Full Report

What does current federal law say about workplace nondiscrimination protections?

Discrimination in the workplace—either in employment, promotion, job assignments, pay, benefits, discipline, discharge, and layoffs—is illegal in the United States. Research shows that actions taken to reduce discrimination not only improve equity but also support economic growth. Federal law defines workplace discrimination on the basis of a worker’s membership in designated protected classes, with the rationale that disparate treatment violates the law when it would not have happened to an individual “but for” that aspect of their identity. These protected classes are enshrined by legislation and include the following:

• Race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
• Age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
• Disability (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
• Genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008)

The extent to which these protected classes can be expanded is subject to legal interpretation. For example, over time, the definition of “sex discrimination” has been amended to explicitly include disparate treatment related to pregnancy and childbirth with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity following Supreme Court decisions in 2020.

In addition to protection from unjust unequal treatment, federal law also protects workers from retaliation for filing discrimination claims or from beginning the process of filing a discrimination claim. These federal laws cover most employees whether they work full time or part time and irrespective of citizenship status. Employers with 20 or more employees are required to comply with all nondiscrimination laws at the federal level; employers with less than 20 employees are still subject to many nondiscrimination standards, though standards are less stringent.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the independent federal agency responsible for investigating claims of employment discrimination at the federal level and for enforcing federal workplace nondiscrimination law. The EEOC does this both by fielding discrimination claims against employers and by requiring annual reports from employers on employment outcomes by protected class characteristics to assess potential patterns of discrimination.

What are the threats to federal workplace nondiscrimination protections?

Current threats to workplace nondiscrimination protections include:

• Executive actions constraining EEOC’s mission and functions: Since taking office, Trump has undermined or limited key functions of the EEOC by:
  • Illegally firing two of the three commissioners and the general counsel, leaving the Commission unable to alter policy or vote on rulemaking for several months. In October 2025, the Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as an EEOC commissioner, establishing a three-person quorum. With a quorum in place, the EEOC will likely rescind their 2024–2028 strategic enforcement plan, guidance on arrest and conviction records, and EEO-1 reporting requirements. Additionally, the agency will likely move forward with announced plans to significantly revise its Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Rule and Harassment Guidance.  
  • Imposing new limits on the collection of data necessary to accurately assess discriminatory impact by shortening annual reporting periods and removing nonbinary gender reporting entirely from forms used to collect demographic data from private employers and federal contractors.
  • Directing the EEOC to focus more on so-called “DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination and anti-American national origin bias and discrimination.”
• Politicizing the EEOC and constraining independent state and local agencies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has repeatedly affirmed her commitment to restructuring the EEOC’s priorities toward those of the administration, rather than enforcing anti-discrimination law as an independent federal agency. In an effort to impose the administration’s agenda on state and local enforcement agencies, Lucas has proposed changes that would weaponize the funding relationship between those agencies and the EEOC. While state and local agencies operate independently, they receive funding from the EEOC in the form of reimbursements for jointly filed cases they take on behalf of the federal agency. With the exception of a few large states, such as New York or California, most states significantly rely on this funding to cover their operational costs. Since serving as acting chair, Lucas has reversed course on the EEOC’s enforcement of disparate impact and sex discrimination cases by:
  • Withholding funding for state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs) that choose to take on cases concerning gender identity discrimination.
  • Threatening to decertify state and local FEPAs that draw conclusions on gender identity and disparate impact charges that differ from those of the EEOC.
  • Instructing the agency to close charges that solely concern disparate impact by September 30, 2025, without developing them for litigation or for conciliation.
• Diminished EEOC enforcement capacity: The extent to which workers are protected from workplace discrimination at the federal level is dependent on the EEOC’s capacity to monitor employment practices, investigate claims of workplace discrimination, and reliably enforce sanctions against employers who violate nondiscrimination law. But for decades, inadequate funding and staffing has limited the EEOC’s capacity to investigate and resolve charges in a timely manner. Actions of the second Trump administration further exacerbate these problems:
  • In March 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced plans to close and consolidate EEOC field offices. Once the EEOC reestablishes a quorum, the agency may begin these closures, which threaten the job security of EEOC field staff and further constrain their enforcement capacity.
  • The EEOC plans to break up its data analytics office, signaling that robust data collection and analysis—critical tools for enforcement and assessing charges—will be less of a priority for the agency. Rolling back data collection is a step toward the Project 2025 prescribed goal of ending EEO-1 data collection.
• Executive actions attacking nondiscrimination law: The Trump administration has prohibited the consideration of disparate impact liability in discrimination claims, making it more difficult to hold employers accountable for unfair employment practices and outcomes without being able to prove that employers explicitly intended to discriminate (including efforts to hold companies accountable for AI-driven algorithmic bias).  

