequently consider leaving their
jobs.
 On Guard—When feeling on guard, women of color feel they have to outwork and outperform
their colleagues. Asian women (51%), Black women (58%), Latinas (56%) and multiracial women
(52%) all report being highly on guard. Over 40% of Asian, Black, Latinx and multiracial
employees feel on guard because they anticipate racial/ethnic bias. Multiracial women (58%),
who identify as two or more of Asian, Black and Latina, are the most likely to be on guard due to
their race/ethnicity.
 Highly Motivated Top Talent—Despite being on guard, nearly 90% of women of color want to
be influential leaders, have challenging and intellectually stimulating work, obtain high ranking
positions and stay at the same company. Asian, Black and Latinx employees who are highly on
guard also report higher creativity (81%) and are more likely to speak up (79%)—demonstrating
the benefit to companies of attracting and retaining top talent from all backgrounds.

In addition to examining women of color, the report’s data reveal the Emotional Tax experiences
of men of color in US workplaces: over one-quarter of Asian, Black, Latinx and multiracial men
who are on guard anticipate bias because of their gender, and, in general, far more experience
Emotional Tax. Through its Engaging Men efforts and Men Advocating Real
Change community, Catalyst believes men of color may also be penalized for demonstrating
“masculine behaviors” such as being assertive—even though they are well-positioned to be allies
for gender equality—while White men often are rewarded for exhibiting the same mannerisms.

“Women and men of color have unique talents and valuable creativity that adds up to a highly
motivated and talented group of employees. Your employees should not only be fully leveraged
to help address the country’s limited pool of talent, but they also bring a wealth of benefits and a
competitive edge to companies,” says Deborah Gillis, President and CEO, Catalyst. “In times of
talent and skill scarcity, companies must focus inward on employee retention and create
inclusive workplaces; otherwise, every business becomes vulnerable to a major talent drain.”

The Day-to-Day Experiences of Emotional Tax Among Women and Men of Color in the
Workplace findings are based on a survey of nearly 1,600 professionals working in corporate and
non-corporate organizations—including nonprofits, educational institutions or government
entities—in the United States at the time of data collection.

The report builds on a previously released Catalyst report, Emotional Tax: How Black Women
and Men Pay More at Work and How Leaders Can Take Action (October 2016), focusing only
on Black women and men. The term Emotional Tax was coined in the first report by Catalyst
researchers Dnika Travis, PhD, Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, PhD and Courtney McCluney, PhD.

Learn more or download the full report, Day-to-Day Experiences of Emotional Tax Among
Women and Men of Color in the Workplace, at catalyst.org.

Join the social conversation following Catalyst

on Facebook.com/catalystinc, Instagram.com/catalystinc and Twitter.com/catalystinc. Use the
hashtags #EmotionalTax and #WomenOfColorAtWork.

###

Race discrimination - Workplace

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone in the workplace because of their actual or
assumed race.
Employees are protected from discrimination at all stages of employment
including recruitment, workplace terms and conditions and dismissal.
Race includes colour, descent, nationality, ancestry or ethnic background or any characteristics
associated with a particular race.

Examples of race discrimination

George unsuccessfully applies for a position with a construction company. When he telephones the
company’s personnel manager to ask why he did not get the position, George is told: ‘We’ve
employed people from your country before. You lot simply don’t share our work ethic’.
Li-Huei unsuccessfully applies for a job as a receptionist with a large hotel. When she calls the
human resources manager to ask why she did not get the job, she is told that the manager doesn’t
want to employ a receptionist with an accent.

Are there any exceptions?

TheEqual Opportunity Act 2010 includes some general exceptions . This means that discrimination
may not be against the law in particular circumstances.
Discrimination in favour of a particular racial group may be permitted as a special measure that is a
positive step to combat disadvantage or to meet the group’s specific needs, such as providing
welfare services targeted at a particular racial group. For example, a hostel for Vietnamese refugees
may be allowed to restrict employment to only Vietnamese people.
It is also lawful to offer employment to a person of a particular race if it is necessary to maintain
authenticity or credibility in dramatic, artistic, entertainment, photographic or modelling performance
or similar work.

Racial and religious vilification

 Racial vilification is different from race discrimination and is covered under the Racial and Religious
Tolerance Act 2001 which makes it against the law to vilify a person or group of people on the
grounds of their actual or assumed race or religion.
Vilification is behaviour that incites or encourages hatred of, serious contempt for, revulsion or
severe ridicule of another person or group of people on the grounds of their race or religion.
Find out more about racial and religious vilification.

