http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification 720 https://escholarship.org/uc/uclalaw_williams_enda/rss Recent eScholarship items from Documenting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in State Employment Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:45:13 +0000 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xt0r3bk <p>The 160,000 LGBT adults in Missouri would benefit from an expanded state non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. There is currently no Missouri law protecting LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. A uniform state-wide law would maximize protection for Missouri’s LGBT population, and provide them the same recourse available to their non-LGBT counterparts.</p><p>Media reports and lawsuits document that a number of Missourians have faced discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and the workplace because they are LGBT.  Complaints have been filed against hotels, landlords and retail stores; and teachers, law enforcement, truck drivers, and attorneys have filed workplace discrimination complaints. Eighteen Missouri localities currently provide protection from sexual orientation discrimination by local ordinance, sixteen of which also provide protection against gender identity discrimination,... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9xt0r3bk Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Mallory, Christy Hasenbush, Amira Liebowitz, Sarah https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8cs4m31v <p>Approximately 66,000 LGBT workers in South Carolina are vulnerable to employment discrimination absent state legal protections. Four localities in South Carolina prohibit public sector employment discrimination against LGBT people.  Only 18% of the state’s labor force works in those localities, and only a small proportion of those workers are employed by their local governments. Currently none of South Carolina’s LGBT-inclusive local ordinances prohibit discrimination in private employment.</p><p>Findings from the South Carolina report are consistent with national data. A 2013 Pew Research Center survey found that 21 percent of LGBT respondents had been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay, or promotions. In 2010, 78 percent of respondents to the largest national survey of transgender people to date reported having experienced harassment or mistreatment at work, and 47 percent reported having been discriminated against in hiring, promotion, or job retention because... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8cs4m31v Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Mallory, Christy Hasenbush, Amira Davis, Gregory K. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80n6v43m More than 25,000 LGBT workers in West Virginia continue to face widespread and persistent employment discrimination absent state or federal legal protections. Charleston, Morgantown, Lewisburg, Harpers Ferry, and Buckhannon have local ordinances that prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT people, but they do not provide as much protection for LGBT people as the state’s law that prohibits other types of discrimination. Approximately 95 percent of West Virginia’s workforce is not covered by a local ordinance prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A statewide non-discrimination law would result in 12 additional complaints being filed with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission each year. The cost of enforcing the additional complaints would be negligible. At most, it would cost the state approximately $53,750 annually; only 2.9 percent of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission’s annual budget. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80n6v43m Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Mallory, Christy Hasenbush, Amira Liebowitz, Sarah https://escholarship.org/uc/item/60g0c17c Pennsylvania’s 174,000 LGBT workers are vulnerable to employment discrimination absent state or federal legal protections. While 33 Pennsylvania localities provide some protections, 69 percent of the state’s workforce could suffer discrimination without recourse based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Pennsylvania teachers, factory workers and law enforcement officers have all faced workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Uniform legal protections could provide more consistent and stronger recourse for the state’s workers at minimal administrative cost to the government. Many Pennsylvania employers have already decided that inclusive LGBT workplace policies are good for business. At least 139 companies headquartered in Pennsylvania prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, including 37 Fortune 1000 companies, and at least 40 companies prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/60g0c17c Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Mallory, Christy Hasenbush, Amira https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5bg181dt Approximately 37,000 LGBT workers in Utah are vulnerable to employment discrimination absent state or federal legal protections.  At least 17 localities in Utah prohibit private employment discrimination against LGBT people, yet 53 percent of the workforce remains unprotected by local ordinances.  A statewide non-discrimination law would result in 17 additional complaints being filed with the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division each year.  The cost of enforcing the additional complaints would be negligible.  At most, it would cost the state approximately $14,500 annually; only 0.9 percent of the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division’s annual budget. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5bg181dt Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Mallory, Christy Liebowitz, Sarah https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2qh1v3b6 Approximately 212,000 LGBT workers in Ohio are vulnerable to employment discrimination absent state or federal legal protections.  At least 13 localities in Ohio prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT people, yet 81 percent of the workforce remains unprotected by local ordinances.  A statewide non-discrimination law would result in 100 additional complaints being filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission each year.  The cost of enforcing the additional complaints would be negligible.  At most, it would cost the state approximately $214,500 annually; only 2.8 percent of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s annual budget. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2qh1v3b6 Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Hasenbush, Amira https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0v3834qt <p>Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples in New Mexico would bring an estimated $20.4 million to the state economy over the first three years. According to the most recent U.S. Census, there are currently 5,825 same-sex couples living in New Mexico. An estimated 2,913 (50 percent) of those couples would marry in the first three years, according to the pattern that has been observed in Massachusetts, which has had marriage equality since 2004, and elsewhere.