Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-2 (2026)

Legislative findings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The practice or policy of discrimination against individuals because of their race or color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, age, or country of ancestral origin is a matter of state concern. Such discrimination foments domestic strife and unrest; threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the state; and undermines the foundations of a free democratic state. The denial of equal employment opportunities because of such discrimination and the consequent failure to utilize the productive capacities of individuals to their fullest extent deprive large segments of the population of the state of earnings necessary to maintain decent standards of living, necessitates their resort to public relief, and intensifies group conflicts, thereby resulting in grave injury to the public safety, health, and welfare.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1999–2015 · leading case: Carmella Bucci v. Hurd Buick Pontiac GMC Truck, LLC, 85 A.3d 1160 (R.I. 2014).
Carmella Bucci v. Hurd Buick Pontiac GMC Truck, LLC, 85 A.3d 1160 (R.I. 2014). · cites it 6× “” Section 28-5-2. Further, the Legislature declared that it is “the public policy of this state to foster the employment of all individuals in this state in accordance with their fullest capacities, regardless of their * * * age * * * and to safeguard their right to obtain and…”
Folan v. State/dcyf, 723 A.2d 287 (R.I. 1999). · cites it 4× “Section 28-5-2. The FEPA is designed to assure equal employment opportunities for all persons by eliminating discriminatory practices.”
Reynalda Weeks v. 735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC d/b/a Greenville Skilled Nursing & Rehab., 85 A.3d 1147 (R.I. 2014). · cites it 6× “” Section 28-5-2. The General Assembly has sounded neither an uncertain nor a muted trumpet in this domain; it has clearly manifested *1159 an intent of the highest order to extirpate discrimination in employment in view of its deleterious effect on individuals and on society…”
Henrikson v. Town of East Greenwich ex rel. Raposa, 94 F. Supp. 3d 180 (D.R.I. 2015). · cites it 2× “G.L. § 28-5-2. .A "pretext for discrimination” combines two discrete notions: "(1) that the employer’s articulated reason for the job action is a pretext, and (2) that the true reason is discrimi *196 natory.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.