Search This Blog

Saturday, November 26, 2022

Equality Act (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Equality Act
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleTo prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.
Announced inthe 117th United States Congress
Number of co-sponsors224
Legislative history

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia protects gay and transgender people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. The Bostock ruling also covered the Altitude Express and Harris Funeral Homes cases.

The bill would also expand existing civil rights protections for people of color by prohibiting discrimination in more public accommodations, such as exhibitions, goods and services, and transportation.

Much like the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, the Equality Act broadly defines sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, adding "pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes". The bill also defines this to include the intersex community. The intended purpose of the act is to legally protect individuals from discrimination based on such.

While various similar bills have been proposed since the 1970s, the modern version of the Equality Act was first proposed in the 114th United States Congress. During the 116th Congress, it passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote. However, the United States Senate did not act upon the bill after receiving it; even if they had, then-President Donald Trump signaled that he would have vetoed it. On February 18, 2021, the act was reintroduced in the 117th Congress. The House passed the act by a vote of 224 to 206 on February 25, 2021, with support from three Republicans. The bill then moved on to the Senate for consideration.

Purpose and content

The Equality Act would uniformly apply anti-LGBT discrimination law in the United States. State anti-discrimination laws as of May 2019:
  State law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment, private employment, housing, and provision of goods and services
  State law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation (but not gender identity) in public employment, private employment, housing, and provision of goods and services
  State law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public and private employment, but not in other areas such as housing and provision of goods and services
  State law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Some states have similar executive orders, but their scope is limited to only cover public state employees against discrimination.

As of 2020, 29 states had not outlawed anti-LGBT discrimination, with members of the LGBT community being given little protection at a national level and two-thirds of LGBT Americans in the United States reported facing or having experienced discrimination in their personal lives. The Equality Act seeks to legally protect individuals from such discrimination, applying existing state anti-LGBT discrimination laws nationwide.

The Equality Act seeks to incorporate protections against LGBT discrimination into the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, it prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federally funded programs, employment, housing, credit, and jury service.

It also seeks to expand existing civil rights protections for people of color, women, and other minority groups by updating the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide:

  • Exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public display
  • Goods, services, or programs
  • Transportation services

According to the text of the act as introduced in the 117th Congress, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity by governments violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, saying:

Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In many circumstances, such discrimination also violates other constitutional rights such as those of liberty and privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

History

Early history (1970s–1990s)

The original Equality Act was developed by U.S. Representatives Bella Abzug (D-NY) and Ed Koch (D-NY) in 1974. The Equality Act of 1974 (H.R. 14752 of the 93rd Congress) sought to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and marital status in federally assisted programs, housing sales, rentals, financing, and brokerage services. The bill authorized civil actions by the Attorney General of the United States in cases of discrimination on account of sex, sexual orientation, or marital status in public facilities and public education. On June 27, 1974, H.R. 14752 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, but did not proceed to a vote in the full United States House of Representatives.

From 1994, the more narrow Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was introduced, but faced opposition over whether transgender Americans would be protected. An expanded version of ENDA which included both sexual orientation and changed sex to gender identity in its protections passed the United States Senate in 2013, but did not advance in the House.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (2020)

On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against gay and transgender people in employment. LGBTQ rights advocates welcomed the ruling and reaffirmed support for passage of the Equality Act, stating that the ruling only covered employment, and in many states LGBTQ people still lack non-discrimination protections in housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and jury service which would be covered under the Equality Act. The ruling said that the Civil Rights Act protects "gay and transgender" people in matters of employment but left the terms undefined.

Public opinion

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in May/June 2019 found that most Americans do not know that LGBT people lack federal protections. Only one-third of respondents knew that such protections do not exist on the basis of transgender identity, and only one-quarter knew that they don't exist on the basis of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity.

A nationwide and state-by-state poll on the issue conducted throughout 2017 by the Public Religion Research Institute as part of the annual American Values Atlas survey said that 70% of Americans, including a majority in every state, supported laws that would protect LGBT people against discrimination, while 23% opposed such laws, and 8% had no opinion. A 2020 PRRI poll said 83% of Americans would favor such anti-discrimination laws, and specifically regarding discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. 16% of Americans oppose such laws. Support for such anti-discrimination laws was at 94% for Democrats, 85% for independents, and 68% for Republicans. According to a 2021 PRRI survey, about 22% of Americans support religious exemptions for business owners pertaining to anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation, while about 76% of Americans oppose such exemptions.

