Federal and Oregon State Laws

In most states, the federal anti-discrimination laws are the ones being used as the state anti-discrimination laws. However, apart from the supreme application of federal laws, some laws have been added by the state department, and only have jurisdiction within the borders of the state. State laws can vary from state to state. One state that has different anti-discrimination laws and has been at the forefront when it comes to formulating its laws related to anti-discrimination is Oregon (Enforcing Civil Right Laws, 2010).

General federal laws dictate that it is not legal for one to discriminate another based on r, race, origin, genetic information, age, sex or any other characteristics. Also, the anti-discrimination laws of the state of Oregon demand that one should not be looked down upon based on marital status and sexual orientation (Employment Discrimination in Oregon, 2012). Two different legislations make anti-discrimination laws enjoyable. The first is that a victim who has faced domestic violence should not be discriminated. Secondly, an employee who refuses to attend a meeting that has been sponsored by the employer for the reason that the meeting is set to discuss the political and religious views of the employer should not be discriminated. It is interesting to look at how these two laws came to exist as they are unique to the state of Oregon and a few other states.

The state of Oregon is known for its strict adherence to laws and obedience to jurisdictions. It has been among the first states that have bravely enacted anti-discrimination laws that were at first not considered possible. It is for this reason that I chose Oregon as the preferred state to discuss anti-discrimination laws.

Usually, discrimination in occupation involves a given manager or employment agency failing to treat its employee, applicant, or members equally. Nevertheless, not every discriminatory act is illegal. Majority of the employer-employee relationship is at will. This reflects that any given employee has the freedom to employ, fire, or discipline any worker at any for any legitimate reason not unless the motive is illegal or it conflicts the contract of the two parties (Laharnar et al., 2015). Generally, unlawful discrimination entails a different treatment of employee or applicant based on their classification.

Discriminatory acts often occur at any phase in the occupation, in an event where the manager initiates somewhat hostile personal choices, including in the choice whether to employ a person. If at all the conclusion of the manager is grounded on characters such as race, nationality, marital status, mental or physical disability or family status, a discrimination claim may exist (Laharnar et al., 2015). Also, a discrimination claim may exist in an event where adverse personnel decision is made based on protected leave, safety status, garnishment, use of drugs at the course of duty or witness in occupation departmental hearing (Parkman et al., 2015).

Moreover, different types of discrimination may happen when the manager sets principles which may typically seem to be reasonable and applicable to every person but have an uneven effect on a protected class. For instance, declining to accept employment requests from a person who is less than six feet tall or necessitating that every candidate has a diploma, might infringe the law if the necessities have an uneven or unequal effect on vulnerable groups and are not defensible (Parkman et al., 2015). The actions can be justifiable if they are rationally essential to take part in the business of the owner.

Variation in salary or wage on the basis of one’s characteristics is illegal in Oregon. Besides, there are laws which relate to gender disparities in compensation. According to Hodges (2016), both the Federal Equal Pay Act and Oregon law necessitate that, staffs executing considerably alike work in like conditions have to be paid the same amount of salary or wage irrespective of their sex. Variation in pay can be grounded on a bona fide rank scheme, merit scheme, and alterations in productivity, and other numerous aspects which are not related to an individual's sex.

Also, an employer might have to pay discernment assertion if there is an indication that sex was an aspect in deciding the salary of a worker. This is also applicable if the worker is unable to prove skill parity, and accountability, or considerable likeness of occupations as needed by the Equal Pay Act (Neumark et al., 2017). Additionally, further laws forbid discernment in the terms or circumstances of employment and provide a remedy for pay discernment on further grounds other than sex. A new code of Oregon State prohibits penalizing staffs for sharing their salary information, and this intends to endorse pay transparency and ease challenges of illegal pay discrepancies.

Discrimination against workers on the grounds of their disability is illegal both in Oregon and federal rules. Usually, disability is mental or physical deficiencies, which considerably limit certain life activities of an individual. Disability can be a significant limiting factor in employment even though it does not severely restrict a person from executing certain activities. If a person with a particular disability is competent and can complete the vital functions of the work, the employer has to provide a reasonable accommodation (Neumark et al., 2017). However, the housing must not be too expensive for the manager. In such an event, the worker appeals sensible accommodation according to his /her disability and the manager is obligated to make arrangements in finding the accommodation for the worker. Reasonable accommodation may comprise of physical changes in the work environment, policy alterations, or removals of non-critical duties (Neumark et al., 2017). Also, the very laws need worker medical information to be confidential.