</p><p>Over the next three years, extending marriage to same-sex couples in New Mexico would generate state and local sales tax revenues of $1.48 million, create and sustain over 318 new jobs, and increase income tax revenue from $344,481 – $745,883. The net impact of these effects will be a positive impact of $2.5 – $3.7 million on the state budget over the course of the first three years that same-sex marriage is legal in New Mexico.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0v3834qt Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Fitzgerald, Erin Homer, Steven K. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5zt9h6vt Gender identity discrimination protections in Maryland are extended through four local ordinances that are inconsistent, and provide more limited remedies than Maryland’s state non-discrimination laws. A gubernatorial executive order that applies only to state employees also exists. The four local laws all provide gender identity discrimination protections in the same areas covered by state law, including employment, housing and public accommodation, though Baltimore City and Howard County also expressly prohibit discrimination in some types of government services. Baltimore City prohibits discrimination in public education and by its health and welfare agencies, and Howard County prohibits law enforcement officers from harassing and discriminating against citizens based on protected characteristics. Notably, the remedies available under the local ordinances are generally more limited than those provided by state law, especially as it relates to monetary relief available through... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5zt9h6vt Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0000 Mallory, Christy Liebowitz, Sarah https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9w82f50b <p>Attempts to pass a law in Nebraska prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation have failed for the last fourteen years.1 As a result, in 1996, the Nebraska Attorney General opined that the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) does not have jurisdiction to consider any claim based on sexual orientation discrimination.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9w82f50b Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9t40q6gp <p>New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) protects against discrimination based on marital status, domestic partnership status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and mental or physical disability, including AIDS and HIV related illnesses.1 In addition to the LAD, New Jersey’s Administrative Code includes an anti-discrimination policy for state government employees.2 This policy also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9t40q6gp Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/98z3332r <p>West Virginia state law provides no protection for public employees against job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Recent legislative attempts to amend West Virginia’s Human Rights Act to prohibit such discrimination have failed. At the local level, two cities and two universities in West Virginia have included sexual orientation in their codes or policies related to employment discrimination.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/98z3332r Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/97r3x9z0 <p>Efforts to enact a law banning workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians in Oregon began in 1973, and such legislation was introduced in every one of the 17 regular legislative sessions between 1973 and 2007. In 2005, the Senate passed an omnibus anti-discrimination bill, but the bill died in the House. Finally, in 2007, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law was enacted. The new law, which defines sexual orientation to include gender identity, took effect January 1, 2008. Oregon Ballot Measure 145, which was meant to overturn the Oregon Equality Act, was withdrawn before November 2008. Its proponents stated they would not have enough time to gather the signatures required by the deadline. It was the most recent of dozens of attempts to repeal or prevent anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBT people in Oregon.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/97r3x9z0 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8zr4t105 <p>Until 2005, Maine had no state-wide protections against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, nor was there an Executive Order prohibiting such discrimination. In previous years there had been efforts to prohibit the state and municipalities from adding sexual orientation to the state’s anti-discrimination law and local ordinances.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8zr4t105 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8k63q4cb <p>With respect to employment, Nevada law has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since 1999.1 However, the statute also contains a broad exception to its provisions for any 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. This exception applies solely to discrimination based on sexual orientation and not to any other protected class. There is no coverage in the statute for discrimination based on gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8k63q4cb Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8br462pn <p>While, in 1998, New Orleans became one of the earliest cities in the United States to pass a local ordinance protecting LGBT people from discrimination, repeated attempts to pass state legislation that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression have all failed. For example, in 2008, the most recent attempt to protect LGBT rights in the employment context failed to make it out of its first committee in the state House of Representatives and the effort to pass the legislation was subsequently abandoned. In 2008, a bill was also introduced that would have just protected state employees from sexual orientation discrimination. That bill too failed to make it out of its first committee.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8br462pn Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/822731sp <p>Currently, Michigan has not enacted any statewide legislation prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Michigan Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act”), which prohibits employment discrimination based on various categories, including religion, race, and sex, does not prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. Indeed, in Barbour v. Department of Social Services, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that harassment and discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation is not an activity proscribed by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Barbour court, however, did hold that a gender discrimination claim brought pursuant to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act may be based on incidents of homosexual advances that directly relate to the employee’s gender. More recently, a bill was introduced in January 2007 to include “sexual orientation and... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/822731sp Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/81k6b9jw <p>Tennessee‟s anti-discrimination law, known as the Tennessee Human Rights Act, does not explicitly address either sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. Further, the state does not provide protection to state or private employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, no executive orders, local laws or state government personnel policies exist that prohibit job discrimination on either basis. The formal state employee grievance policy addresses discrimination, but does not include these characteristics.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/81k6b9jw Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vj6b5j1 <p>Utah has no state-wide statutes, administrative regulations or executive orders that protect its residents – including employees of state government – from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A 1993 executive order that addressed sexual harassment in state government workplaces was worded in such a way that it covered same-sex harassment, but that order was rescinded in 2006 and replaced by an executive order that does not address the issue. Local ordinances in Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City protect municipal government workers in those locations from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vj6b5j1 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7pw903n9 <p>Pennsylvania has no statute that prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. There have been several attempts to amend the Human Relations Act to include prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender identity-based discrimination. To date, all have failed. There is currently an executive order that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7pw903n9 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7f39b8mb <p>The North Dakota Human Rights Act (the “Act”) does not prohibit sexual discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression in the employment context. In 2009, the North Dakota Senate introduced and passed a bill that would have added these categories to the Act, but the bill was defeated in the North Dakota House of Representatives.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7f39b8mb Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/77c9p7p4 <p>Indiana’s state anti-discrimination law does not prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation although a Governor’s Executive Order does protect state employees from those two forms of discrimination. There is also no state law that prohibits sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in education, and one county school board adopted a resolution denouncing activities such as … gay and lesbian behavior.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/77c9p7p4 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6r7085zv <p>Ohio has no state-wide law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6r7085zv Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6gr7q1x3 <p>No Virginia statute prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. State employees cannot enroll their partners in their workplace insurance plans. In fact, Virginia is the only state to forbid even private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6gr7q1x3 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6f11j8jn <p>Wyoming, the least populous state in the United States, currently has no laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Legislation was introduced in 2009 that would add sexual orientation to the list of enumerated classes that are currently protected against employment discrimination, but the bill would not extend such protections to gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6f11j8jn Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64c3c242 <p>In 2006, the Washington legislature enacted a bill adding protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to its state civil rights law, initially passed in 1949. Advocates had been trying to pass this legislation for 30 years, but were consistently met with strong opposition in the legislature. The first bill protecting individuals from sexual orientation discrimination was introduced in Washington in 1977. In 1986, gay rights opponents in Washington introduced proposals that would ban gays and lesbians from working in schools and government offices. These proposals were defeated in committee.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64c3c242 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/63k8x206 <p>In 2003, the New Mexico legislature amended its Human Rights Act (the “Act”), originally adopted in 1978, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and consumer credit. The legislation passed thirteen years after its introduction and was adamantly opposed by several legislators and citizen groups, who launched a campaign to overturn it by referendum.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/63k8x206 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5x11t2cn <p>In 1982 Wisconsin became the first state to pass a comprehensive statute prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination; and its cities, Madison and Milwaukee, recently expanded their local ordinances to prohibit employment and housing discrimination based on gender identity. On the other hand, Wisconsin singled out gays and lesbians from other protected groups when it denied affirmative action programs to remedy sexual orientation discrimination in its landmark 1982 legislation; Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission, charged with receiving and reviewing complaints of private employer discrimination, has not operated for five years; and Wisconsin’s statewide employment discrimination statute excludes gender identity protection and does not provide for a private right of action.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5x11t2cn Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5t92f22j <p>Since 1998, New Hampshire law has prohibited discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity is not prohibited in the state.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5t92f22j Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/53q3m8j0 <p>North Carolina law provides virtually no protection for public employees against job discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. No state-wide statute has been enacted in North Carolina to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Also, little judicial or administrative action surrounding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the employment context or otherwise appears to exist.