A poll conducted by Quinnipiac University in April 2019 found that 92% of American voters believed that employers should not be allowed to fire someone based on their sexual orientation or sexual identity, while only 6% believed that employers should be allowed to do so. A wide consensus on this question was found among both Democratic and Republican voters, as well as Independents, although Democratic voters were slightly more likely to believe that this kind of discrimination should be illegal, with only 1% of them believing that employers should be allowed to fire someone based on their sexual orientation or sexual identity.

Support and opposition

Support

The Equality Act is supported by more than 547 national, state and local organizations. These include national organizations related to human rights and social justice, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Anti-Defamation League, GLSEN, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, Southern Poverty Law Center, Lambda Legal, the Navajo Nation, the National Organization for Women, NAACP, and the AARP.

Supporting organizations include those from national professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Counseling Association, American Federation of Teachers, American Bar Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as the National PTA.

Calling for the bill's passage in 2016, the Civil Rights icon John Lewis said, "This legislation is what justice requires. This legislation is what justice demands. And like the Supreme Court's recent decision, it is long overdue ... We are a society committed to equal justice under the law. ... We have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

The act is supported by at least 503 American businesses and the US Chamber of Commerce. These include technology companies such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, IBM, Facebook, Airbnb, Twitter, Intel, Red Hat and Netflix. Other companies supporting the act include 3M, Kellogg's, Visa, Starbucks, Mastercard, Johnson & Johnson, Alaska Airlines, and American Airlines.

Furthermore, many celebrities have expressed their support for the Equality Act and urged Congress to pass it. These include Alexandra Billings, Karamo Brown, Gloria Calderón Kellett, Charlie Carver, Max Carver, Nyle DiMarco, Sally Field, Marcia Gay Harden, Dustin Lance Black, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jane Lynch, Justina Machado, Adam Rippon, Taylor Swift, Bella Thorne, and Jesse Tyler Ferguson.

Feminist and women's groups in favor of the Equality Act legislation include but are not limited to the National Organization for Women, 9to5: the National Association of Working Women, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, Feminist Majority, Girls, Inc., Jewish Women International, The National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, NARAL, MANA, A National Latina Organization, MomsRising, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), National Association for Female Executives, National Women's Health Network, National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood, Positive Women's Network-USA, and United State of Women to name a few.

The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence and over 250 anti-sexual assault organizations have condemned opponents' attempts to portray transgender people as sexual predators and contends it is untrue that protections for transgender people endanger women's safety and privacy. The Taskforce's joint letter was signed by over 250 survivor organizations in full support of full and equal access for the transgender community, including in restrooms and locker rooms. The letter notes the states and 200+ municipalities that have protected transgender people's access to facilities have not seen an increase in sexual violence and public safety incidents due to nondiscrimination laws. The letter also notes that anti-transgender initiatives put transgender people at further risk of assault.

The Women's Sports Foundation, the Women's National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA), Athlete Ally, along with Megan Rapinoe, Billie Jean King, Candace Parker and 176 current and former athletes in women's sports have spoken up for full LGBTQ inclusion in sports, including of transgender athletes.

Religious organizations and registered charities that have given public support to the act include Advocates for Youth, and various Catholic leaders and lobbying organizations such as Father James Martin S.J., Network, and DignityUSA. Catholic theologian and nun Joan Chittister released a statement saying that the Equality Act "must be passed, must be extended, and must be lived if religion itself is to be true". The Interfaith Alliance endorsed the Equality Act as part of "Faith for Equality", a coalition which provided a letter signed by over 17,000 religious Americans to Senator Chris Coons in support of the act.

Edith Guffey, a UCC minister and mother of a transgender, non-binary child testified to Congress in support of the Equality Act, saying "We should all be able to agree on this one thing, the law should treat all our children, God's children, equally. All of our children deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Every single one of us would go to the mat for our children. None of us wants them to be turned away or discriminated against for any reason."

Other faiths groups and organizations that have publicly supported the act include the Episcopal Church, The United Methodist Church, The United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, More Light Presbyterians, African American Ministers in Action, The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, The Union for Reform Judaism, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Muslims for Progressive Values, the Hindu American Foundation, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

At a 2021 Senate hearing for the Equality Act, 16-year-old Stella Keating became the first transgender teenager to testify before Congress saying, "Right now, I could be denied medical care or be evicted for simply being transgender in many states. ... What if I'm offered a dream job in a state where I can be discriminated against? Even if my employer is supportive, I still have to live somewhere. Eat in restaurants. Have a doctor", she added. "This is the United States of America. The country that I love. Every young person ... regardless of who they are or who they love, should be able to be excited about their future."