While many threats are coming directly from the federal level, workplace nondiscrimination protections are also under threat in states that have chosen to follow the lead of the White House in passing anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) laws. Many states have already closed DEI-related offices and initiatives, cut funding to programs, and restricted the use of language and consideration of protected classes in higher education. While these actions do not remove existing workplace nondiscrimination laws, workers in those states could be left without recourse if legislative trends continue and federal nondiscrimination protections continue to deteriorate.

How can states maintain and strengthen workplace nondiscrimination protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own employment discrimination laws that provide more expansive coverage than federal law. States can provide legal protections for more traits or characteristics, lower the minimum employment threshold required to file a discrimination claim, and extend the window of time employees have to file a claim after the alleged discriminatory incident occurred.

Many states and local governments have Fair Employment Practices Agencies1 that investigate workplace discrimination claims in accordance with state and local nondiscrimination law, often in concert with field offices of the federal EEOC. FEPAs may have authority to enforce state or local standards for nondiscrimination that exceed those laid out by the federal government. Workers who believe they have been discriminated against can file a claim with the EEOC and/or their state or local FEPA, depending on the standards being violated, the types of relief available to victims, the deadlines for filing charges, or other factors related to the claim. The Trump administration is actively working to undermine the independence of FEPAs by weaponizing their funding arrangement, particularly on enforcement of disparate impact and gender identity discrimination protections. For state agencies that rely on federal funding for a significant share of their operating budget, these changes present serious challenges to their ability to properly maintain and expand enforcement capacity.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections 

Most states have passed state-level employment discrimination laws that codify employment discrimination protections for at least the same protected classes that are federally protected. Today, 24 states and Washington, D.C., have discrimination laws that cover a more expansive range of protected traits than federal law. However, 19 states, including Idaho, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, offer less protection than federal laws. Alabama’s employment discrimination law is by far the least comprehensive, as it only protects against age discrimination from 40 years of age.  

Other states have enacted certain discrimination laws that only protect public employees. For example, Georgia’s discrimination laws have mixed levels of protection based on the sector of employment. Protections for discrimination against race, color, religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity are only extended to public-sector employees. Private-sector employees are provided protections for disability and equal pay discrimination. Similarly, Mississippi’s employment discrimination laws only apply to public employees.  

States typically have a commission or division dedicated to enforcing state nondiscrimination laws. Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi do not have their own state agency and solely rely on the EEOC for anti-discrimination enforcement. Additionally, North Carolina does not have an agency where private employees can file discrimination claims.

As the Trump administration makes it easier for employers to discriminate by weakening the federal EEOC, failure to cover private employers under state law and a lack of state level enforcement capacity will leave even more workers in those states without recourse. States can—and should—act to plug these gaps by, at a minimum:

• Ensuring their state code includes at least all the protected classes covered in federal nondiscrimination law;
• Ensuring state nondiscrimination laws cover all workers (in both public and private sectors) and mirror federal employment minimum thresholds for coverage; and
• Establishing and adequately funding a state commission or division with enforcement authority that, at minimum, mirrors federal policies for filing deadlines.