Complaints
Employers may be vicariously liable for their employees’ acts of discrimination or sexual
harassment. Employers can also be directly liable. Find out more about who is liable for
discrimination and harassment.
Employers also have a positive duty to eliminate discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation
as far as possible.
Complaints of discrimination made to the Commission are resolved through a process called
conciliation. Find out more about our process for resolving complaints.
s it legal to discriminate based on gender?
Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It
makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics
regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Employment discrimination law in the United

States
 Read in another language

 Watch
 Edit
Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is
codified in numerous state and federal laws, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as
in the ordinances of counties and municipalities. These laws prohibit discrimination based on
certain characteristics or protected categories. The United States Constitution also prohibits
discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination
in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a
growing body of federal and state law. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas,
including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and
disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.
Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:

 Race[1]
 Sex[1][2]
 Pregnancy[3]
 Religion[1]
 National origin[1]
 Disability (physical or mental, including SOUP[citation needed] status)[4][5]
 Age (for workers over 40)[6]
 Military service or affiliation[7]
 Bankruptcy or bad debts[8]
 Genetic information[9]
 Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)[10]

Contents
Constitutional basisEdit
Learn more

This section needs additional citations for verification.

The United States Constitution does not directly address employment discrimination, but its
prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal
government employees.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the
federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement
that the federal government does not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property", without
due process of the law. It also contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment
explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal
protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of
the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating
employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group
(such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that government employees have a fair
procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a "liberty" (such as
the right to free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
are passive, the clause 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 private sector is not unconstitutional because
Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective government the
power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government's
authority to regulate a private business, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to
regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some
protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California
Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only address discriminatory treatment by the
government, including a public employer.
Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the private
sector are generally Constitutional under the "police powers" doctrine or the power of a State to
enact laws designed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States must adhere to the
Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer additional
employment protection.
For example, some State civil rights laws offer protection from employment discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or political affiliation, even though such forms of
discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.
History of federal lawsEdit
Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed over time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage
and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [11] The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers and
unions from paying different wages based on sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory
practices in hiring. It provides that where workers perform equal work in the corner requiring
"equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions," they
should be provided equal pay.[2] The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in
some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer's workers if the enterprise is engaged
as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce.[citation needed]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the
employment relationship. "Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) to administer the act". [11] It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce
with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Title VII prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for
employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and
privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring
applicants, and labor organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union
classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[1] The Pregnancy Discrimination
Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes
discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.[3] A related
statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and
pregnancy-related conditions.[12]
Executive Order 11246 in 1965 "prohibits discrimination by federal contractors and
subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] requires
affirmative action by federal contractors".[13]
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and
1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are
nearly identical to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA protects workers in firms
with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination
based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited
mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide
large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement
plans.[6] 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 employment in
1956" by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141
"established a policy against age discrimination among federal contractors".[14]
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability by
the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs
receiving federal financial assistance.[15] It requires affirmative action as well as non-
discrimination.[15] Section 504 requires reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires
that electronic and information technology be accessible to disabled employees.[15]
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination by mine operators against miners
who suffer from "black lung disease" (pneumoconiosis).[16]
The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 "requires affirmative action for disabled and
Vietnam era veterans by federal contractors".[13]
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of
bankruptcy or bad debts.[8]
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than three
employees from discriminating against anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis
of national origin or citizenship status.[17]
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate discriminatory
barriers against qualified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or
individuals who are regarded as having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based on real or
perceived physical or mental disabilities. It also requires employers to provide reasonable
accommodations to employees who need them because of a disability to apply for a job, perform
the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment, unless the
employer can show that undue hardship will result. There are strict limitations on when an
employer can ask disability-related questions or require medical examinations, and all medical
information must be treated as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or
physical health condition that "substantially limits one or more major life activities."[4]
The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended 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 Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973
Rehabilitation Act.[18][19]
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from using individuals'
genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions.[9]
The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity.[20] As of June 2018, 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual
orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination
statutes.
LGBT employment discriminationEdit
The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction.
Many states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and
compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those
protections to cover sexual identity.[21] Some cover government employees but do not extend
their protections to the private sector. Protections at the national level are limited.
There is no federal statute addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation
or gender identity. During President Obama's tenure Congress came close to enactment of the
Employment-Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal statute explicitly prohibiting
discrimination against LGBT workers. The Washington Blade noted that the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA) has had strong bipartisan support, and even Democratic leadership
has signed on.[22] Although the Senate passed ENDA it did not survive the House. In March
2014, 195 lawmakers, 148 House members, and 47 Senators, all Democrats, signed an appeal to
President Obama, encouraging him to enact protections for LGBT workers in an executive
order.[23][24] (Executive Order 13672.)
Federal courts have generally agreed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation although some courts following Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) support
protecting transgender employees from discrimination as a form of sex stereotyping. In early
2018 two federal appellate courts (Second Circuit and Seventh Circuit) reversed circuit precedent
on sexual orientation discrimination to hold Title VII prohibits sexual orientation
discrimination.[25] The Sixth Circuit also reversed precedent finding Title VII prohibits
transgender discrimination in the workplace.[26] The Supreme Court of the United States will
hear two cases in the 2019-2020 term, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris
Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, related to whether Title VII
covers both sexual orientation and gender identity, respectively.[27]
According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: "Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43
percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the
workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of
harassment or mistreatment on the job." Many people in the LGBT community have lost their
job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her boss told her that
her presence may make other people feel uncomfortable.[28]
Almost half of the United States has laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming
and transgender people in both public and private workplaces. A few more states ban LGBT
discrimination in only public workplaces.[29] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would
intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions,
not beliefs. Courts have also identified that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious
liberty.[30]
State lawEdit
State statutes also provide extensive protection from employment discrimination. Some laws
extend similar protection as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by
those statutes. Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some
state laws provide greater protection to employees of the state or of state contractors.