Opposition

Numerous political pundits and politicians have stated their opposition to the Equality Act at various times. Notable among these was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, which caused a brief political feud between her and Rep. Marie Newman. Greene had said in a speech that the proposed act "destroys God's creation, ... completely annihilates women's rights and religious freedoms", and "puts trans rights above women's rights".

Tucker Carlson called the Equality Act a "terrifying agenda that eliminates women". Candace Owens appeared on Carlson's Fox News talk show in the same segment and said about the Equality Act that Democrats "don't know what equality is".

Some single-issue women's groups have opposed the provision of the bill which defines sex to include gender identity. They say this endangers the "sex-based rights" of women and girls, including women's sports and women-only spaces such as locker rooms, prisons, and shelters. Among these groups has been the Women's Human Rights Campaign USA (WHRC USA), the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF), Feminists in Struggle (FiST), Standing for Women, and Save Women's Sports. They oppose the bill unless it is amended to protect sex and not gender identity. Both WHRC USA and FIST have proposed amendments to the act. Some of these organizations are funded by fundamentalist anti-LGBT hate groups (as designated by the SPLC) such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and have shifted messaging to sound more secular and feminist.

Georgia State University criminology professor Callie H. Burt published a paper in the June 2020 issue of Feminist Criminology in which she examined the potential effects of the Equality Act on women's rights. While saying the act is "laudable in its aims", Burt lamented the lack of scrutiny and discussion by Democratic representatives in Congress into the real consequences the act's "imprecise language" would bring to women: "The result is the erosion of females' provisions, which include sex-separated spaces (e.g., prisons, locker rooms, shelters), opportunities and competitions (e.g., awards, scholarships, sports), and events (e.g., meetings, groups, festivals)". She also said, "I submit that the bill, in current form, fails to strike a balance between the rights, needs, and interests of two marginalized (and overlapping) groups—trans people and females—and instead prioritizes the demands of trans people over the hard-won rights of female people."

The Economist stated in October 2020 that the act as written endangers the rights of women in areas such as sports, where they would be at a physical disadvantage having to compete against trans women, and in spaces previously segregated by biological sex, such as public bathrooms and prisons, stating that "parts of the bill appear to put the needs of transgender people above those of women. This is because the act redefines 'sex' in Title IX and other amendments of the Civil Rights Act to include 'gender identity; rather than making transgenderism a protected category of its own. Its definition of 'gender identity' is fuzzy and appears to downplay the reality of sex."

Law professor Douglas Laycock told NPR that the law is "less necessary" now, after the Bostock decision, and that the bill "protects the rights of one side, but attempts to destroy the rights of the other side."

Some religious leaders oppose the bill for various reasons, saying for example that it would infringe on religious liberty.

On March 20, 2019, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter addressed to the United States Senate that opposed the Equality Act on the grounds of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, among other concerns.

On May 7, 2019, a coalition of Christian organizations sent a letter to the House of Representatives to state opposition to the Equality Act, which they said "undermines religious freedom, and threatens charitable nonprofits and the people they serve, regulates free speech, hinders quality health care, and endangers the privacy and safety of women and girls." In addition to four committee chairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, signers included leaders from the Christian Legal Society, the Center for Law and Religious Freedom, the Center for Public Justice, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty (affiliated with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod), the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, and the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said that "The Equality Act is the most comprehensive assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy rights ever packaged into one bill." Donohue also stated his concern that "Catholic hospitals would no longer be allowed to govern as Catholic facilities, threatening healthcare for everyone, especially the poor."

On May 16, 2019, Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association sent a letter to lawmakers in the House expressing concern that the act, as written, would roll back religious liberty protections. "Federal law has long recognized that certain services can present conflict for some faith-based health care providers with religious or moral objections to providing those services, and protected them from having to do so. We are concerned that the Equality Act omits and could erode or reduce those protections." The legislation, she said, "lacks conscience protection language and precludes application of RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)."

The American Family Association published an article in April 2019 opposing the act.

On May 13, 2019, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement that read in part, "The Equality Act now before Congress is not balanced and does not meet the standard of fairness for all. While providing extremely broad protections for LGBT rights, the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom". In 2021, the LDS Church endorsed a competing bill, the Fairness for All Act. The competing bill would add faith-based exemptions to anti-discrimination law. Other than the LDS Church, its supporters have included the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.

The Heritage Foundation has argued that the act would adversely affect five groups of people (employers and workers; medical professionals; parents and children; non-profit organizations and their volunteers; and women), and they describe specific harms the Foundation believes each group would experience from the act's passage.

Presidents' stances

Barack Obama

President Obama and Vice President Biden voiced support for the Equality Act when it was first introduced in the 114th United States Congress.

