The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire, fire or segregate any person from the privileges of employment, because of the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Generally, Title VII states: a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer – (1) to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of that individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination is covered by Title VI if the primary objective of the financial assistance is the provision of employment or education. Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In certain instances, differential treatment is allowed for religion, sex, or national origin if it is a bona fide occupational qualification. Sexual harassment is also prohibited under this law as are all forms of harassment based on membership in a protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also outlawed discrimination in voter registration, voting rights, and in public accommodations and/or businesses; gave the federal government jurisdiction over cases to enforce desegregation; and prohibited businesses with 25 or more employees from basing hiring decisions on race.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA’s protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an age discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA.

The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. ADEA protections include:

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act forbids discrimination by employers based on age when providing employee benefits, like severance. The OWBPA also ensures that no employee is coerced or pressured into signing legal waivers of rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The OWBPA was enacted to “protect the rights and benefits of older workers” who are being laid off. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the statute as requiring “‘strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers’” executed by these workers in exchange for compensation and benefits. The party defending a release’s validity bears the burden of proving compliance

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, which covers employers with more than 15 employees, governments and Labor Unions. Women who are pregnant or affected by pregnancy-related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.

Pregnancy and Maternity Leave

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee’s ability to work. However, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor’s statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy-related conditions to submit such statements.

If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job because of her pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, if the employer allows temporarily disabled employees to modify tasks, perform alternative assignments, or take disability leave or leave without pay, the employer also must allow an employee who is temporarily disabled because of pregnancy to do the same.

Hostile Work Environment

Unlawful harassment is a form of discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Federal and State laws.

Unwelcome verbal or physical conduct based on race, color, religion, sex (whether or not of a sexual nature, including same-gender harassment and gender identity harassment), national origin, age (40 and over), disability (both physical and/or mental), sexual orientation, or retaliation (sometimes collectively referred to as “legally protected characteristics”) constitutes unlawful harassment when:

The conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment; or
A supervisor’s harassing conduct results in a tangible change in an employee’s employment status or benefits (for example, demotion, termination, failure to promote, etc.).

Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Anyone in the workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official, co-worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive conduct is directed.

Whistleblower Claims

People who report corporate corruption are entitled to enhanced protections from retaliation and discrimination. Federal and State laws also provide that people who “blow the whistle” on companies that have defrauded the Government are entitled to a percentage of all monies recovered in the legal action. Furthermore, both State and Federal law allow private citizens to sue corporations on behalf of the government when a corporation is committing fraud on the taxpayers. Under these laws, the citizen, known as the “qui tam” plaintiff, is entitled to a percentage of any recovery obtained from such a lawsuit.

Becoming a “whistle-blower” and actually blowing the whistle on a company or government entity can be an emotionally demanding and career altering step. However, many whistleblowers who have tried and failed to stop the defrauders short of litigation believe that pursing a qui tam action as their civic duty and only ethical choice.

The law rewards whistleblowers with a reward and the payments can be substantial. Over the last 10 years, qui tam whistleblowers under the Federal False Claims Act have recovered almost $10,000,000,000 (ten billion dollars) for the United States, and have received over $1,600,000,000 (one billion six hundred million dollars) for themselves as a reward. These staggering sums do not even count the hundreds of millions of dollars whistleblowers have recovered under similar State false claims statutes.

Click Here To Find A Discrimination Law Attorney