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/53q3m8j0 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4p3638mm <p>Under New York law, sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace is prohibited. Sexual orientation non-discrimination legislation was first introduced in New York in the early 1970s.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4p3638mm Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4db26477 <p>Montana currently has no laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. State personnel rules issued by former Governor Marc Racicot in 2000 prohibit discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation with respect to employment by state government, but the available remedies are limited due to the lack of a statewide statute. Bills have been introduced to add either sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, or both, to Montana‟s human rights laws in most of the legislative sessions of the past decade, including the current 2009 legislative session. None have passed despite enjoying recent support from the Governor‟s office.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4db26477 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/43m481hp <p>Massachusetts state law explicitly protects its citizens from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but not gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/43m481hp Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3zw323bb <p>Iowa amended its civil rights statute in 2007 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and in obtaining credit. Proponents of the amendment had been trying to include these protections in the statute since the late-1980s. Research uncovered examples of public entities discriminating against LGBT persons in the employment context within the last 20 years.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3zw323bb Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2x66m049 <p>Mississippi has no current or pending state or local statutes recognizing sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes of citizens. More generally, Mississippi is not welcoming socially or in its laws to LGBT people. Mississippi custody courts consider homosexuality negatively in determining custody disputes. In 2001, Mississippi banned adoption by same-sex couples. In 2004, eighty-six percent (86%) of Mississippians voted in favor of an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2x66m049 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2ph3q6pw <p>In 2001, Maryland enacted legislation that prohibits discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in employment, housing, and public accommodations.1 The laws of Montgomery County and Baltimore City also include gender identity as a protected class. Similar legislation has been proposed in the Maryland legislature, but has not passed.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2ph3q6pw Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2np5f38p <p>In 1992, the State of Vermont passed a comprehensive statewide law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is defined as “female or male homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.” Protection with respect to gender identity was added in May 2007. Vermont’s Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in areas such as employment, housing, and education.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2np5f38p Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/26n4n7mw <p>Kentucky has no laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, though there have been several unsuccessful attempts to amend the state’s civil rights statute to protect such classes. However, in 1999, local ordinances banning discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations due to a person’s sexual orientation were passed in Louisville, Lexington-Fayette County, Jefferson County, and Henderson.1 In 2003, a similar ordinance was passed in the City of Covington. In 2008, Governor Steve Beshear reinstated an Executive Order banning discrimination of state employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/26n4n7mw Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2073n8vf <p>Missouri has no state statute prohibiting public employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Since 1998, legislators in the Missouri General Assembly have introduced bills that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, specifically in the areas of employment, public accommodations, and housing; none of the attempts have been successful.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2073n8vf Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1704b2xm <p>Oklahoma has no state legislation that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. As late as 1990, Oklahoma laws included a statute prohibiting employment of openly gay teachers in public schools. One state agency and one county in Oklahoma have instituted policies prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: the state Attorney General’s office and Oklahoma County. In 2005, a bill was introduced in the Oklahoma legislature to rescind both of these policies. Although the bill failed, Oklahoma County removed sexual orientation from its published employment non-discrimination policy.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1704b2xm Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/16x5g2sc <p>Battles over LGBT rights began early in Minnesota, when the twin cities amended their anti-discrimination ordinances to include sexual orientation: Minneapolis in 1974 and St. Paul in 1976. Two years later, however, St. Paul voters rescinded the protections for gay people in that city.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/16x5g2sc Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15r3h9nh <p>South Carolina state and local law provides virtually no protection against job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. No state-wide statute has been enacted in South Carolina to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity despite substantial efforts to pass such legislation. South Carolina has enacted an extensive administrative grievance procedure for public employees, but an Attorney General’s Opinion in 1975 concluded that “homosexuality is a valid ground for refusing State employment.” That opinion has not been changed or rescinded. Several South Carolina universities and one municipality have enacted non-discrimination policies. However, the one local ordinance addressing these issues does not cover employment discrimination.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15r3h9nh Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0sz291bx <p>At the state level, South Dakota has no formal laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, South Dakota State University, one city, and two counties in South Dakota have ordinances prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0sz291bx Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rc462xr <p>In 1995, Rhode Island’s General Assembly added protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation to the state civil rights law, initially passed in 1949.