Donald Trump

The Trump Administration opposed the Equality Act. In August 2019, the White House issued a statement, "The Trump Administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all; however, the House-passed bill in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights."

Joe Biden

President Biden and Vice President Harris are vocal defenders of the Equality Act, issuing a statement from the White House, "I applaud Congressman David Cicilline and the entire Congressional Equality Caucus for introducing the Equality Act in the House of Representatives yesterday, and I urge Congress to swiftly pass this historic legislation. Every person should be treated with dignity and respect, and this bill represents a critical step toward ensuring that America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all."

In March 2022 President Biden called for the passage of the Equality Act during the State Of The Union. On the March 2022 Trans Day of Visibility, the Biden administration announced that it was fighting for the passage of the Equality Act to advance the civil rights of trans Americans.

Legislative activity

114th Congress

On July 23, 2015, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R. 3185, the Equality Act of 2015, in the United States House of Representatives. The bill was supported by President Barack Obama. In January 2016, Rep. Bob Dold (R-IL) became the first Republican Representative to co-sponsor the bill. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) became the second Republican to co-sponsor the bill in September 2016. Jenniffer González (R-PR) also co-sponsored the bill.

On July 23, 2015, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced S. 1858, the Equality Act of 2015, in the United States Senate. In January 2016, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) became the first and only Republican Senator to co-sponsor the bill. All Democrats and Independents cosponsored the bill with the exception of Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Jon Tester (D-MT).

115th Congress

On May 2, 2017, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R. 2282, the Equality Act of 2017, in the United States House of Representatives. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) was the only Republican to co-sponsor the bill from the outset, with Rep. Scott Taylor (R-VA) becoming the second Republican to co-sponsor the bill on May 26, 2017.

On May 2, 2017, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced S. 1006, the Equality Act of 2017, in the United States Senate. All Democrats and Independents cosponsored the bill with the exceptions of Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Joe Manchin (D-WV).

116th Congress

On March 13, 2019, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R. 5, the Equality Act of 2019, in the United States House of Representatives. The bill is sponsored by 237 Democrats and 3 Republicans. On May 1, 2019, the bill passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 22-10, with all Democratic members of the committee voting in favor and all Republican members against. A vote by the full House was held on May 17, 2019; the vote carried with 236 votes for and 173 against. Eight Republicans voted in favor of the bill and no Democrats opposed it.

On March 13, 2019, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced S. 788, the Equality Act of 2019, in the United States Senate. The bill was sponsored by 43 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 1 Republican.

117th Congress

On February 18, 2021, H.R. 5 was reintroduced to the House of Representatives. It was passed by the House for the second time on February 25, 2021, and now moves on to the Senate. Notable speeches were heard by, among others, Nancy Pelosi, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Marie Newman. Among Republican Representatives, only Tom Reed, John Katko, and Brian Fitzpatrick voted in favor; fewer than in the previous Congress. Mario Díaz-Balart and Elise Stefanik previously voted in favor but now voted against.

On February 23, 2021, a companion bill, S. 393, was introduced in the Senate. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it awaits debate. It has, as of February 26, 2021, 48 co-sponsors.

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States

Map of states that have sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public and/or private employment via statute, executive order, regulation, and/or case law:
  Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public and private employment
  Gender identity discrimination prohibited in public and private employment; sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in public employment only
  Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in public and private employment
  Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public employment only
  Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in public employment only

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

Federal employees and law

Presidents have established certain protections for some employees of the federal government by executive order. It was not for years that a president did in fact establish an executive order in order to protect LGBT discrimination in the work force. In 1995, President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12968 establishing criteria for the issuance of security clearances included sexual orientation for the first time in its non-discrimination language: "The United States Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information." It also said that "no inference" about suitability for access to classified information "may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee." Clinton's Executive Order 13087 in 1998 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce. It applied to employees of the government of the District of Columbia and the United States Postal Service and to civilian employees of the armed forces, but not to certain excepted services, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Clinton acknowledged its limitations in a statement:

The Executive Order states Administration policy but does not and cannot create any new enforcement rights (such as the ability to proceed before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Those rights can be granted only by legislation passed by the Congress, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It was Obama's wish to further attend to LGBT civil rights not only through legislation, but also the executive branch. In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow gender identity-based employment discrimination because it is a form of sex discrimination. In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow sexual orientation discrimination in employment because it is a form of sex discrimination.

In March 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in EEOC v. RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes that transgender people are protected by federal sex discrimination laws. By August of that year, 16 states had joined an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case as R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the 2019-2020 term.

