What was the first US law concerning employment discrimination?
Equal employment opportunity
Equal employment opportunity is equal opportunity in employment. Examples of legislation to foster it or to protect it from eroding include the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to assist in the protection of United States employees from discrimination. The law was the first federal law designed to protect most US employees from employment discrimination based upon that employee's (or applicant's) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Public Law 88-352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et. seq.). Employment discrimination entails areas such as firing, hiring, promotions, transfer or wage practices and it is also illegal to discriminate in advertising, referral of job applicants, or classification. The Title is pertinent in companies affecting commerce that have fifteen or more employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is section 705 of the title.
United States labor law
Today legislation bans discrimination, that is unrelated to an employee's ability to do a job, based on sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, age and disability. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 banned gender pay discrimination, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiffs must show an employing entity pays them less than someone of the opposite sex in an "establishment" for work of "equal skill, effort, or responsibility" under "similar working conditions". Employing entities may raise a defense that pay differences result from a seniority or merit system unrelated to sex. For example, in "Corning Glass Works v Brennan" the Supreme Court held that although women plaintiffs worked at different times in the day, compared to male colleagues, the working conditions were "sufficiently similar" and the claim was allowed. One drawback is the equal pay provisions are subject to multiple exemptions for groups of employees found in the FLSA 1938 itself. Another is that equal pay rules only operate within workers of an "enterprise", so that it has no effect upon high paying enterprises being more male dominated, nor child care being unequally shared between men and women that affects long term career progression. Sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, and is prohibited in general by the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Beyond gender equality on the specific issue of pay, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the general anti-discrimination statute. Titles I to VI protects the equal right to vote, to access accommodation, public services, schools, it strengthens the Civil Rights Commission, and requires equality in federally funded agencies. Title VII bans discrimination in employment. Under §2000e-2, employers must not refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate "against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Segregation in employment is equally unlawful. The same basic rules apply for people over 40 years old, and for people with disabilities. Although states may go further, a significant limit to federal law is a duty only falls on private employers of more than 15 staff, or 20 staff for age discrimination. Within these limits, people can bring claims against disparate treatment. In "Texas Dept of Community Affairs v Burdine" the US Supreme Court held plaintiffs will establish a "prima facie" case of discrimination for not being hired if they are in a protected group, qualified for a job, but the job is given to someone of a different group. It is then up to an employer to rebut the case, by showing a legitimate reason for not hiring the plaintiff. However, in 1993, this position was altered in "St Mary's Honor Center v Hicks" where Scalia J held (over the dissent of four justices) that if an employer shows no discriminatory intent, an employee must not only show the reason is a pretext, but show additional evidence that discrimination has taken place. Souter J in dissent, pointed out the majority's approach was "inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in court".