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rc462xr Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05g290fb <p>Currently, there is no state law in Kansas that prohibits employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05g290fb Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/00z030c7 <p>There are no state laws in Texas that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although five of Texas’s six largest cities have local ordinances partially banning such discrimination in specific contexts.1 State legislators have repeatedly introduced bills at the state level to add sexual orientation and/or gender identity as protected classes in various contexts, although none of these bills has left the committee stage.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/00z030c7 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9v35p0s0 <p>A number of state and local elected officials, legislative bodies, and special commissions have issued findings of widespread discrimination against LGBT people in their jurisdictions, including discrimination in public employment. For example, in May 2007 when the governor of Ohio issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in state employment based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, the order included the finding that the “[i]nformation compiled by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission documents ongoing and past discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity in employment-related decisions by personnel at Ohio agencies, boards and commissions.” Similarly, when the governor of Alaska issued an administrative order in 2002 prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in state employment, the order stated that it was “in recognition of the findings concerning perceived institutional intolerance in state agencies set out in the final... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9v35p0s0 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8zv7s005 <p>Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 378, the Fair Employment Practices Act (the “Act”), prohibits public and private employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, religion, color, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, genetic information, marital status or arrest and court record. Legislation that would have added gender identity to the Act’s list of protected categories passed in the Legislature but was vetoed by Governor Linda Lingle.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8zv7s005 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8z92s3dv <p>Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8z92s3dv Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8vv8v8gk <p>In considering versions of ENDA from 1994 to 2007, Congress has specifically considered unconstitutional discrimination by state, local, and federal employers against LGBT people. Direct victims of such discrimination have testified at Congressional hearings; legal scholars have presented specific cases as well as scholarship on the history and continuing legacy of such discrimination; social scientists have presented survey data and other studies documenting such discrimination; LGBT rights organizations have submitted reports and expert testimony documenting such discrimination; and members of Congress have shared specific examples and spoken more generally about such discrimination. In total, over 67 specific examples of employment discrimination against LGBT people by public employers have been presented to Congress in prior years, including discrimination involving 13 state employees, 14 teachers, 12 public safety officers, 2 other local employees, and 26 federal employees.... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8vv8v8gk Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8q0889jp <p>Arkansas has no state statutes or local ordinances prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The only two attempts to include such protections for public employees were subsequently rescinded. In 1990, one Arkansas county added sexual orientation as a protected class to its personnel policy. That policy was rescinded in 1998 because opponents argued that it was not required under federal law and that it validated “repugnant” and “immoral” sexual behaviors. In 1998, when a city council in Arkansas passed a resolution against sexual orientation discrimination in city employment, that resolution was quickly vetoed by the city’s mayor. When the city council overrode the veto, the protection was repealed by voters. No Arkansas counties or cities have since prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8q0889jp Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8bc6p8sz <p>Idaho is the only state to have reinstated its felony sodomy law after it was taken off the books; public outcry about the 1971 elimination of the state’s law making homosexual conduct subject to felony conviction led the Idaho legislature to reinstate the old criminal code in 1972. Despite Lawrence v. Texas, Idaho has not repealed its sodomy law. Thus, Idaho’s public code continues to characterize sodomy as “the infamous crime against nature,” punishable by imprisonment of not less than five years. Idaho does not include LGBT persons in any protected category for the purpose of employment discrimination. A bill that would have prohibited employers with more that five employees (including the State of Idaho but excepting certain religious organizations) from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity was proposed in the Idaho Senate on January 21, 2008. The bill was defeated in February of 2009. Similar bills have failed in the past.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8bc6p8sz Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/87g999g0 <p>Based on the reports on employment law and discrimination related to sexual orientation and gender identity for each of the 50 states (See Appendices), this chapter compiles more than 380 specific examples of workplace discrimination against state and local employees, almost all occurring within the last 20 years, and none occurring prior to 1980. The state reports collected examples of discrimination from court opinions, administrative complaints, academic journals, books, newspapers, and publications by and complaints made to community-based organizations.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/87g999g0 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7x94n7sc <p>In this chapter, we draw from the 50 state reports to provide a sample of comments made by state legislators, governors, judges, and other state and local policy makers and officials which show animus toward LGBT people. Such statements likely both deter LGBT people from seeking state and local government employment and cause them to be closeted if they are employed by public agencies. In addition, these statements often serve as indicia of why laws extending legal protections to LGBT people are opposed or repealed.