U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. Figure 1 provides some of the legal language from laws that have been passed to prevent discrimination.
Sex, Gender, and Racial Discrimination
The Equal Pay Act
The Equal Pay Act requires equal pay for men and women performing equal work in the same workplace. Despite this law, enacted in 1963, significant pay disparities persist.
According to Pew Research Center’s analysis of 2024 data, women earned an average of 85% of what men earned when comparing median hourly earnings across all workers. This gap narrows somewhat for younger workers: women ages 25 to 34 earned 95 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same age group. The gap has narrowed considerably over the long term—down from 65 cents on the dollar in 1982—but progress has been inconsistent in recent years.
Different analytical approaches yield different estimates of the gap’s size. Census Bureau data for full-time, year-round workers show women earning 80.9% of what men earned in 2024—the lowest ratio since 2016 and representing the second consecutive year of widening. When researchers control for education, experience, and occupation, the Economic Policy Institute finds an 18% gap, the smallest on record but still substantial.
The gap is significantly wider for women of color. Black women earn approximately 65-70 cents for every dollar paid to white men; Latina women earn approximately 58 cents. These disparities persist even when controlling for education and experience, indicating that factors beyond human capital contribute to the wage gaps.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. An employer cannot discriminate in hiring, benefits, promotions, or termination based on these protected characteristics.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) established that job requirements—such as educational credentials—that disproportionately exclude members of one race are illegal under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate they are directly related to job performance. This principle, known as disparate impact, means that facially neutral policies can constitute discrimination if they have discriminatory effects without business justification.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 amended Title VII to prohibit discrimination against women because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. More recently, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), enacted in 2023, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. In fiscal year 2024—the first full year of PWFA enforcement—the EEOC received 2,729 charges under this new statute and filed its first five PWFA lawsuits.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
In June 2020, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County that fundamentally expanded Title VII protections. The Court held 6-3 that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination “because of sex” necessarily encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained: “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
The decision consolidated three cases involving workers who were fired after their employers learned they were gay or transgender. Prior to Bostock, LGBTQ workers in fewer than half of states had explicit legal protections against employment discrimination. The ruling extended federal protection to LGBTQ employees nationwide, regardless of whether their state has its own anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation or gender identity.
Since Bostock, the EEOC has pursued cases involving both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination under Title VII. In fiscal year 2024, the agency filed four cases alleging sex discrimination based on sexual orientation and three cases alleging discrimination based on gender identity.
The scope of Bostock continues to be tested in courts. While the decision established protections against discriminatory firing, litigation continues over related issues including bathroom access, dress codes, and the intersection with religious exemptions. Some religious organizations have sought exemptions from these requirements, and courts continue to balance anti-discrimination mandates with First Amendment religious protections.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in employment. Under the ADA, a disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 broadened this definition to ensure more expansive coverage.
Employers must provide reasonable accommodations that enable qualified employees with disabilities to perform essential job functions. Accommodations might include making facilities accessible, modifying work schedules, providing assistive technology, or restructuring job duties. A common misconception is that accommodations are costly; research by the Job Accommodation Network found that 46% of accommodations cost nothing, and those that do have a median cost of only $500.
Despite these protections, significant employment gaps persist. As of 2023, only 37.1% of people with disabilities were employed, compared to 75.0% of people without disabilities. The unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 7.2%—more than double the 3.5% rate for people without disabilities. These gaps reflect ongoing barriers including discrimination, inaccessible workplaces, and limitations in available accommodations.
Disability-based discrimination remains one of the most common charge types filed with the EEOC. In fiscal year 2024, disability discrimination allegations appeared in 38% of all charges—the second most common basis after retaliation. The EEOC filed 48 lawsuits under the ADA in fiscal year 2024, more than under any other single statute.
Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications
The Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act include provisions for bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs)—job requirements that would otherwise constitute discrimination but are reasonably necessary for normal business operations. BFOQs may apply to religion, national origin, age, and sex, but importantly, there are no BFOQ exceptions for race.
Clear examples of BFOQs include hiring someone of a specific religion for a leadership position in a religious organization, or age requirements for airline pilots based on safety considerations. Sex has been upheld as a BFOQ in limited circumstances, such as for guards in certain prison settings where security concerns are paramount.
The Three-Part Test for Sex-Based BFOQs
Courts have established criteria for evaluating sex-based BFOQ claims:
- The “substantially all” test asks whether all or substantially all members of one sex would be unable to perform the job. This is why most physical requirements fail as legitimate grounds for exclusion—for example, a lifting requirement of 30 pounds does not justify excluding women because most women can meet this standard.
- The “essence of the business” test examines whether hiring the other sex would undermine the fundamental nature of the business operation. This test was applied when Pan American World Airways was prohibited from hiring only female flight attendants—the court ruled that hiring men would not undermine the essence of the airline business. Importantly, customer or client preferences alone do not establish a BFOQ.
- The “reasonable alternatives” test considers whether the employer could achieve its legitimate objectives through less discriminatory means, such as reassigning personnel rather than excluding an entire sex from certain positions.
Privacy concerns represent one area where courts have more readily upheld sex-based distinctions—for example, in positions involving intimate personal care or requiring access to single-sex facilities. However, most BFOQ determinations are made case-by-case, and courts interpret these exceptions narrowly.
What Do You Think? Hooters and BFOQ Laws
The restaurant chain Hooters, which hires only female wait staff and has them dress in a sexually provocative manner, is commonly cited as a discriminatory employer. The chain would argue that the female employees are an essential part of their business in that they market through sex appeal and the wait staff attract customers.
Men have filed discrimination charges against Hooters in the past for not hiring them as wait staff simply because they are men. The chain has avoided a court decision on their hiring practices by settling out of court with the plaintiffs in each case. Do you think their practices violate the Civil Rights Act? See if you can apply the three court tests to this case and make a decision about whether a case that went to trial would find in favor of the plaintiff or the chain.