Footnotes


¹Bernard D. Metzler, LABOR LAW 28 (1977).

²WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 324 (1981).

³BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 553 (1968).

⁴See, e.g., Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483, 489 (1955).

⁵347 U.S. 483 (1954)

⁶See, e.g., California Fed. Savings and Loan v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987). This manual will not discuss the anti-discrimination laws applicable to federal employers.

⁷42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

⁸See, e.g., St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987) (claim of discrimination against 'Arabs' can be pursued under § 1981).

⁹See ,e.g., Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448 (8th Cir. 1985) (retaliation); Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, 802 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1986) (inter-racial associations).

¹⁰42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 - 2000e-17.

¹¹42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(1) and (2).

¹²42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

¹³Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980).

¹⁴42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Unlike Title VII, Title VI does not reach discrimination on the basis of religion or sex.

¹⁵42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3.

¹⁶20 U.S.C. § 1681a.

¹⁷42 U.S.C. § 6102.

¹⁸29 U.S.C. § 794.

¹⁹EEOC v. MCI, 993 F. Supp. 726 (D.Az. 1998).

²⁰118 U.S. 356 (1886)

²¹42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A).

²²St Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987).

²³Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86 (1973).

²⁴See Takahaski v. Fish and Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 534 (1948) (legal alien may not be denied state commercial fishing license).

²⁵See, e.g., Ruiz v. Hull, 957 P.2d 984 (Ariz. 1998).

²⁶Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905 (1970).

²⁷O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterer's, 517 U.S. 308, —, 116 S.Ct. 1306, 1310 (1996) (emphasis in original).

²⁸42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-213.

²⁹Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).

³⁰See, e.g., Cal. Gov't Code § 12940, et seq.("medical condition"); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(1)-(3), (5), (7) (mental retardation, learning disability, blindness); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 23:342 and 23:352 (medical conditions related to childbirth and sickle cell anemia); Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 613.330 (aural or visual handicap); N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12a (specified blood traits); N.Y. (Exec.) Law art. 15 § 296(14) (use of guide, hearing or service dog); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-28.1 (sickle cell carriers); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§ 20-13-10 - 20-13-12 (blindness); W.Va. Code §§ 5-11-3(h), 5-11-9 (visual handicap);

³¹480 U.S. 273 (1987).

³²42 U.S.C. § 12211(a)

³³42 U.S.C. § 12211(b)(1)

³⁴42 U.S.C. § 12211(b)(2) and (3).

³⁵A First Amendment claim would most likely be pursued through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Some federally funded programs also contain specific prohibitions on discrimination based on "political affiliation or belief" in those specific programs. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1577 (Job Training Partnership Act) & 9849 (Head Start).

³⁶ See, e.g., Ulane v Eastern Airlines, 742 F2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984), cert denied 471 US 1017.

³⁷See, e.g., Underwood v Archer Mgt. Servs., 857 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1994).

³⁸See, e.g., Doe v. Boeing Co., 121 Wash. 2d 8, 846 P.2d 531, 533 (Wash. 1993) and Holt v. Northwest Pennsylvania Training Partnership, 694 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Cmw. 1997). Contra: Doe v. United States Postal Serv., 37 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1867, 1869 (D.D.C. 1985)(note that this holding, rendered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, has been reversed by the conforming amendments to the ADA).

³⁹Maffei v. Kolaeton Industry, 164 Misc. 2d 547, 626 N.Y.S.2d 391 (Sup.Ct. 1995).

⁴⁰Underwood v Archer Mgt. Servs., supra n. 11.

⁴¹See, e.g., ALASKA STAT. §§ 23.10.037 and 44.19.456 (certain lie detector tests and parenthood); CAL. GOV'T CODE, § § 12940 et seq (arrest record); D.C. CODE ANN. §1-2502 (family responsibilities, matriculation, personal appearance); DEL. CODE. ANN. tit. 19, § 704 (polygraph); HAWAII REV. STAT. § 378-2 (arrest or court record); 775 I.L.C.S. § § 5/1-102 (unfavorable military discharge); IOWA CODE §§ 730.4 and 730.5 (submission to polygraph or submission to drug tests without probable cause); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:352 (sickle-cell trait); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5 §§ 19301l, et seq. (submission to genetic test or genetic test results) and tit. 32 § 7166 (submission to polygraph test); MASS GEN. L. ch. 151B § 4(9) (failure to furnish information about misdemeanor convictions or arrests that did not result in conviction) and ch. 149 § 19B, ch. 111, § 70f (submission to lie detector or HIV testing); MICH. COMP. LAWS § 37.2202 (height or weight); MINN. STAT. §§ 181.75, 181.954 and 363.01-.03 (receipt of public assistance, submission to lie detector tests, submission to drug testing absent reasonable suspicion or a written drug testing policy); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 141-H:3 and 141-H:6 (genetic testing); N.Y. (EXEC.) LAW art. 15 § 296(16) (arrest or criminal accusation not resulting in conviction), § 292, 296 (genetic testing); N.Y. (LABOR) LAW art. 20-B §§ 733, 735 (lie detector testing); N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 95-28.1, 95-28.1A and 95-241 (sickle cell trait or genetic testing); N.D.CENT.CODE §§ 14-02.4-03 - 06 (receipt of public assistance); OHIO REV. CODE § 2151.358 (expunged juvenile record); OR.REV. STAT. §§ 659.029-30, 659.225-27, 659.700, 659.705 and 659.715 (expunged juvenile record, use of breathalyzer test without "reason to believe" employee is under the influence, use of lie detector test and certain genetic testing); 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 7321 (lie detector tests); R.I.GEN. LAWS §§ 12-28-111 and 28-6.1-1 (domestic abuse victims and lie detector tests); UTAH CODE ANN. § 34-38-110 (false alcohol or drug test); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21 §§ 494a and 511 and tot/ 18, ch. 217 (certain polygraph and drug tests and genetic testing); WASH. REV. CODE § 49.44.120 (certain lie detector tests); W.VA. CODE § 21-5-5b (certain lie detector tests); WIS. STAT. §§ 111.31, 111.321, 103.15 and 111.372 (arrest or conviction records, lie detector tests or genetic tests). The federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act broadly prohibits use of lie detectors for employment purposes, 29 U.S.C. § 2002, but does not apply to state or local governments or "political subdivisions." 29 U.S.C. § 2006.

⁴²309 NLRB 163 (1992)

⁴³42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h).

⁴⁴David Lewin, Theoretical and Empirical Research on the Grievance Procedure and Arbitration: A Critical Review, in Adrienne E. Eaton and Jeffrey H. Keefe, eds., EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND WORKER RIGHTS IN THE CHANGING WORKPLACE 137 (IRRA 1999).

⁴⁵See, e.g., David Tyack and Larry Cuban, TINKERING TOWARD UTOPIA: A CENTURY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM (1995).