When employers fire workers because of their race, sex, age, disability, or other protected characteristics, those terminations violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Discriminatory termination claims allow employees to challenge these illegal firings and recover compensation for the harm caused by an employer's bias.

Protected Characteristics Under Federal Law

Federal employment discrimination laws prohibit termination based on specific protected characteristics. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers race, color, national origin, religion, and sex, with courts increasingly interpreting sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects workers 40 and older, and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.

State laws often provide broader protections, adding categories like marital status, political affiliation, and sexual orientation in jurisdictions where federal law may not clearly apply. Checking both federal and state law helps identify all potentially applicable protections.

Proving Discriminatory Termination

Discriminatory termination cases rarely involve direct evidence of bias, such as an employer explicitly stating they're firing someone because of their race or age. Instead, plaintiffs typically prove discrimination through circumstantial evidence using the burden-shifting framework courts have developed. Under this framework, plaintiffs first establish a prima facie case, then employers must articulate legitimate reasons for termination, and plaintiffs must show those reasons are pretextual.

Establishing a prima facie case typically requires showing that you belonged to a protected class, were qualified for your position, suffered an adverse employment action, and the circumstances suggest discrimination. Evidence of pretext might include inconsistent explanations from the employer, deviation from standard procedures, more favorable treatment of employees outside your protected class, or statements suggesting discriminatory attitudes.

Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact

Disparate treatment discrimination occurs when employers intentionally treat employees differently because of protected characteristics. This is the most common theory in individual termination cases. You must show that your protected status was a motivating factor in the termination decision, even if other factors also contributed.

Disparate impact claims challenge facially neutral policies that disproportionately affect protected groups without business justification. While more common in hiring cases, disparate impact theory can apply to termination decisions when employers use criteria that disproportionately result in firing members of protected classes.

Administrative Requirements

Before filing discrimination lawsuits in federal court, employees must file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and receive a right-to-sue letter. EEOC charges must generally be filed within 180 or 300 days of the discriminatory act, depending on your state. This administrative exhaustion requirement preserves your right to sue, and missing these deadlines can bar your claims entirely.

State fair employment agencies provide additional administrative processes, sometimes with different deadlines and procedures. Working with an attorney helps ensure you meet all filing requirements and preserve your options.

Remedies for Discriminatory Termination

Successful plaintiffs may recover back pay, front pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress, and in cases of intentional discrimination, punitive damages. Reinstatement to your former position is theoretically available but rarely practical when relationships have deteriorated. Caps on compensatory and punitive damages under federal law depend on employer size, ranging from $50,000 for small employers to $300,000 for the largest companies.

Prevailing plaintiffs typically also recover attorney's fees, making it practical to retain experienced employment lawyers on contingency despite the costs of complex litigation.