Employment Discrimination Law: Protected Classes and Your Legal Rights

The EEOC Received 73,485 Workplace Discrimination Charges in Fiscal Year 2022

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) processed 73,485 private-sector discrimination charges in fiscal year 2022 — down from a peak of 99,947 in fiscal year 2010, but representing hundreds of millions of dollars in remedies for workers annually. Retaliation claims accounted for the largest share (55.9%), followed by disability (37.3%), race (33.7%), and sex (31.1%) — with many charges citing multiple bases. Federal employment discrimination law covers over 100 million workers, but its scope, enforcement mechanisms, and remedies are frequently misunderstood by both employees and employers.

The Federal Statutory Framework

Federal employment discrimination law is not contained in a single statute. Six major federal laws collectively define the protected categories and employer obligations.

State laws frequently extend protections beyond federal minimums — adding protected categories such as sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or political affiliation, and often covering smaller employers. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act covers employers with five or more employees for most provisions.

Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact

Discrimination claims fall into two fundamental legal theories with different evidentiary requirements.

Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination — an employer treats an employee or applicant less favorably because of a protected characteristic. Proving disparate treatment follows the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 1973): the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the employer then articulates a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, and the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that reason is pretextual. Every element matters.

Disparate impact requires no proof of intent. Under Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), a facially neutral employment policy that disproportionately excludes members of a protected group is unlawful unless the employer proves the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Disparate impact claims frequently arise from standardized tests, educational requirements, and physical fitness standards applied uniformly but with unequal outcomes across demographic groups.

Hostile Work Environment Claims

Workplace harassment severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment constitutes a hostile work environment — a form of discrimination prohibited under Title VII (for sex, race, religion, national origin, color) and similar standards under the ADA and ADEA. Four elements are generally required:

• The plaintiff belongs to a protected class
• The conduct was unwelcome
• The harassment was based on the protected characteristic
• The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment (judged by both a reasonable person standard and the plaintiff's subjective perception)

Employer liability for supervisor harassment differs from co-worker harassment. Under Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), employers face automatic vicarious liability when a supervisor's harassment results in a tangible employment action (demotion, termination). Without a tangible action, the employer can raise an affirmative defense by showing it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to use the reporting procedures provided.

Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA

The ADA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities — defined as physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities — unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The interactive process between employer and employee is legally required before a request can be denied.

• Common accommodations: Modified schedules, remote work, reassignment to a vacant position, ergonomic equipment, leave of absence beyond FMLA entitlements, policy modifications
• Undue hardship factors: Cost of accommodation, employer's financial resources, nature of the operation, impact on other employees
• Direct threat defense: An employer may refuse accommodation if the disability poses a direct threat to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated through accommodation

Filing an EEOC Charge: The Prerequisite to Federal Suit

Before filing a Title VII, ADA, ADEA, or GINA lawsuit in federal court, employees must first exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC or a state equivalent agency. Strict deadlines apply.

After the EEOC investigates (or after 180 days if investigation is pending), it issues a Right to Sue letter. The employee then has 90 days to file in federal court. Missing any of these deadlines can permanently bar the claim. The clock starts on the date of the discriminatory act — not when the employee learned about it in most cases.

Available Remedies

Successful claimants under Title VII and the ADA may recover compensatory damages (for emotional distress, pain and suffering), punitive damages (for malicious or reckless conduct), back pay, front pay, reinstatement, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief. Compensatory and punitive damages are capped based on employer size — $50,000 for employers with 15–100 employees, up to $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees. The ADEA does not allow compensatory or punitive damages for pain and suffering; it permits liquidated damages (double back pay) only for willful violations. State law claims often carry higher or uncapped damage limits.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.