Seating in a restaurant: discrimination? I am an Asian. I went into a restaurant. There were full of empty tables. I tried to seat in one of these table. Then the madame of the restaurant came to me and asked whether I would be having a lunch. I explained I was having a coffee. Then the madame told me to move to the back seat of restaurants without proper tables and chairs. Is it a discrimination?
Is it discrimination? Yes, because discrimination is a broad term that covers any situation where someone might reserve something under specific criteria. In this case, it sounds like the restaurant reserves tables for people who will be eating. If you'e only having coffee, they only allow you in a certain section. Unless you live in some city with a very strange law that prevents discrimination based on what you plan to order, there is nothing illegal about doing that. Discriminating based on your order is not a protected class by the federal government. If you're trying to claim that you were discriminated against based on race, you have to actually prove that happened somehow. Based on your summary of the situation, it doesn't sound like that is what happened. Simply being of another race does not automatically qualify it as racial discrimination. As an example, finding proof might involve asking or looking around to see if "tables are for people ordering food only" is an established restaurant policy that applies to everyone. If there's a sign up somewhere, then it's clear they were just following a policy.
Your bank is not discriminating against you. Your reasons for not having the required amount of funds pass thru your account has nothing to do with your marital status. In general, it's problematic to make a chain-of-cause-and-effect argument for discrimination. For example. Your argument is analogous to the following. My boss fired me for being late to work. But I was late to work because my child woke up late and missed the school bus; so I had to drive her to school. Therefore, my boss fired me for having children. That type of chain-of-cause-and-effect argument for discrimination just doesn't hold water. It is non sequitur and a requires a leap of logic.
This is the overview of employment discrimination by the EEOC (no legal reason for them to specifically put this under &quot;youth&quot;). To &quot;discriminate&quot; against someone means to treat that person differently, or less favorably, for some reason... The laws enforced by EEOC protect you from employment discrimination when it involves: Unfair treatment because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, disability, age (age 40 or older), or genetic information. Harassment by managers, co-workers, or others in your workplace, because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, disability, age (age 40 or older), or genetic information. A subtype of harassment is &quot;hostile environment harassment&quot;. See the EEOC page on harassment. It is unwelcome conduct that is based on race... Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Also it is illegal to punish a person for complaining about harassment. On the face of it, this could constitute racial harassment. The EEOC suggests that it is illegal here, in their FAQ Are White employees protected from race discrimination even though they are not a minority? Yes. You are protected from different treatment at work on the basis of your race, whether you are White, Black, or some other race. Although this is an advisory from the Dep't of Interior and not the EEOC, it is reasonable to assume that it was at least minimally vetted by competent lawyers who know discrimination law. What is prohibited is Unwelcome conduct, verbal or physical, including intimidation, ridicule, insult, comments, or physical conduct, that is based on an individual’s protected status or protected activities under Personnel Bulletin 18-01, when the behavior can reasonably be considered to adversely affect the work environment, or an employment decision affecting the employee is based upon the employee’s acceptance or rejection of such conduct (where race is a protected status). I don't know of any case law that establishes for certain that what you describe is illegal. The ministerial exception allows a religion to follow the rules of the religion in hiring its ministers, but otherwise doesn't exempt religions from prohibitions against discrimination.
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).
The default rule is that a landlord can refuse to rent to anyone for any reason, in which case the landlord can refuse to rent in this case. There are civil rights laws that limit this discretion in the case, for example, of discrimination based on race, or family status. But, those laws often have exemptions for owners of small amounts of property (e.g. a unit in their own home), which can't easily be determined from the question. If a civil rights law applies, the landlord must choose among potential renters on a non-discriminatory basis - the landlord doesn't have to rent to anyone in particular, but can't use the prohibited reasons to make the choice. If the default rule does not apply because a civil rights law unrelated to immigration bars discrimination against a tenant, someone's undocumented immigrant status probably doesn't provide an absolute defense to the civil rights law, but might be one factor among many that a landlord could consider in choosing among available tenants in much the same way that credit ratings, income, and a prospective tenant's criminal record, and other factors might be considered.
This is largely a matter of state law. In California, for example, this would be plainly unlawful (my emphasis): All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. (Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code section 51) Other states may define "business" more narrowly, or exclude professional services. Also, there is the question of professional ethics. Discriminating against a racial group will likely run afoul of the rules of the licensing board, the AMA, the APA, and other organizations. Finally, remind your friend that every racist has what they regard as good reasons for their racism, and your friend is not special in that regard.
This is unlawful sex discrimination In fact, its incredibly close to the example given on this website: A nightclub allows women in for free but you have to pay because you’re a man. This is unlawful discrimination because of your sex. How do they get away with it? Did you complain or report them? No? That’s how.
It ultimately depends on what Congress said when the relevant law was passed pertaining to that form of discrimination, how the enforcing agency has written the regulations, orders that have been issued, and how the courts have interpreted the law and regulations. EEOC Notice 915.002 states that Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), an employer may ask disability-related questions and require medical examinations of an applicant only after the applicant has been given a conditional job offer. Such questions must be "job-related and consistent with business necessity". There is a statutory underpinning to this declaration, 42 USC 12112(d) that The prohibition against discrimination as referred to in subsection (a) shall include medical examinations and inquiries and Except as provided in paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability. except that A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions. EEOC also says that In general, it is assumed that pre-employment requests for information will form the basis for hiring decisions. Therefore, employers should not request information that discloses or tends to disclose an applicant's race unless it has a legitimate business need for such information. Such inquiries are illegal in the sense that the EEOC "prohibits" it, and in the case of disability there is a direct statutory mandate to prohibit it. There is a legal principle, "Chevron deference", that says that the courts should defer to an agency's interpretation as long as Congress hasn't directly addressed the question and the interpretation is not unreasonable. Title 29(A)(35)(B) states the standards for detecting age discrimination for entities receiving federal funds, and while age discrimination is illegal, asking a person's age is not prohibited by specific regulation. The EEOC provides this manual regarding general race and color discrimination, and the section on "Evaluating employment decisions", where they say determining whether race played a role in the decisionmaking requires examination of all of the surrounding facts and circumstances. The presence or absence of any one piece of evidence often will not be determinative. So asking a person's race is not per se a violation of the law, but it is an act interpreted by the EEOC to be evidence of race discrimination. On the other hand, asking about disability is totally illegal so there's no "totality of evidence" to the process. The footnotes in the manual point to relevant case law: there is no case law that says "asking a questions about a protected category is per se proof of discrimination", but it can be used as part of a pattern of evidence.