Also, the Oregon laws dictate that a manager may lawfully inquire about the applicant's aptitude to do work-related tasks, but the review needs to be closely tailored. For instance, the manager may define the job requirement and question the candidate if he/she can accomplish that task with or with no sensible accommodation. On the other hand, a federal decree, specifically the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, limits the types of analyses which managers can make concerning genetic info and family medical history (Parkman et al., 2015).

Furthermore, Oregon state law forbids discrimination grounded on affiliation in particular classes which the federal does not cover. For instance, Oregon law forbids discernment grounded on one’s marital state, sex, whether the worker has an obliterated juvenile record or has had a garnishment of pays (Laharnar et al., 2015). Several federal and state laws protect particular types of leaves, including leaves for the health situation of a worker and necessitating welfare for staffs who may be victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. According to Hodges (2016), Oregon added laws which require managers to offer martial veterans one day off on Veteran's Day and prevent managers from demanding workforces to offer their social media platforms information. What is more, the legislature added constitutional protections against pestering and discrimination towards interns.

Discrimination laws often follow social developments. Rights may be recognized and protected first at a local level, then a statewide level, then a federal level. In recent years, for example, there have been developments in the protection of legal rights of transgender people and the recognition of the legal status of same-sex marriage. Oregon has also recently adopted a "ban the box" law which prohibits employers generally from inquiring into criminal convictions on employment applications or before an interview. Federal and state enforcement activity has also broadened the treatment of "joint employment" status as Oregon, like other states, sees the development of a "contingent workforce," which includes provisional or nonpermanent workers such as freelancers, temporary contract workers, independent consultants and others (Laharnar et al., 2015).

Both Oregon and federal conventions dictate that victims of illegal employment discernment may be restored to their occupations and can recuperate lost, benefits and emotional damages or disciplinary costs. In other scenarios, sufferers of employment discrimination may recuperate front pay instead of reestablishment (Parkman et al., 2015). Moreover, a victim of illegal employment discrimination is obligated to try and seek another employer of occupation. In an event where the claim of the employee is successful, the manager may be needed to pay a certain amount of rational authorized costs and rates of a lawsuit of the employee. Both bylaws certify a dominant party to recuperate expenses in events which means that a successful manager can recuperate fees and costs, even though normally the manager has to verify the claim was irrational (Laharnar et al., 2015). In particular claims, the victim can recuperate twofold the number of lost earnings.

Majority of Oregon rules against employment discrimination are overseen by the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. Workers or aspirants who firmly consider that they have been exposed to unlawful behavior are inundated to go straight to court or to the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (Laharnar et al., 2015). Under state rule; as different from central law, workers may not be obligated to file administrative objections prior to the filing of lawsuits.

One the other hand, the majority of federal laws against employment discernment is overseen by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). A worker who claims discernment under federal rules managed by that agency has to timely file a discrimination charge with the EEOC before approaching the either federal or state court (Laharnar et al., 2015). Also, federal employment discrimination rights are controlled by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.

Both the federal and the state rules of Oregon prohibit discrimination against pregnant women at workplaces. According to the federal amended Pregnancy Discrimination Act outlined by Title VII, discrimination of women based on pregnancy or childbirth and related medical situation is highly prohibited at workplaces either by employer or employment agencies (Fisher et al., 2017). In the same measure, the state of Oregon prohibits discrimination against pregnant women. According to Aronson (2016), pregnant women are entitled to equal benefits enjoyed by other employees who are experiencing similar conditions. Besides, it is illegal to discriminate workers who have secured leaves that have been sanctioned by the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the Oregon Family Leave Act (Wisensale, 2015). Therefore, it is unlawful to subject any given employee to discrimination during their pregnancy period.

Furthermore, both the Federal and the state of Oregon laws prohibit sexual harassment at the workplace based on one's characteristics. The federal laws Title VII offer protection to persons who may suffer discrimination, which takes the form of sexual harassment at workplaces (Fisher et al., 2017). The kind of harassment may include direct demand for sexual favors from employees by employers at workplaces. Unconsented sexual advances by employer create a hostile working environment for employees of either gender. Oregon laws equally prohibit sexual harassment based on a person's characteristics. According to Aronson (2016), Oregon Administrative Rules describe sexual harassment as unsolicited sexual advances as well as verbal or sex-related physical conduct regardless of an individual's gender. Moreover, in the state of Oregon sexual harassment is illegal in an event when the harassment is done frequently and harshly to the extent that the pestering arbitrarily affects a worker's performance or creates a hostile and offensive work environment.