Step II: Include additional protections already implemented in other states 

• Extend protections to additional traits: Most states have extended protections for marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. While states may be financially disincentivized to pursue cases concerning gender identity discrimination, there is currently no threat to simply extending legal protections. Some states have also incorporated additional traits such as reproductive health decision-making, medical conditions, status as a victim of domestic violence, housing status, arrest/court/conviction record, and military or veteran status as protected traits (see Figure A). Additionally, several states including New York and Oregon and D.C. have lowered the age limit to be considered for age discrimination.  
• Codify inclusive definitions for protected traits to fortify employment nondiscrimination protections: Many states include definitions of protected traits that better encompass the types of discrimination employees may face. For example, since 2019, the CROWN Act has been adopted by states across the nation to include hair discrimination as a form of racial discrimination. More than half of U.S. states have passed the CROWN Act and eight states have defined race-based discrimination to include discrimination based on traits associated with race in their state code. 

Figure A

State enforcement of employment nondiscrimination

State	Title VII key	Title VII, Age, and Disability	Details	Pregnancy key	Pregnancy	Pregnancy protected?	Gender key	Sexual orientation and gender identity	Sexual orientation and gender identity protected?	Additional key	Additional traits	Additional traits protected	Filing key	Filing deadline	State enforcement agency	Deadline to file discrimination claim
Alabama	2	Only protects age	Age is the only protected trait.	2	Not protected	No	2	Not protected	No	0	No		0	n/a		Alabama does not have an enforcement agency
Alaska	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but considered illegal under state law	1	Yes	Marital status and changes in marital status, parenthood	2	Longer deadline than federal	Alaska State Commission for Human Rights	300 days
Arizona	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but agency will accept claim	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Arizona Civil Rights Division	180 days
Arkansas	1	Limited protection	For age discrimination, only public employees are protected.	0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions	2	Not protected	No	1	Yes	Military service	0	n/a		Arkansas does not have an enforcement agency
California	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Reproductive health decision-making, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin includes possession of a driver’s license or identification card	2	Longer deadline than federal	California Department of Fair Employment and Housing	3 years
Colorado	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Marital status, marriage to a co-worker	2	Longer deadline than federal	Colorado Civil Rights Division	300 days
Connecticut	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth, lactation, and related conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Veteran status, domestic violence victim status, prior criminal record	2	Longer deadline than federal	Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities	300 days
Delaware	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Housing status, domestic violence victim status	2	Longer deadline than federal	Delaware Office of Anti-Discrimination	300 days
Florida	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but agency will accept claim	1	Yes	Marital status	2	Longer deadline than federal	Florida Commission on Human Relations	365 days
Georgia	1	Limited protection	While disability is protected, race/color, national origin, religion protection is only extended to public employees. Only equal pay is protected under sex for private employees.	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Only public employees are protected	1	Limited protection / exceptions	Only public employees are protected; sexual orientation and gender identity are included under sex	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal		180 days, however Georgia does not have an enforcement agency for private employees
Hawaii	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth, lactation, and related medical conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Credit history or report, arrest and court record, reproductive health decision, national guard obligation, child support garnishment, domestic or sexual violence victim status	1	Same deadline as federal	Hawaii Civil Rights Commission	180 days
Idaho	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, by Idaho Supreme Court	2	Not protected	No	0	No		2	Longer deadline than federal	Idaho Human Rights Commission	1 year
Illinois	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Military status, marital status, arrest or conviction record, criminal history record ordered expunged, sealed, or impounded, citizenship status (excludes undocumented immigrants), work authorization status, language	2	Longer deadline than federal	Illinois Department of Human Rights	2 years
Indiana	0	Full protection		1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not specifically, but may be treated as sex discrimination	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Indiana Civil Rights Commission; Indiana Department of Labor (for age discrimination)	180 days for the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, 4 months for the Indiana Department of Labor
Iowa	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Only sexual orientation is protected	0	No		2	Longer deadline than federal	Iowa Civil Rights Commission	300 days
Kansas	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, by regulation	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but agency will accept claim	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Kansas Human Rights Commission	6 months
Kentucky	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth, lactation, and related medical conditions	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Kentucky Commission on Human Rights	180 days
Louisiana	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Louisiana Commission on Human Rights	180 days
Maine	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including resulting medical conditions	0	Protected	Yes	0	No		2	Longer deadline than federal	Maine Human Rights Commission	300 days
Maryland	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Marital status, military status	2	Longer deadline than federal	Maryland Commission on Civil Rights	300 days
Massachusetts	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including lactation and related conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Military activity or veteran status, criminal record	2	Longer deadline than federal	Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination	300 days (2 years for harassment)
Michigan	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions, but not most abortions	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not specifically, but may be treated as sex discrimination	1	Yes	Height, weight, marital status, arrest record	1	Same deadline as federal	Michigan Department of Civil Rights	180 days
Minnesota	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related disabilities	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Public assistance support, marital status, familial status	2	Longer deadline than federal	Minnesota Department of Human Rights	1 year