On March 31, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in the case of TerVeer v. Billington, that Peter TerVeer can sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that bans sex discrimination, claiming that he faced discrimination after his boss found out that he was gay. Title VII does not explicitly protect against sexual orientation discrimination, but Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling leaves that a person could bring a claim under Title VII's ban on sex discrimination because an employer views an employee's sexual orientation as "not consistent with acceptable gender roles."

On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce and both "sexual orientation" and gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors. On July 31, 2014, Obama also signed Executive Order 13673, "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces," requiring companies with large federal contracts to prove their compliance with labor laws; this executive order, however, was revoked by President Trump on March 27, 2017.

In 2017, the Trump administration, through the Department of Justice, reversed the Obama-era policy which used Title VII to protect transgender employees from discrimination.

A bill to ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), was introduced repeatedly in the U.S. Congress since 1994. Under the ENDA, it was illegal for an employer to discriminate against their employees due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Unlike the Equality Act of 1974, the main focus of the ENDA was to end employment discrimination. In 1994, the ENDA only made it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation. By 2007, discrimination based on gender identity had been added to the law as well. In 2015, a broader bill, the Equality Act, was introduced in place of this.

In March 2019, a group representing the Department of Justice's LGBTQ employees addressed a letter to Attorney General William Barr, complaining about the increasing hostility and discrimination towards the LGBTQ employees. The group also claimed that LGBTQ employees had left the department due to alleged mistreatment and that the department did nothing to recruit and retain top LGBTQ employees.

State law prior to Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

Pennsylvania became the first state to ban public sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1975. Wisconsin became the first state to ban both public and private sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1982. Minnesota became the first state to ban employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity when it passed the Human Rights Act in 1993. Currently, twenty-three states, the District of Columbia, and at least 400 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Twenty one states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have statutes that protect against both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment in the public and private sector: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Two states Michigan and Pennsylvania, have acquired such protections through executive orders, court rulings or binding decisions by their respective civil rights commissions.

In addition, two states, Indiana and Wisconsin prohibit discrimination on account of sexual orientation only; gender identity is not addressed. Indiana, in accordance with Hively v Ivy Tech Community College, a ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wisconsin through a statute enacted in 1982, which made Wisconsin the first state to have private employment protections for sexual orientation. Similarly to Indiana, the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, covering Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, have found sex protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include the category of gender identity.

Furthermore, 10 U.S. states have an executive order, administrative order, or personnel regulation prohibiting discrimination in public employment only based on either sexual orientation or gender identity: Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kansas. An additional 3 states have executive orders prohibiting discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation only: Alaska, Arizona, and Missouri.

The remaining states do not offer any type of discrimination protections for the LGBT community at the state level, although some cities and localities have passed their own ordinances within these states.

Chronological order

1972: No LGBT civil rights at the state level, although the first local protections were enacted this year in Michigan (in East Lansing and Ann Arbor).
1973: District of Columbia: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
1975: Pennsylvania: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1979: California: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1982: Wisconsin: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
1983: New York: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Ohio: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1985: New Mexico: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Rhode Island: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Washington: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1987: Oregon: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1988: Oregon: Sexual orientation no longer protected in state employment
1989: Massachusetts: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
1990: Colorado: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1991: Connecticut: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Hawaii: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Minnesota: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          New Jersey: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1992: California: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Louisiana: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          New Jersey: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Vermont: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Oregon: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
1993: Minnesota: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
1995: Maryland: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Rhode Island: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
1996: Illinois: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Louisiana: Sexual orientation no longer protected in state employment
1998: New Hampshire: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
1999: Iowa: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Nevada: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Ohio: Sexual orientation no longer protected in state employment
          Delaware: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Iowa: Sexual orientation and gender identity no longer protected in state employment
          Montana: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
2001: Indiana: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Maine: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          Maryland: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Rhode Island: Gender identity protected in all employment
2002: Alaska: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          New York: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
2003: Arizona: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          California: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Kentucky: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Michigan: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
          New Mexico: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Pennsylvania: Gender identity protected in state employment
2004: Indiana: Gender identity protected in state employment
          Louisiana: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
2005: Illinois: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Maine: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Virginia: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
2006: District of Columbia: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Kentucky: Sexual orientation and gender identity no longer protected in state employment
          New Jersey: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Washington: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
2007: Colorado: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Iowa: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Kansas: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Maryland: Gender identity protected in state employment
          Michigan: Gender identity protected in state employment
          Ohio: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Oregon: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Vermont: Gender identity protected in all employment
2008: Kentucky: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Louisiana: Sexual orientation no longer protected in state employment
2009: Delaware: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Delaware: Gender identity protected in state employment
          New York: Gender identity protected in state employment
2010: Virginia: Sexual orientation no longer protected in state employment
          Missouri: Sexual orientation protected in state employment
2011: Ohio: Gender identity no longer protected in state employment
          Massachusetts: Gender identity protected in state employment
          Hawaii: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Nevada: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Connecticut: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Alabama: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Florida: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Georgia: Gender identity protected in all employment
2012: Massachusetts: Gender identity protected in all employment
2013: Puerto Rico: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Delaware: Gender identity protected in all employment
2014: Virginia: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Maryland: Gender identity protected in all employment
2015: Kansas: Sexual orientation and gender identity no longer protected in state employment
          Utah: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Guam: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
2016: Montana: Gender identity protected in state employment
          New York: Gender identity protected in all employment
          North Carolina: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Louisiana: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          New Hampshire: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
2017: Indiana: Sexual orientation protected in all employment
          Louisiana: Sexual orientation and gender identity no longer protected in state employment
2018: Kentucky: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Michigan: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Ohio: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Tennessee: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Michigan: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          New Hampshire: Gender identity protected in all employment
          Pennsylvania: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment
          Ohio: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
2019: Wisconsin: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
          Kansas: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in state employment
2020: Virginia: Sexual orientation and gender identity protected in all employment