While the Tilled VII and EEOC offer a new ruling which protects Transgender employees, the state of Oregon does not have a clear convention on transgender employees. Majority of American, including the LGBT community is fully aware that currently, transgender workers are under protection against discrimination of the basis of their status as a transgender person. According to Aronson (2016), the recent ruling from the EEOC and the federal courts under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate employees on the grounds of their sex. A person of transgender sexual status may not be part of the protected class, but lawsuits which involve transgender employees are allowed to proceed (Fisher et al., 2017).

While the transgender folks may not be part of the protected class, Title VII offers general protection to transgender folks against discrimination by employment agencies or employers. What is more, the federal courts have concluded that transgender person is the same as any other person, and their rights should be protected under Title VII (Fisher et al., 2017). However, the state of Oregon does not provide clear discrimination conventions concerning the transgender person.

Furthermore, the federal laws, as well as the state laws of Oregon, forbid discrimination against working mothers. According to Fisher (2017), the federal courts ruled that Title VII forbids employer's choices and policies grounded on the employer's stereotypical impression, which portrays motherhood as incompetent or incompatible with serious work. The federal courts have found that the following conducts infringe Title VII: first, failing to promote an employee because her motherhood duties would render her incompetent, and failing to hire women who have preschool-aged children (Fisher et al., 2017). Therefore, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate a female employee who is also a mother of preschool-aged kids.

Moreover, the state of Oregon offers conventions which protect working mothers against discrimination. Oregon State provides parenting leave under the FMLA, which give working mothers the freedom to use part of their yearly 12 weeks leave to have time off and bond with their newborn children (Wisensale, 2015). However, in an event where an employee uses two of the twelve weeks of FMLA leave during her pregnancy period, he/she would have only ten weeks left to use as parental leave. In addition, the Oregon Family Leave Act equally offers parenting leave though under different terms. Under the OFLA, every employee is entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid parenting (Wisensale, 2015). The law applies to the working mothers who have already used up their 12 weeks for pregnancy disability. Therefore, female employees may be entitled to full 24 weeks of leave for pregnancy, childbirth as well as parenting. As such, it is unlawful for any employer to fire, deny promotion, or fail to pay working mothers.

Both the federal and the state of Oregon law prohibit discrimination at the workplace on the basis of one’s national origin. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the national origin is the country of birth or ancestry of a particular person (Wisensale, 2015). It is critical to note that this term does not provide for discernment accusations on the ground of citizenship. Moreover, the federal courts have primarily maintained requirements that a worker is obligated to communicate in English only where the requirement is related to his/her occupation (Wisensale, 2015). Besides, according to EEOC, a rule which requires a bilingual worker to communicate only in English is characterized as a discriminatory rule. Therefore, discrimination on the grounds of one's national origin infringes Title VII, unless otherwise stipulated as a criterion for the work responsibility (Wisensale, 2015). Also, the state of Oregon makes it illegal to discriminate workers based on their national origin.

Besides, the federal laws, as well as the state of Oregon laws, prohibit discrimination on the basis on one's age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to a manager who has twenty or more workers (Fisher et al., 2017). ADEA protects workers and applicants who are forty years of age or more from discrimination at the workplaces based on their age. In an event where a prospective employee or applicant is rejected or fired in favor of a younger employee, the victim is obligated to show that the younger worker was considerably younger. Although the federal courts are not unanimous about the number of years younger constitutes considerably younger, the least number of years needed by any courts stands at three (Fisher et al., 2017). What is more, a manager can avoid age discrimination liability when he/she can establish a bona fide occupational qualification. BDOQ requires a worker to be younger than the employee who files an age discrimination claim.

Oregon dissemination laws work to expand ADEA laws and its focus on protecting employees over eighteen years of age. The Oregon discrimination laws protect employees from hash decisions by the employer toward employees on the basis of their age. The adverse decision towards employees could regard issues such as promotion, pay, termination, or hiring (Wisensale, 2015). What is more, the conventions of Oregon concerning age discrimination at workplace prohibit employers from seeking workers within a particular age range (Fisher et al., 2017). Also, state laws forbid denying benefits to workers based on their age and also forbid compulsory retirement.

While Oregon state laws protect dissemination based on Post Termination Benefits, the federal laws have a somewhat clear convention on the issue of Post Termination Benefits. In an event where an employee is laid off or somewhat losses their jobs by no fault of their own, they may be eligible for termination benefits in Oregon (Aronson. 2015). For instance, if an employee is not fired for any serious misconduct or if he/she does not quit their job willingly, he/she may qualify for unemployment benefits. What is more, the moment an employee begins to receive the benefits; he/she is obligated to seek employment in order to continue receiving the benefits. The eligible workers often receive a percentage of their previous earning for 26 weeks while they are looking for employment somewhere else (Aronson. 2015). Therefore, every employee is entitled to these benefits regardless of their characteristics and denying then the benefits are unlawful.

