Non-Discrimination Wording Is Screwy

The USDA non-discrimination statement keeps growing.  I think I remember when it was first added to our releases. 

I copied it from a recent notice and restructured it to try to figure it out:


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers,
employees, and applicants for employment on the basis of[:]

race,
color,
national origin,
age,
disability,
sex,
gender identity,
religion,
reprisal,1/

and [on the basis of ]where applicable:2/

political beliefs,
marital status,
familial or parental status,
sexual orientation,

or all or part of an individual’s income is
derived from any public assistance program,3/

or protected genetic information in employment 4/

or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. 5/

(Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)6/

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, write to the address below or if you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and wish to file either an EEO or program complaint, please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish)


Footnotes (mine).

1/  I assume "reprisal" means reprisal for whistleblowing.  I doubt most people would know that.

2/ I don't understand the "where applicable"?  I could see it applying to "reprisal", because USDA has only a few whistleblowers, but everyone has a marital status, familial status, and a sexual orientation.

3/ One rule in writing sentences is that the different parts (I forget--is this the direct object) must tie back to the beginning.  They could fix it by inserting "whether" before "all or..."

4/  Presumably USDA is vowing not to use genetic information in deciding whether to employ a person, like avoiding hiring someone who's doomed to develop a fatal disease quickly, but it doesn't tie back.

5/  No idea how this is supposed to fit--maybe they're saying USDA offices won't favor a USDA employee, but it certainly doesn't say that.

6/  This parenthetical would do the work of the "where applicable".