Mississippi	1	Limited protection	Protection is only extended to public employees.	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Only public employees are protected	2	Not protected	No	0	No		0	n/a		Mississippi does not have an enforcement agency
Missouri	0	Full protection		1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not specifically, but may be treated as sex discrimination	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, may be Protected through state supreme court decision	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Missouri Commission on Human Rights	180 days
Montana	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but it may be treated as sex discrimination	1	Yes	Vaccination status, marital status, familial status	1	Same deadline as federal	Montana Human Rights Bureau	180 days
Nebraska	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but agency will accept claim	1	Yes	Marital status	2	Longer deadline than federal	Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission	300 days
Nevada	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Criminal background (public employees only)	2	Longer deadline than federal	Nevada Equal Rights Commission	300 days
New Hampshire	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, childbirth and related medical conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Marital status	1	Same deadline as federal	New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights	180 days
New Jersey	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including breastfeeding	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Marital status or domestic partnership/civil union status, liability for military service	1	Same deadline as federal	New Jersey Division on Civil Rights	180 days
New Mexico	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Serious medical condition, military status, spousal affiliation (for 50 or more employees)	2	Longer deadline than federal	New Mexico Human Rights Bureau	300 days
New York	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Age (18 and over), arrest record, citizenship or immigration status, conviction record, victim of domestic violence status, familial status, marital status, military status	2	Longer deadline than federal	New York State Division of Human Rights	For acts occurring on or before 02/14/2024, 1 year. For acts occuring after, 3 years
North Carolina	0	Full protection		2	Not protected	No	2	Not protected	No	0	No		0	n/a		North Carolina does not have an agency that allows private employees to file claims
North Dakota	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related disabilities	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but agency will accept claim	1	Yes	Marital status, public assistance status, participation in lawful activity off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours which is not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer	2	Longer deadline than federal	North Dakota Human Rights Division	300 days
Ohio	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions and illnesses	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but agency will accept claim	0	No		2	Longer deadline than federal	Ohio Civil Rights Commission	2 years
Oklahoma	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Oklahoma Office of Civil Rights Enforcement	180 days
Oregon	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions and occurrences	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Age (18 and over), military status, marital or family status	2	Longer deadline than federal	Oregon Civil Rights Division	5 years
Pennsylvania	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but agency considers under sex discrimination	1	Yes	Having a GED rather than a high school diploma, relationship to a person with a disability	1	Same deadline as federal	Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission	180 days
Rhode Island	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Conviction status (Prohibits employers from inquiring before a first interview, either via an employment    application or otherwise, whether an applicant has been convicted of a crime.  Certain exceptions apply.)	2	Longer deadline than federal	Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights	1 year
South Carolina	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth, lactation, and related medical conditions	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	South Carolina Human Affairs Commission	180 days
South Dakota	1	Limited protection	Age is not a protected trait.	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not specifically, but may be treated as disability discrimination	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	South Dakota Division of Human Rights	180 days
Tennessee	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Tennessee Human Rights Commission	180 days
Texas	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and related medical conditions	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but it may be treated as sex discrimination	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Texas Workforce Commission, Civil Rights Division	180 days
Utah	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth and pregnancy-related conditions	0	Protected	Yes	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division	180 days
Vermont	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	HIV status, crime victim status, asserting a claim to worker’s compensation	2	Longer deadline than federal	Civil Rights Unit, Office of Vermont Attorney General	1 year
Virginia	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth, lactation, and related medical conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Marital status, military status	1	Same deadline as federal	Virginia Office of Civil Rights	180 days
Washington	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	HIV/AIDs and Hepatitis C status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, state employee or health care whistleblower status	1	Same deadline as federal	Washington State Human Rights Commission	6 months
Washington D.C.	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth, breastfeeding, related medical conditions	0	Protected	Yes	1	Yes	Age (18 and over), credit information, family responsibilities, homeless status, marital status, matriculation, personal appearance, political affiliation, Status as a victim or family member of a victim of domestic violence, a sexual offense, or stalking . Additionally, employers cannot ask about an individual’s criminal record during the application or interview process.	2	Longer deadline than federal	D.C. Office of Human Rights	1 year
West Virginia	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Not explicitly, but may be Protected through state supreme court decision	0	No		2	Longer deadline than federal	West Virginia Human Rights Commission	365 days
Wisconsin	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes, including childbirth, maternity leave, and related medical conditions	1	Limited protection/Exceptions	Only sexual orientation is protected	1	Yes	Marital status, military status	2	Longer deadline than federal	Wisconsin Equal Rights Division	300 days
Wyoming	0	Full protection		0	Protected	Yes	2	Not protected	No	0	No		1	Same deadline as federal	Labor Standards Office, Wyoming Department of Workforce Services	6 months