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7x94n7sc Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6w0475m7 <p>A Connecticut statute bans employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. No Connecticut statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. In November 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities – the agency responsible for administering the anti-discrimination statutes and for processing discrimination complaints – ruled that statutes prohibiting sex discrimination also banned discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Efforts to reinforce this ruling by adopting a statute covering gender identity discriminaton have so far been unsuccessful.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6w0475m7 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6nn0v8zf <p>Two recent studies have found similar wage gaps when looking at government employees. Together the studies find that gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals who aregovernment employees earn 8% to 29% less than their heterosexual counterparts. More specifically, one study finds that men in same-sex couples who are state employees earn 8% to 10% less than their married heterosexual male counterparts. These studies suggest that sexual orientation employment discrimination by state, local, and federal governments sector is no different than sexual orientation discrimination in the private sector.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6nn0v8zf Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cz123ww <p>Using data from the 2000 Census and the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, in September 2009, the Williams Institute estimates that there are approximately 418,000 LGBT state government employees in the United States and 585,000 local government employees, totaling slightly more than 1 million state and local LGBT employees. There are just under 7 million LGBT private employees and just over 200,000 LGBT people working for the federal government.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cz123ww Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/66m2b8wn <p>Alaska’s anti-discrimination statute provides no protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The state university system has rebuffed repeated attempts to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics in its anti-discrimination policy. In addition, there are currently no municipal laws offering protection for local government workers (a 1993 Anchorage law was enacted and then repealed in the same year). In 2002, the governor issued an administrative order declaring that the “goal” of state officials is to prohibit and prevent job discrimination against state employees based on, inter alia, sexual orientation; gender identity is not included in the administrative order. However, there appear to be no remedies available under the order, beyond the possibility of filing a complaint.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/66m2b8wn Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/65f64807 <p>This section summarizes a large body of survey data, with samples drawn from across the nation and covering a range of occupational classifications, that provides compelling evidence that discrimination against LGBT state government employees, as well as other public sector workers, is serious, pervasive and continuing. The more than 80 surveys summarized in this section also indicate that there is no reason to believe that the level of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by state employers and local employers is any different than the level of discrimination by private employers.</p><p>This section is divided into six parts. The first five sections provide data from 1) general surveys of LGBT people that include public employees; 2) surveys of LGBT education professionals; 3) surveys of judges and lawyers; 4) surveys of public safety officers; and 5) surveys of heterosexual employees asking if they have witnessed sexual orientation and... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/65f64807 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/65865687 <p>Employment discrimination complaints filed with state and local administrative agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also document a widespread and persistent pattern of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination against LGBT state and local employees.</p><p>This chapter proceeds in five parts. The first part reviews academic scholarship analyzing the number and scope of administrative complaints that have been filed based on allegations of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. The second part presents original research by the Williams Institute conducted during 2008 and 2009 updating these studies. The Williams Institute study is based on administrative complaints filed by state and local employees alleging sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination from 18 states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, George, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Vermont,... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/65865687 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5rd7x7sz <p>Acknowledgements for assistance with project</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5rd7x7sz Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/58j4w7k3 <p>One marker of the hostility and animus directed towards LGBT Americans is the proliferation of attempts to use state and local ballot measures to repeal or preclude protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The pattern of outcomes has slowly shifted in the last 30 years from a majority of these attempts succeeding to a majority failing. Nonetheless, proponents of workplace equality for the LGBT minority have had to respond – more frequently than any other group - to repeated, well-funded campaigns to erect barriers against basic civil rights protections.</p><p>According to University of Michigan political scientist Barbara S. Gamble, “[g]ay men and lesbians have seen their civil rights put to a popular vote more often than any other group. Almost 60 per cent of the civil rights[-related ballot] initiatives have involved gay rights issues… Of the 43 gay rights initiatives that have reached the ballot, 88% have sought to restrict... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/58j4w7k3 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nr4p07n <p>Florida‟s anti-discrimination law, the Florida Civil Rights Act, does not cover employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, there has never been an executive order to prohibit these forms of discrimination against state employees. Recent efforts to enact statutory protection have all failed.