Local laws

Private sector policies

Many large companies provide equal rights and benefits to their lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees, as measured by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) through its Corporate Equality Index. The 2015 report found 366 businesses achieved a top rating of 100 percent. The report also found 89% of Fortune 500 businesses have non-discrimination policies on the basis of sexual orientation, while 66% of Fortune 500 businesses have non-discrimination policies on the basis of gender identity. Each year, corporations send thousands of employees to the Out & Equal Regional Summit, a conference that aims to create a more inclusive work environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. There are workplace resources for how allies can create a more inclusive work environment, including programs available through PFLAG.

Widespread adoption of private workplace policies may be motivated by good business sense, the Williams Institute suggests. Its conclusion is based on a set of studies that show that lesbians and gay men who have come out at work report lower levels of anxiety, less conflict between work and personal life, greater job satisfaction, more sharing of employers' goals, higher levels of satisfaction with their co-workers, more self-esteem, and better physical health.

Repeal efforts

Impact of court interpretation on cases

Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation is when the Court determines the meaning of a statute, using a variety of methods, to make a ruling in a case.

Before Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), there were numerous court cases that discussed the meaning of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two of the more important cases involving statutory interpretation were Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) and Oncale v. Sundowner (1998).

In Price Waterhouse, the plaintiff, Ann Hopkins, sued her employer when her proposal for partnership was dismissed and claimed it was because of her being a woman. The Supreme Court noted that Hopkins’ failure to meet gender norms was taken into account by Price Waterhouse when making their employment decision. The Court stated in their decision that Title VII is violated when sex-based considerations and/or gender is used to make decisions regarding employment. By using statutory interpretation in the majority opinion, the Court in Price Waterhouse expanded the interpretation of Title VII to “establish liability if a plaintiff proved sex was a “motivating” or “substantial” factor in a decision based on a mix of legitimate and illegitimate factors”.

In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., Joseph Oncale, an employee on an oil platform crew for Sundowner Offshore Services claimed he was sexually harassed by other employees and received no support from management. Oncale proceeded to file a complaint against his employer claiming his rights under Title VII were violated by the sexual harassment that had taken place at work. The Court ruled unanimously that all discrimination based on sex was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act regardless of the victim’s gender. The statutory interpretation by the Court allowed for a precedent to be set for deciding the outcome in same-sex harassment cases. By establishing this precedent, the Court made a statement for same-sex harassment cases that sets up the outcomes of numerous other cases centered on the question of LGBTQ protections under Title VII.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Gerald Bostock, an employee of Clayton County, Georgia, expressed interest in participating in a gay recreational softball league in 2013. Shortly after, he was ridiculed by colleagues for his choices, including those related to his sexual orientation. After being abruptly fired for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” Bostock filed a claim with the EEOC because he believed his firing was discriminatory. Bostock lays out his argument using the plain-text approach of statutory interpretation that the Court agrees with and rules in his favor. The argument consisted of analyzing the broad meaning of “because of sex” and looking at the dictionary definition of “homosexual.” Because of this statutory groundwork, Bostock argues that discriminating against an employee for their sexual orientation “requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex,” and thus, is able to convince the Court to rule that sexual orientation discrimination violates the protections laid out in Title VII. Although the Court agrees with Bostock and rules in his favor, the use of statutory interpretation may cause a troublesome future for this precedent. A simple majority vote in Congress would be effective in reversing the decision by the Court and overruling their interpretation of Title VII. With this thought in mind, a constitutional approach usually has larger, more controversial, political stakes than statutory approaches have.