Federal government equally provides laws that prevent post-termination benefits related to discrimination. With respect to the federal law known as the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), an employee may have the right to proceed with their health insurance coverage following the dissolution of the employment (Wisensale, 2015). Nevertheless, he/she will have to pay full premium include the portion which the employer used to pay. In addition, the employee has to pay two percent of the premium amount for administrative costs. The employee can proceed with the benefits for 36 months, depending on their situation (Wisensale, 2015). The COBRA laws apply to every employee regardless of their characteristics, and it is unlawful to deny workers the post-termination benefits in an even when they are eligible.

Oregon Employment discrimination filing procedure 

One can file an employment discrimination claim with the Oregon state administrative agency, which is the Civil Rights Division of Oregon's Bureau of Labor & Industries (BOLI). Also, one can file a claim with the federal administrative agency, the (EEOC) (Jones & Jones, 2018) . The two agencies tend to embrace a work-sharing agreement. The work-sharing deal means that the two agencies work cohesively to process claims. Besides, Filing a discrimination claim with both agencies is pointless, as long as the complainer designates to one of the agencies that he/she wish it to cross-file the complaint with the other agency.

The Oregon anti-discrimination decree covers any number of managers in the exemption for discrimination claims which are grounded on physical/mental incapacity or injury, for which the employer must have 6 or more employees (Jones & Jones, 2018). As such, if a workplace has between 1 and 14 workers, the person filing a claim need to register with the BOLI, as the EEOC administers federal law, which protects only managers with over 15 employees.

On the other hand, under federal law, the complainer is only permitted to bring a claim concerning age discrimination (over the age of 40), and his/her company should have more than 20 workers. Therefore, in an event where the complainer does not meet the age discrimination requirements, he/she has to file with BOLI as well. Moreover, registering with the BOLI is not a necessity to pursue an employment discrimination claim straight in court. If one does not have an attorney, he/she may request to see if BOLI can assist in solving application without necessarily filing in court. In addition, BOLI complaints have to be filed within 180 days of the date; the complainer was discriminated against (Jones & Jones, 2018).

In an event where the complainer chooses to have an administrative agency as his/her assistance, not today delay must contact the BOLI or EEOC to file a claim. There are firm time bounds where employment discrimination charge has to be registered. The agency only acts on behalf of a complainer if the complainer registers with the BOLI within 180 days. This also applies to a complainer who has registered with EEOC within 300 days of the date he/she believes was discriminated against. Nevertheless, the complainer need not wait in order to apply until the time limit is close to expiring (Jones & Jones, 2018). Moreover, the complainer may wish to check with an attorney before filing the claim, if possible. In an event where the complainer is unable to secure an attorney who will help him/her, it is not compulsory to have an attorney to file the claim with the state and federal administrative agencies (Jones & Jones, 2018)

References 

Aronson, E. E. (2016). Perceived-As Plaintiffs: Expanding Title VII Coverage to Discrimination Based on Erroneous Perception. Case W. Res. L. Rev. , 67 , 235.

Employment Discrimination in Oregon(2010). (n.d.). Retrieved from NOLO: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/oregon-employment-discrimination-31796.html

ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. (2012) (n.d.). Retrieved from OREGON.GOV: https://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/Pages/C_Crprotoc.aspx 

Fisher, G. G., Truxillo, D. M., Finkelstein, L. M., & Wallace, L. E. (2017). Age discrimination: Potential for adverse impact and differential prediction related to age. Human Resource Management Review , 27 (2), 316-327.

Hodges, A. C. (2016). Public Sector Employment: Cases and Materials.

Jones, J., & Jones, T. (2018). The Oregon Pay Equity Act Is Here. Available at SSRN 3277617 .

Laharnar, N., Perrin, N., Hanson, G., Anger, W. K., & Glass, N. (2015). Workplace domestic violence leaves laws: implementation, use, implications. International Journal of Workplace Health Management , 8 (2), 109-128.

Parkman, A. A., Foland, J., Anderson, B., Duquette, D., Sobotka, H., Lynn, M., ... & Cox, S. L. (2015). Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protection. Journal of genetic counseling , 24 (3), 512-521.

Neumark, D., Burn, I., Button, P., & Chehras, N. (2017). Do State Laws Protecting Older Workers from Discrimination Laws Reduce Age Discrimination in Hiring? Experimental (and Nonexperimental) Evidence. Ann Arbor, MI. University of Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC) Working Paper, WP , 360 , 4.

Wisensale, S. K. (2015). Family Leave Policy: The Political Economy of Work and Family in America: The Political Economy of Work and Family in America . Routledge.