Is it Illegal for me to refuse to hire a white child actor because the already selected parent is black and the child isn&#39;t adopted? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reads: &quot;It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin&quot; However, there is an exception made for BFOQs (Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications). Specifically the law states &quot;It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees . . . on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.&quot; Race and color are included in the first section, making it illegal to refuse to hire someone on those basis; However, the BFOQ exception does not apply to race or color. Thus it would appear there is never a situation where one can choose an individual based off of their race. So consider a situation where I'm casting for some play or movie and I've already picked the a black man and women for the main married couple. I'm now trying to pick a child to play the biological son of these characters. This would seem a clear case of a BFOQ if race were included in the exception, The audience is clearly going to notice if the child and parents were a different race and that is going to lead to either confusion or expectation that the child was adopted that could mess with the narrative, so the race of the child seems relevant. However, as I said, BFOQ exception doesn't appear to apply to race or color. Does that mean that it would be illegal in the USA to refuse to hire a white child in this situation? Assuming that it would be how does the TV and Movie industry manage to keep race of family members consistent without constantly having to pay out settlements to people who were excluded due to their race?
Courts have not yet reached a final answer on whether the practice you've described would be illegal. On its face, this practice seems to be a straightforward violation of the laws you've quoted. Refusing to hire someone because he is white is discrimination on the basis of race or color, and neither of those criteria can be bona fide occupational qualification. Nonetheless, it seems to be generally accepted that this practice remains legal, though there remains some disagreement as to why it is legal. As noted in Just A Guy's answer, lawmakers appeared to believe that this practice would be legal because casting directors could limit their choices to people who &quot;appear&quot; to be of a certain race, rather than limiting themselves to people who actually are members of a race. But legislative commentary isn't actually controlling when it runs contrary to the text of the law, as this commentary is. After all, one cannot generally appear to be black without the color of his skin being black. Arthur Larson, a professor at Duke Law, offered a similar approach: Perhaps the only way an employer could deal with this type of problem would be to cast his requirements in neutral terms so as to come within Griggs and its business necessity rule. The employer might, let us say, announce that he will consider applicants for the part of Henry VIII only if they bear a sufficient likeness to Henry VIII so that, with suitable make-up, they would present a convincing representation of the well-known monarch. This would rule out women, and many men too thin to be successfully padded out or too short to be adequately regal, as well as most blacks. As to black applicants, the employer could quite possibly contend persuasively that no amount of white make-up would do an adequate job of transformation, just as no amount of padding would save the day for a 110-pound white aspirant. Therefore, the neutral test of rough similarity to Henry might be successfully backed up by the business necessity rule. A. Larsen, Employment Discrimination, § 72.10. Although this issue seems like it might pop up all the time, I was only able to find one case where it was actually litigated. And in that case, there was no real discussion of whether race was or was not a BFOQ, or whether there was some &quot;business necessity&quot; for limiting casting to white candidates. Instead, the producers argued -- and the court agreed -- that casting decisions are protected by the First Amendment because they have expressive consequences and &quot;are a necessary component of any entertainment show's creative content&quot;: The producers of a television program, a movie, or a play could not effectuate their creative vision, as embodied in the end product marketed to the public, without signing cast members. The plaintiffs seek to drive an artificial wedge between casting decisions and the end product, which itself is indisputably protected as speech by the First Amendment. Thus, regulating the casting process necessarily regulates the end product. In this respect, casting and the resulting work of entertainment are inseparable and must both be protected to ensure that the producers' freedom of speech is not abridged. Claybrooks v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 986, 999 (M.D. Tenn. 2012).
tl;dr The community service is unlikely to be valid consideration. Background While the father seemingly intends to induce performance via the offer, as in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 81, judge-ordered community service is an exception. In particular, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 73 says performing a preexisting legal duty does not constitute consideration. For example, in McDevitt v. Stokes, 192 S.W. 681 (Ky. 1917), a breeder who had promised a horse jockey money if he won a race was allowed to renege on the promise because the jockey already had a professional duty to try to win. Likewise, if you promise the police a reward if they bring the person who burgled your house to justice, they already have a preexisting duty to bring the criminal to justice. There's a small window here to argue the opposite if the dad was trying to induce something above and beyond what the judge ordered. united-states
Some are, some aren't. For instance, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits all employment discrimination on the basis of race, including discrimination against whites. On the other hand, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act explicitly only protects people who are at least 40, and the Supreme Court held that it only applies to discrimination against older workers in favor of younger workers in General Dynamics v. Cline. While both laws forbid discrimination on the basis of X, the Supreme Court held that Congress clearly meant to limit ADEA to discrimination against older workers. You specifically use veteran status as an example. Veteran status is protected by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The point of the law is explicitly to make it easier for people to serve in uniform without messing up their career. The law specifically bans discrimination against veterans (or a couple other service-related categories) on the basis of service. It does not ban discrimination in favor of veterans. In fact, the federal government (which is supposed to be a model employer under USERRA) gives veterans a preference in hiring decisions. Congress's goal in enacting Title VII was to make race a non-factor in employment; their goal with USERRA was to encourage military service.
