Mississippi — Workplace Discrimination

Employment discrimination claims in Mississippi alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, religion, sex, national origin), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (age 40+), the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act must be filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC enforces these federal statutes and accepts charges of discrimination on these bases. Charges must be filed within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act in Mississippi, because the state does not have a Fair Employment Practices Agency with which the EEOC maintains a work-sharing agreement (states with such agencies allow 300 days).

Change as of June 2026 — new federal enforcement priorities and disparate-impact enforcement shift:

• The EEOC adopted its National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for Fiscal Years 2025–2029 on June 4, 2026, superseding the prior 2024–2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan and updating national enforcement and litigation priorities. Practitioners should consult the NEP for changes in federal focus and prioritized discrimination claims.
• On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel released an opinion concluding that certain longstanding EEOC guidelines on disparate-impact liability violate the Constitution. Employers and practitioners should monitor for further guidance regarding the enforceability of disparate-impact claims in federal employment law, as the immediate effect and agency implementation are in flux.

Source: Filing a Charge of Discrimination, EEOC | National Enforcement Plan FY 2025-2029, EEOC | DOJ OLC Press Release (June 9, 2026) | How to File a Charge, EEOC | Filing a Complaint (Youth), EEOC

Mississippi has not enacted a comprehensive private-sector employment discrimination statute. As of June 2026, employees alleging workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (except for pay), national origin, age (40+), disability, or genetic information must rely on federal statutes enforced by the EEOC, not state law. This was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Thomas v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company (2020), which held that "discrimination claims must be brought under federal law" absent legislative creation of a state remedy.

Exception: Mississippi Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (2022) Mississippi law does provide a limited state-level cause of action through the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (Miss. Code § 71-17-1 et seq.), effective July 1, 2022. This Act covers only sex-based pay discrimination (wages for equal work), and requires employees to waive state-law relief if they also bring a federal Equal Pay Act claim. No state anti-discrimination protection exists for other protected classes or for employment actions other than wage disparities based on sex.

Material update – Pending law (Senate Bill 2137, 2026 session): The Mississippi Legislature is currently considering SB 2137, which, if enacted, would significantly expand anti-discrimination protections for private-sector employees starting July 1, 2026. SB 2137 would broaden the Equal Pay Act to cover additional protected characteristics and wage practices; create new employer prohibitions and a retaliation bar; and establish enforcement and mediation by the Department of Employment Security, including punitive damages. Practitioners should check the bill status after the 2026 session for confirmation and details on the final law text.

Source: Thomas v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co., No. 2019-CA-00317-SCT (Miss. Aug. 13, 2020) Source: Miss. Code § 71-17-1 et seq., Effective July 1, 2022 Source: SB 2137 (2026) – Mississippi Legislature

Not yet human confirmed. If SB 2137 is enacted, a further update will be required after July 1, 2026.

Mississippi enacted the Mississippi Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (Miss. Code § 71-17-1 et seq.) effective July 1, 2022, creating the state's only comprehensive private-sector employment discrimination protection. The Act prohibits employers from paying employees of opposite sexes unequal wages for equal work requiring equal skill, education, effort, and responsibility performed under similar working conditions.

Coverage and definitions

The Act applies to employers with five or more employees. "Employee" is defined narrowly: only individuals employed to work 40 or more hours per week qualify for protection under the statute. Part-time workers (fewer than 40 hours weekly) have no state-law claim under this Act, though they remain covered by the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (which has no hours threshold).

The statute defines "equal work" using the four-factor federal EPA framework—equal skill, education, effort, and responsibility performed under similar working conditions—and provides that published precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court, Fifth Circuit, and district courts embracing the circuit court deciding cases under the federal EPA are mandatory authority for Mississippi courts interpreting the state Act until the Mississippi Supreme Court or Court of Appeals rules to the contrary.

Permitted wage differentials

Pay differentials based on sex are lawful when the employer demonstrates payment was made pursuant to:

• A seniority system;
• A merit system;
• A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or
• Any other factor other than sex.

"Any other factor other than sex" expressly includes the employee's salary history or continuity of employment history, competition with other employers for the employee's services, and the extent to which the employee attempted to negotiate for higher wages. The inclusion of salary-history factors distinguishes Mississippi from states that prohibit salary-history inquiries; Mississippi employers may lawfully ask about and rely on prior compensation when setting wages.

Election-of-remedies requirement

The Act contains an unusual procedural constraint. An employee who brings a claim under the federal Equal Pay Act may not maintain a separate action under the Mississippi Act. If an employee brings a Mississippi claim first and later initiates a federal EPA claim, the state action is dismissed with prejudice. Employees seeking relief under the state Act must first waive any right to relief under the federal EPA.

This election-of-remedies rule is opposite to most state employment laws, which allow concurrent or successive claims. Practitioners advising employees on pay-discrimination claims must evaluate which forum offers better remedies before filing—the federal EPA allows two-year (or three-year for willful violations) lookback and potential liquidated damages; the state Act allows a two-year statute of limitations from the date the employee knew or should have known of the violation.

Civil enforcement and retaliation prohibition

Employees enforce the Act through civil suits filed in circuit court in the county where the discrimination occurred. The Act prohibits employers from discharging, discriminating against, or retaliating against any employee for invoking or assisting in enforcement of the Act. Employers who are found to be paying a wage differential in violation of the Act may not remedy the violation by reducing the wage rate of any employee.