Constitutional interpretation

Constitutional interpretation is when the Court determines the constitutionality of a bill, act, statute, law, etc. that is brought before the Court.

After entering the home of John Lawrence, Houston police discovered Lawrence performing sexual acts with another man and arrested them both for breaking a Texas law. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Texas law, which prohibited engaging with a member of your sex in a sexual act, made its way to the Supreme Court where they struck down the law because of its violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Through the moral reasoning approach, the Court expanded on the meaning of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment to include those of same-sex individuals and thus protect them under that amendment.

In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court’s decision established the groundwork needed for the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. A couple married legally under Canadian law, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, moved to New York where their marriage was recognized but when filing taxes for the federal government, the United States did not recognize their marriage. Windsor sued the federal government declaring that the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. After lots of input from other government agencies and branches, the Supreme Court reached a decision in 2013 confirming that DOMA creates a “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” against same-sex couples which violates their protections under the Fifth Amendment. By using a broad understanding of 'equal protection' in the majority opinion, the Court extended the protections of the Constitution to include the LGBTQ community and set a precedent, yet again, for future cases. Even more, the Court made clear that defining marriage has always been a right of the states and not the federal government and therefore, the Court established their decision to hear and rule on the case as constitutional. This interpretation by the Court may cause mixed emotions because of their controversial manner of reversing a policy passed in a democratic way by Congress however, because of the previous statement, the Court was required to interfere to prohibit the discrimination of a specific group of people.

The landmark LGBTQ rights case came in 2015 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment protections and liberties to same-sex couples. The majority held the prohibition against same-sex marriage from multiple states as unconstitutional and reflected both the judicial precedent and historical reasoning approach in their ruling. Further, the Court extended their argument by claiming that there was no legal argument for refusing same-sex couples the right to marry in any state. In the opinion, the Court reflects on de Tocqueville's description of marriage as "'the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,'" from Maynard v. Hill (1888). Again, opponents of this interpretation claim the Supreme Court is overstepping their constitutional authority however, the majority definitively states that "when the rights of persons are violated, 'the Constitution requires redress by the courts.'"

LGBT people's experiences of workplace discrimination and Harassment

In 2020, 8.9% of employed LGBT people, including 11.3% of LGBT employees of color and 6.5% of white LGBT employees, reported being fired or not hired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. 29.0% of LGBT employees of color said they were not hired because of their LGBT status, compared to 18.3% of white LGBT employees. Over half of LGBT employees who experienced discrimination or harassment at work (57.0%) said their boss or coworkers did or said something that indicated the unfair treatment was motivated by religious beliefs. In comparison to 49.4% of white LGBT employees, nearly two-thirds (63.5%) of LGBT employees of color said religion was a motivating factor in their workplace discrimination experiences.

Impact of COVID-19 on LGBTQ employment discrimination

LGBTQ people have been adversely affected by both the COVID-19 pandemic and the social-economic chaos. According to research by MAP(Movement Advancement Project), LGBTQ people, particularly people of color and those who are raising children, experience high rates of economic instability and are more likely to face discrimination at work and during job search as well. In comparison to 45% of non-LGBTQ people, 64% of LGBTQ people said they or an adult in their household had lost their job. This is especially concerning because LGBTQ people face higher rates of employment discrimination in general and may have difficulty finding new jobs, this number rises to 71% among Latino LGBTQ households. According to a survey conducted by HRC and PSB in April/May 2020, one-third (33%) of LGBTQ people reduced their hours of work, whereas higher rates for LGBTQ people of color (38%).

In light of employment discrimination against LGBT people, the Biden administration has strengthened laws prohibiting sex discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Also, in consultation with the attorney general, the heads of the respective agencies must ensure that existing policies are being followed and develop a plan to combat workplace discrimination.

Employment discrimination law in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories." The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability (physical or mental, including status), age (for workers over 40), military service or affiliation, bankruptcy or bad debts, genetic information, and citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees).

List of United States federal discrimination law

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not directly address employment discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have been held to protect federal government employees.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property", without due process of the law. It also contains an implicit guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would limit the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that government employees have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a "liberty" (such as the right to free speech) or property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination bills (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the private sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective government the power to enact civil rights laws that apply to the private sector. The Federal government's authority to regulate a private business, including civil rights laws, stems from their power to regulate all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly afford some protection from public and private employment discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions only address discriminatory treatment by the government, including a public employer.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the private sector are generally Constitutional under the "police powers" doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws designed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States must adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer additional employment protection.