The following table lists protected categories not included in federal law. Age is included as
well, since federal law only covers workers over 40.

Militar
Medi Politic Public
Sexual Gender Marit cal y Use of
State or al Familial assista
orienta identity al dischar Age lawful
territory condi affiliat status nce stat
tion status ge stat product
tion ion us
us

Ala (40
[31] [31]
bama +)[32]

(un
Alas known (pare
ka
[33] [33] [34] age nthood)[
range)[ 34]
34]
 Ari
[35] [35]
zona

Ark
[36] [36]
ansas

[37](Do
es not
(mari
apply
tal status
to
(and only,
(gen State
status although
der emplo
as pregnan
Cali identity yees (40
[37] [37] [37] active cy and
fornia or who +)[37]
duty childbirt
expressi are
military h status
on)[38] memb
)[37] are also
ers of
protecte
the Co
d)[37]
mmuni
st
Party)

(incl
uded (un
known (any
Col under
[39] age lawful
orado sexual
range)[ activity)[40]
orientat
40]
ion)[38]

(gen
der (un
Con identity known
necticut
[41]
or
[42] age
expressi range)[
42]
on)[41]

(gen
Del der (40
[43] [44]
aware identity +)[44]
)[43]
 "family
(inc responsi
(gen
luding bilities",
Dist der
rict of identity domes (18 parenth
Columbi
[45]
or tic [46] +)[46][47 ood
a partne ] under
expressi
rship)[4 "marital
on)[38]
6] status"[4
6]

? (in
some (un
Flor cases known
ida
[48]
under
[49] age
disabilit range)[
49]
y)[48]

Geo (40-
[50] [50]
rgia 70)[51]

(gen
der (un
Ha identity known
waii
[52]
or
[52] age
expressi range)[
52]
on)[53]

Idah (40
[54] [54]
o +)[55]

("un
(incl favorab
uded le
Illin under dischar (40
[56] [57]
ois sexual ge from +)[57]
orientat military
ion)[56] service"
)[57]

Indi (40- use of

[58] [58]
ana 75)[59] tobacco[60]
 (incl
uded (18
Iow under + or
a
[61]
sexual legal
orientat adult)[6
2]
ion)[61]

Kan (18
[63] [63]
sas +)[64]

(smoker/n
Ken (40
[65] [65] onsmoker)
tucky +)[66]
[66]

"sickl
Lou (40
e cell
isiana
[67] [67] +)[69][70
trait"[ ]
68]

(incl
uded (un
Mai under known
ne
[71]
sexual age
orientat range)[
72]
ion)[71]

(gen (un
Mar der known
yland
[73]
identity
[74] age
)[73] range)[
74]

(gen
Ma (>4
der
ssachuse [75] 0)[76][77
identity
tts ]
)[75]

Mic
[78] [78] [79] [79]
higan

(incl
Min (ov
[80] uded [81] [81]
nesota er age
under
of
sexual
 orientat majorit
ion)[38] y)[81]

Mis
[82] [82]
sissippi

Mis (40-
[83] [83]
souri 70)[84]

Mo
[85] [85] [86] [86]
ntana

Neb (40
[87] [87] [88]
raska +)[88]

(gen
der
Nev identity (40
[89] [90]
ada or +)[90]
expressi
on)[89]

Ne (gen (whi
w der ch
[91] [93]
Hampsh identity ages?)[
ire )[92] 93]

(civ
il "atypi
cal
(aff (gen union
status hered
ectiona der
itary
Ne l or identify or (18-
w Jersey sexual or domes cellul [94]
70)[94]
ar or
orienta expressi tic
blood
tion)[94] on)[38] partne
rship trait"[
status) 94]
[94]

