| Employment Non-discrimination Act |
Article Index for Employment |
Website Links For Employment |
Information AboutEmployment Non-discrimination Act |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT | |
| lgbt law in the united states | |
| united states proposed federal legislation | |
|
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act ('''ENDA'''), introduced as in the 110th United States Congress on April 24, 2007, is a proposed U.S. federal law that would prohibit Discrimination against employees on the basis of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity . The bill provides employment protections similar to those of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 (also known as "Title VII"), but specifically directed to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. The bill is different from Title VII in that it contains exemptions for religious organizations and specific provisions about employer dress codes. While the first bill on the subject of sexual orientation discrimination was introduced in Congress in 1974, the first bill using the current title of "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" was introduced in 1996, failing in the Senate by a 50-49 vote TG Crossroads . The most recent version was introduced the United States House Of Representatives on April 24, 2007 by Congressmembers Barney Frank , Chris Shays , Tammy Baldwin , and Deborah Pryce . The 2007 version of the bill is the first time the bill has included protection based on sexual orientation as well as gender identity. Currently, 13 states have policies prohibiting both , Maryland , Massachusetts , Nevada , New Hampshire , New York and Wisconsin have state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only. Fifteen other states have laws Transworkplace Blog that have been interpreted to protect transgender persons. ARGUMENTS AGAINST ENDA Opponents of the law often argue that sexual orientation is a choice Traditional Values.org , like Religion , which is actually protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but unlike other protected factors such as Gender and Race , and thus should not be equally protected. They also argue that homosexuality and transgender identity are "unnatural," " Immoral " or violates their Religion . They are concerned about creating a protected class that promotes homosexuality Jeremiah Project and negatively affects their interpretation of family values Culture and Family.org . They cite the profusion of local laws on the subject, and suggest that country-wide protection is unnecessary. There are also questions as to the constitutional authority of the US Congress to pass such a law. Additional concerns involve a form of free speech covering Freedom Of Association . Opponents point out that the legislation, in its current form, may weaken the ability of organization such as the Boy Scouts Of America to prevent homosexual men from becoming scoutmasters. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ENDA Proponents of the law intend it to address cases where Gay , Lesbian and/or Transgender employees have been discriminated against by their employer because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, these employees are unable to find protection in the Judicial System of most US states. Proponents argue that such a law is appropriate in light of the US Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process to all. Most Americans are, in fact, in support of workplace protections Religious Tolerance.org for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. A 2003 HRC slide show demonstrates that most Americans supported ENDA at that time. Advocates say that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is not a "lifestyle," but an identity[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/enda.html , and that the "special rights" argument does not apply to a group subject to widespread prejudice. According to a study published in 2001 by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, reports of discrimination based on sexual orientation are roughly equal to those on race or gender Wiolliams Institute . There are also studies showing that local anti-discrimination laws are ineffective, and federal law is needed UH Law Blog . The bill exempts small businesses, religious organizations, and the military. Most large businesses support the bill. Cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office from 2002 show that the EEOC estimated that their complaint caseload would rise by only 5 to 7% " class="copylinks" target="_blank">Congressional Budget Office . Regarding constitutionality, the act incorporates language similar to that of VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which has consistently been upheld by the Courts. HISTORY OF ENDA On May 14, 1974, the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion , Representatives Bella Abzug and Ed Koch Stonewall.org introduced HR 14752, the "Gay Rights Bill." The bill would have added "sexual orientation" to the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act. In the early 1990s, a new strategy emerged. Rather than trying to obtain all of the rights in the Civil Rights Act, the legislative efforts focused on employment rights, and the "Equality Act" was renamed the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act". Williams Institute In 1996, the bill came within one vote of passage its success perhaps spurred by backlash from the recently passed DOMA, the "Defense of Marriage Act" that permitted states to ignore same sex marriages from other states. HRC sets out the timeline of ENDA introductions[http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act&CONTENTID=36462&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm Human rights Campaign . TRANSGENDER INCLUSION IN ENDA Previous versions of ENDA have not included provisions that protect Transgender people from discrimination. The latest version of the proposed legislation does contain such provisions, including a specific definition of gender identity, as well as exemptions for employer dress codes and locker rooms transworkplace blog . The inclusion of transgender employees in ENDA has long been debated transworkplace blog in the LGBT community. One argument is that transgendered individuals are already covered under existing laws prohibiting employment based on gender stereotypes NCL rights on gender stereotypes . In 1999, the National Gay And Lesbian Task Force became the first LGBT civil rights organization to stop work on ENDA because of its lack of transgender-inclusion. In the years until now, it has worked to build a LGBT community consensus to only support a trans-inclusive bill, and participated in redrafting the fully trans-inclusive version for the 110th Congress. ENDA now enjoys the unequivocal support of a large coalition of civil rights, labor and religious organizations. In August 2004 , the Human Rights Campaign – an LGBT organization that is among the primary lobbyists for the bill – announced that it will only support passage of ENDA if it included gender identity protections as well. A 2004 article by Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force discusses Why Matt Foreman he changed his mind to conclude that ENDA must be "trans-inclusive" . Here are the sections pertinent to gender identity: Section 3 (a) (6) GENDER IDENTITY- The term `gender identity' means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth. Section 8(a)(3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later. Section 8(a)(4) DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee's hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning. REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|