Sources: Information from state fair employment agencies and Justia, "Employment Discrimination Laws: 50-State Survey", last reviewed September 2022. 

Sources: Information from state fair employment agencies (AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY), and Justia, "Employment Discrimination Laws: 50-State Survey", last reviewed September 2022. 

Share on Facebook Tweet this chart

Embed

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

<iframe width="100%" height="460" src="https://www.epi.org?p=306391&view=embed&embed_template=charts_v2013_08_21&embed_date=20251104&onp=307668&utm_source=epi_press&utm_medium=chart_embed&utm_campaign=charts_v2" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Download image

Step III: Modernize nondiscrimination policies by extending and locking in coverage across classes of workers and collecting comprehensive data

• Extend coverage to contract workers: Independent contractors are not considered employees, so they may not be inherently covered by employment discrimination laws. As of 2019, only four states (Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island) protect independent contractors from discrimination protection, while 24 states and D.C. explicitly exclude them. Extending discrimination protections to independent contractors is important as they have significantly less labor protections than employees. Additionally, states could explicitly enforce anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity laws for state contract workers to ensure fair employment practices among private employers that conduct business with the state. In a climate with increased hostility against those who are not white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender, it is imperative that the classification of a worker does not dictate the rights they have to protect themselves from discrimination.
• Emphasize protections for workers regardless of their citizenship and immigration status: Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, and employees are protected by Equal Employment Opportunity statutes regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Given changing federal treatment of immigrants, states should emphasize and enforce fair treatment regardless of documentation status to ensure workers remain protected. They should also strengthen anti-retaliation protections and practices.  
• Collect employment and pay data at the state level: Federally, the EEOC requires employers with more than 100 employees to submit an annual report (the EEO-1 form) providing critical workforce demographic data. With the future of federal data collection at risk, states should seek to collect their own equal employment data, including pay data, to support anti-discrimination enforcement mechanisms. Currently, only three (California, Illinois, Massachusetts) states require employers to submit this data.

Additional recommended resources 

• Trump is making it easier for employers to discriminate. This stifles equity and hurts economic growth. (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Trump-led attacks on equity are setting the stage for our next public health crisis (Economic Policy Institute) 
• Trump’s assault on independent agencies endangers us all (Economic Policy Institute and The Century Foundation) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section and include updates on federal and state policy developments that took place after initial publication

1. These agencies are often referred to as commissions on civil rights, human rights, human relations, etc. See a list of agencies here: University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.