Ne (incl "serio
("s (un
w [95] uded us
pousal known
Mexico under medic
affiliati age
sexual al
 orientat on")[96 condi range)[
ion)[38] ] tion"[ 96]
96]

(gen
der
identity [97]"pol
Ne (18
[97] or [97] itical [100]
w York +)[97]
expressi activiti
on)[98][9 es"[100]
9]

(sickle
cell or
Nor hemo
th [101] [101] globin [103]
Carolina C
trait)[
102]

Nort ("lawful
(40
h [104] [104] [105] [105] activity")[1
+)[105]
Dakota 05]

Ohi (40
[106] [106]
o +)[107]

Okl (40
[108] [108]
ahoma +)[109]

(incl
uded
use of
Ore under (18
[110] [111] tobacco[111
gon sexual +)[111]
]
orientat
ion)[38]

Pen
(40
nsylvani [112] [112]
+)[113]
a

Rho (gen (40

de [114] der +)[115]
Island identity
 or
expressi
on)[38]

Sou
(40
th [116] [116]
+)[117]
Carolina

Sou
th [118] [118]
Dakota

Ten (40
[119] [119]
nessee +)[120]

Tex (40
[121] [121]
as +)[122]

(gen
Uta der (40
[123]
h identity +)[124]
)[123]

(gen
Ver der (18
[125]
mont identity +)[126]
)[38]

Virg (40
[127] [127]
inia +)[128]

(incl
uded Hepat
Wa under (40
itis
shington
[129]
sexual
[130] +)[130][1
C[131][
33]
orientat 132]

ion)[38]

We
(40
st [134] [134]
+)[135]
Virginia
 Wis (40
[136] [136] [137] [138] [140]
consin +)[139]

Wy (40
[141] [141]
oming +)[142]

(gen
der
Gua identity (40
m
[143]
or +)[144][1
45]
expressi
on)[143]

(em (pol (leg

(em ployme itical al
Pue ployme nt only; affiliati workin
rto Rico nt gender on or g
only)[14 identity ideolo
6]
age+)[1
)[146] gy)[147] 47][148]

(un
US known
Virgin age
Islands range)[
149]

Militar
Medi Politic Public
Sexual Marit y Use of
State or Gender cal al Familial assista
orienta al dischar Age lawful
territory identity condi affiliat status nce stat
tion status ge stat product
tion ion us
us

In addition,

 District of Columbia - matriculation, personal appearance[46]

 Michigan - height, weight[79]
 Texas - Participation in emergency evacuation order[150]
 Vermont - Place of birth[126]

Government employeesEdit
Learn more

This section needs expansion.

Employees of federal and state governments have additional protections against employment
discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the
basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has
interpreted this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[151] In June 2009,
it was announced that the interpretation would be expanded to include gender identity.[152]
ExceptionsEdit
Learn more

This section needs additional citations for verification.

Bona fide occupational qualificationsEdit

Main article: Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are generally allowed to consider characteristics that would otherwise be

discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). For example, a
manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models.

Learn more

This section needs expansion.

Religious Employment DiscriminationEdit

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment because of
their religion, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a
change in a workplace rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also includes
treating individuals differently in their employment because of their lack of religious belief or
practice” (Workplace Fairness).[153] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, employers are prohibited from refusing to hire an individual based on their
religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If an employee believes that they have experienced
religious discrimination, they should address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand,
employees are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges
with the EEOC.[154] Some locations in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination against
atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to
businesses or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees
in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been upheld
and others reversed over time.
Members of the Communist PartyEdit
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination against members of
the Communist Party.
MilitaryEdit
The military has faced criticism for prohibiting women from serving in combat roles. In 2016,
however, the law was amended to allow them to serve.[155][156][157] In the article posted on the
PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the way in which black men were treated in the
military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African
Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war.
The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they
were only allowed to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess
attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to defend the country
they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.
Unintentional discriminationEdit
Main article: Adverse impact

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a protected category may still be
illegal if they produce a disparate impact on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless
they are related to job performance.

The Act requires the elimination 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 operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related
to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer's lack of
discriminatory intent.[158]
Height and weight requirements have been identified by the EEOC as having a disparate impact
on national origin minorities.[159]
However, when defending against a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an
employer does not need to demonstrate necessity; rather, it must simply show that its practice is
reasonable.[citation needed]
Enforcing entitiesEdit
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and enforces 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.[160] The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.[161] Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42,[162] and its
regulations and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part
1614.[163] Persons wishing to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their
administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their
lawsuit in court.[164]