A private college or university is allowed to grant preferential treatment to anyone they please, except for oen of the reasons prohibited by relevant anti-discrimination law. Such laws vary by state, but generally prohibit preferences based on race, national origin, or gender. Some also include sexual preference or other categories. But I have never heard of a law preventing discrimination based on wealth, or specific donations. None of the Federal civil rights acts have such a provision. Preferences for so-called "legacy" students -- that is students whose parent or parents (or possibly more remote ancestors) are alumni of the school are common, and I am not aware of any case in which they have been seriously challenged as unlawful discrimination. Preferences for military veterans are also common, and may be mandated for public schools. For public schools justifying discrimination might be harder, and any relevant legislative polices will need to be considered, but even they can be free to make "rational" distinctions at least. Not all discrimination is unlawful discrimination -- far from it.
No this is not a violation of discrimination law as there is no official language (de jure) in the United States at the Federal Level even though English, as the most common language is considered the National Language (de facto). Language is not a Federally recognized basis of discrimination for private business (your local state may require it though). Compared to Canada, where all services must be in English or French to comply with their Official Languages being English and French. It could be argued that, given America's very liberal Freedom of Speech laws, that requiring catering to a specific language by law could be challenged as a violation of your First Amendment Rights (after all, if you have freedom of speech, then you should have freedom of speech that others do not understand). Since there is nothing stopping an English Speaking American from learning the language you wish to do business in, nor is it confined to any race or religion (I, as a predominotly European descent, am perfectly capable of learning Arabic... or Japanese... or Navajo...). Where the confusion comes from is that in the United States, courts will often provide a linguistic interpreter for those who are not native English Speakers (even if they are conversational, given how technical legal terms can be, it may people who speak English as a Second Language will avail themselves of this service for the sake of making sure the nuance is properly translated).
Lying is protected in the United States You can make films (or write books etc.) denying the Holocaust, or stating that UFOs are alien spacecraft, or that one race/ethnicity/gender is smarter/stronger/better than another without fear of government sanction. Further, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech is protected in the United States - if you want to advocate that the members of [group] should be sterilized/deported/euthanased/violently murdered etc., feel free. What isn't protected is: &quot;advocacy of the use of force&quot; when it is &quot;directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action&quot; and is &quot;likely to incite or produce such action&quot;. Broadly, &quot;kill all [blanks]&quot; is OK, &quot;kill these [blanks] now&quot; isn't. This also means that inciting a suicide is illegal, some types of false statements of fact, counterfeiting is not protected speech, obscenity/indecency, child pornography, fighting words, threatening the President, speech owned by others (i.e. copyrights and trademarks), commercial speech (e.g. false advertising). There are also limitations that the government may impose when it is acting in specific roles. For example, as an employer, the government can restrict the speech of its employees in ways that it can't for general citizens. Private individuals and organisations can sanction or ostracize you however they want. Holocaust denial is reasonably common among white supremacists and other anti-Semitic groups and they produce films and literature on the subject. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum devotes this web page to it. Of course, while it's legal to make these things in the United States, distribution of them in Portugal is against Portuguese law.
It is discrimination. However, it is legal, and generally not grounds for a lawsuit. Discrimination is legal, except when it is based upon certain specific categories, such as race, sex, and religion. For example, it is perfectly legal to discriminate for a position based on the possession of education degrees, skill certification or availability to work specific hours or days of the week. Immigration status (and specifically, needing a H1B sponsor in the future) is not a protected category, and as such it is legal to discriminate against this as a factor. Additionally, there are several downsides for hiring a H1B candidate, and foremost of which is sponsoring someone for an H1B visa is not a sure thing, since the H1B system is run as a lottery; as such, you may not receive a visa or extension, and thus be ineligible to legally work.
Yes Businesses (and consumers) can choose who to do business with and what information they ask for and disclose and when they do that. If you’re uncomfortable with how they do business, don’t deal with them. If they don’t like how you do business, they are free not to deal with you. This is called discrimination. However, it is not unlawful because only discrimination against a person due to membership of a protected classes is unlawful. This person “won’t answer my questions” is not discrimination based on a protected class (unless they are a monk who has taken a vow of silence).