The EEOC, in a July 1, 2022 publication, noted that Mississippi's new state law "only protects workers against sex discrimination in pay, is otherwise narrower than the federal protections available to workers in Mississippi and provides broad defenses to employers." Employees alleging pay discrimination on bases other than sex (race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information) must rely exclusively on federal statutes—Mississippi has no state-law remedy for those claims.

Source: Miss. Code § 71-17-1 to 71-17-7, HB 770 (2022) | Equal Pay Protections for Mississippi Workers, EEOC

Most major federal anti-discrimination laws apply only to employers meeting a defined size threshold. Some also cover state and local government employers, but the rules (and litigation on those rules) are not perfectly parallel. Here are the foundational coverage thresholds for private employers and public-sector nuances, per statute and as tracked by the EEOC:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—Covers private employers with 15 or more employees (each working day in at least 20 weeks in the current or prior calendar year). State and local governments, employment agencies, and labor organizations are also covered under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)–(b); there is no statutory exclusion for small governments. (The 15-employee count applies, but courts have sometimes wrestled with who is a "person engaged in an industry affecting commerce.")

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—Covers private employers with 15 or more employees for each working day in at least 20 weeks in the current or previous year (42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)). Two-step rollout: from July 26, 1992 to July 25, 1994, the threshold was 25+ employees; after July 26, 1994, it dropped to 15+ (§ 12111(5)(A)). ADA Title II, concerning state and local governments, broadly covers public entities regardless of size.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)—Uses the same 15+ employee/20-week rule as Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(2)(B)).

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)—Covers private employers with 20 or more employees (20 or more weeks in current or previous calendar year; 29 U.S.C. § 630(b)), and also public agencies (state and local governments) and the federal government. The ADEA's coverage of state/local governments does not turn on the 20-employee threshold for most public enforcement, but when suing for damages, courts have scrutinized whether the threshold matters (see EEOC Section 2 guidance).

Counting employees: For all these statutes, “employee” generally means any individual employed by an employer, but courts and the EEOC have applied a payroll-method standard: if the person appears on the payroll in a given week, they count for that week, even if not actively working the whole time.

Summary Table (with cites):

• Title VII: 15+ employees (20 weeks) ([42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)])
• ADA: 15+ employees (20 weeks, 25+ until 7/26/94) ([42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)])
• GINA: 15+ employees (20 weeks) ([42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(2)(B)])
• ADEA: 20+ employees (20 weeks, mainly private sector) ([29 U.S.C. § 630(b)])

Source: EEOC Section 2: Threshold Issues | 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) | 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5) | 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(2)(B) | 29 U.S.C. § 630(b)

Unable to confirm as of 2026-06-16.

Mississippi law draws a distinction between state-service employees and other public-sector workers (such as local government or public school employees) in its anti-discrimination protections.

State-service employment: Mississippi Code § 25-9-149 declares it is “the intent of the Legislature that no person seeking employment in state service, as defined in Section 25-9-107, or employed in state service, shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or handicap.” While the statute sets an anti-discrimination policy for state agencies, it does not prescribe a private cause of action or a claim process—the Mississippi Supreme Court has not recognized an implied damages remedy, and enforcement appears to rest with the State Personnel Board or internal agency review, not direct court action. (The state-law overlay, while clear in policy, lacks the procedural bite of comprehensive state fair employment statutes seen in other states.)

Disability-specific public sector protection: Mississippi Code § 43-6-15 prohibits discrimination based on physical disability in state service, in employment by political subdivisions (local governments), in public schools, and in any employment supported wholly or partly by public funds. The language is broad, but as with § 25-9-149, the statute does not outline a specific remedy or enforcement procedure in court. The text simply forbids refusal to employ on certain disability grounds; whether this provision supplies a stand-alone state-law claim for damages, or merely a policy to inform agency action, is not resolved by the statute or by controlling cases.

Practical consequence:

• State employees (state service): protected by Mississippi statute against discrimination on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap, but enforcement is internal and limited—there is no explicit damages remedy or claim process created by these statutes.
• Other public employees (local government, public schools): protected by statute against disability discrimination in hiring or employment, but coverage for race, age, or other categories is not extended beyond state service. For those bases (other than disability), public employees generally must rely on federal statutes (such as Title VII, ADEA, ADA).

The Mississippi Code is silent as to a state-law damages remedy or comprehensive anti-discrimination claim for local government employees on non-disability grounds.

Source: [Miss. Code Ann. § 25-9-149](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b05486e7-06a1-4e44-8f3e-346afa72db82&nodeid=ABRACKAAGAAB&nodepath=%2FROOT%2FABRACKAAGAAB&title=25-9-149.+Discrimination+prohibited&config=014EJAA1TkYzZTg2YS0xZDNiLTQ4NWYtOTY3Zi04ZDUwZTYwOGFhYTcKAFBvZENhdGFsb2fG7E3krwAAQAFo0EBQIMhAxMzEyZjk0MC1kNGY5LTQzZGEtOGVhOS03ZDQyZjMwMmEyZGM%3D&searchwithin=%22discrimination%22&searchtype=kelowna&parentdocid=Z3SETG7PB340BH8H00000