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nr4p07n Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/42v9z2s5 <p>On July 2, 2009, Delaware added the term “sexual orientation” to the already-existing list of protected categories; the statute now prohibits discrimination against a person on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations, and insurance. It does not include gender identity, although an executive order does. Prior to 2009, the Delaware legislature repeatedly attempted and failed to enact legislation aimed at ending discrimination against gays in employment, public housing, public accommodation, insurance and public contracts. Despite the fact that the Delaware Division of Industrial Affairs had received more than 500 complaints of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or association with an individual based on sexual orientation by 1999, bills to prevent such discrimination failed each year between 1998 and 2009.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/42v9z2s5 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3rn4r581 <p>Testimony before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3rn4r581 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/33z8f2pf <p>Equal protection analysis, as articulated by the United States Supreme Court1 and followed by most states in interpreting state constitutions, requires that a suspect class must historically have been subjected to discrimination. Every state and federal court that has substantively considered whether sexual orientation is a suspect class has held that LGBT people have faced a long history of discrimination. In addition, dozens of legal scholars have also concluded that LGBT people have suffered the requisite history of discrimination to qualify sexual orientation to be a suspect class. In making these determinations, many of these courts and scholars have explicitly considered employment and other forms of discrimination by public employers, including state, local, and federal government employers. These findings, unanimously agreed upon by state and federal courts, provide substantive evidence that LGBT people have experienced a widespread practice of unconstitutional discrimination... https://escholarship.org/uc/item/33z8f2pf Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3284n0n1 <p>The California Fair Employment Practices and Housing Act (―FEHA‖) prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in both public and private employment as well as housing. Despite having strong state laws in place, discrimination against LGBT state and local government employees has been well documented.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3284n0n1 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2kh787j1 <p>Based on research conducted as of January 1, 2009, Georgia has no state statute prohibiting public or private discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender expression. Furthermore, Georgia courts have issued no judicial rulings that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender expression in either the public or private contexts. A few municipalities such as Atlanta and Doraville have created their own statutes protecting either sexual orientation or gender expression, and Georgia courts have left these laws undisturbed.1 At least one municipality has introduced an “anti-gay” measure.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2kh787j1 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/27j6k9cd <p>This report addresses whether there has been a widespread and persistent pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by state governments on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This finding will support Congress in exercising its authority under Section 5 of the 14th amendment to provide a private right of action for damages under ENDA to state government employees who have suffered discrimination.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/27j6k9cd Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1zg2v703 <p>Since 2006, an Illinois state law has prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, a term which the statute defines to include “gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s designated sex at birth.”1 However, notwithstanding this statute and several municipal-level anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there is a pattern of unconstitutional employment discrimination in public sector workplaces in the state, both before and after enactment of the 2006 provision.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1zg2v703 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1vt446zb <p>There is no state law in Alabama prohibiting any form of employment discrimination. Rather, Alabama defers to federal law for providing its citizens with protections against discrimination based upon age, race, religion, sex, national origin, and disabilities. Only a few unsuccessful attempts have been made to enact legislation to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, and none to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Neither the state nor any locality in Alabama prohibits sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1vt446zb Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0qc2f3cd <p>Courts, individual judges, and legal scholars have repeatedly found that sexual orientation and gender identity are not related to a person‟s ability to contribute to society, or in the workplace. Courts and scholars have most frequently considered this question when determining whether sexual orientation is a suspect classification for purposes of equal protection analysis. In equal protection analysis, whether the classification at issue bears any relation to an individual‟s ability to contribute to society is one of the core factors used in determining whether such classification should be considered “suspect.”</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0qc2f3cd Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0k93c8mh <p>This chapter compares and analyzes the definitions, scope of coverage, required procedures, remedies, and implementation of ENDA and of each state's anti-discrimination statute that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. The chapter concludes with a discussion of gubernatorial executive orders enunciating a policy against sexual orientation and/or gender identity discrimination in state employment where no such statutory protection exists.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0k93c8mh Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad Mallory, Christy Hunter, Nan D. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0374s11t <p>There is no state-wide statute in Arizona that protects its LGBT citizens from employment discrimination in either the public or private sectors. Five municipalities have extended such protection through local ordinances. Those ordinances are inconsistent, however, with regard to inclusion of gender identity protection. In recent years there has been considerable debate in Arizona about the extension of partner benefits to public sector employees, but there is currently no such protection for state government employees. Indicia of hostility and animus toward gay people have surfaced during legislative consideration of these proposals.</p> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0374s11t Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Sears, Brad