For example, some State civil rights laws offer protection from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing employment discrimination has developed over time.

The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.  The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers and unions from paying different wages based on sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in hiring. It provides that where workers perform equal work in the corner requiring "equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions," they should be provided equal pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer's workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. "Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act".  It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants, and labor organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII in 1978, specifying that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. A related statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions.

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 "prohibits discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [and] requires affirmative action by federal contractors".

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices are nearly identical to those outlined in Title VII, except that the ADEA protects workers in firms with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. An employee is protected from discrimination based on age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited mandatory retirement, except for high-powered decision-making positions (that also provide large pensions). The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for benefit, pension and retirement plans. Though ADEA is the center of most discussion of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history starting with the abolishment of "maximum ages of entry into employment in 1956" by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 "established a policy against age discrimination among federal contractors".

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability by the federal government, federal contractors with contracts of more than $10,000, and programs receiving federal financial assistance. It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. Section 504 requires reasonable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology be accessible to disabled employees.

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 prohibits discrimination by mine operators against miners who suffer from "black lung disease" (pneumoconiosis).

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 "requires affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam era veterans by federal contractors".

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or bad debts.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers with more than three employees from discriminating against anyone (except an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of national origin or citizenship status.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to eliminate discriminatory barriers against qualified individuals with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or individuals who are regarded as having a disability. It prohibits discrimination based on real or perceived physical or mental disabilities. It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who need them because of a disability to apply for a job, perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment, unless the employer can show that undue hardship will result. There are strict limitations on when an employer can ask disability-related questions or require medical examinations, and all medical information must be treated as confidential. A disability is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that "substantially limits one or more major life activities."

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all persons equal rights under the law and outline the damages available to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions.

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. As of June 2018, 28 US states do not explicitly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT employment discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC's determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: "Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job." Many people in the LGBT community have lost their job, including Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her boss told her that her presence may make other people feel uncomfortable.

Almost half of the United States also have state-level or municipal-level laws banning the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender people in both public and private workplaces. A few more states ban LGBT discrimination in only public workplaces. Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, even though these laws are focused more on discriminatory actions, not beliefs. Courts have also identified that these laws do not infringe free speech or religious liberty.

State law

State statutes also provide extensive protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar protection as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide greater protection to employees of the state or of state contractors.

Government employees

Employees of federal and state governments have additional protections against employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance. The Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In June 2009, it was announced that the interpretation would be expanded to include gender identity.

Exceptions

Bona fide occupational qualifications

Employers are generally allowed to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). For example, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models.

Religious employment discrimination

Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment because of their religion, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a change in a workplace rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also includes treating individuals differently in their employment because of their lack of religious belief or practice” (Workplace Fairness). According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are prohibited from refusing to hire an individual based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and disability. If an employee believes that they have experienced religious discrimination, they should address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, employees are protected by the law for reporting job discrimination and are able to file charges with the EEOC. Some locations in the U.S. now have clauses that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give certain exemptions in these laws to businesses or institutions that are religious or religiously-affiliated, however, to varying degrees in different locations, depending on the setting and the context; some of these have been upheld and others reversed over time.

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly permits discrimination against members of the Communist Party.

Military

The military has faced criticism for prohibiting women from serving in combat roles. In 2016, however, the law was amended to allow them to serve. In the article posted on the PBS website, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the way in which black men were treated in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, during that time the whites gave the African Americans a chance to prove themselves as Americans by having them participate in the war. The National Geographic website states, however, that when black soldiers joined the Navy, they were only allowed to work as servants; their participation was limited to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wanted to defend the country they lived in, they were denied the power to do so.

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a protected category may still be illegal if they produce a disparate impact on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they are related to job performance.

The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer's lack of discriminatory intent.

Height and weight requirements have been identified by the EEOC as having a disparate impact on national origin minorities.

However, when defending against a disparate impact claim that alleges age discrimination, an employer does not need to demonstrate necessity; rather, it must simply show that its practice is reasonable.

Enforcing entities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and enforces the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Commission was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its enforcement provisions are contained in section 2000e-5 of Title 42, and its regulations and guidelines are contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. Persons wishing to file suit under Title VII and/or the ADA must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities by federal contractors and subcontractors.

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each agency has and enforces its own regulations that apply to its own programs and to any entities that receive financial assistance.

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin.

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) offices take the role of the EEOC in administering state statutes.

Post-scarcity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity   Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in ...