Employment Non-Discrimination Act
[4] On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
[12] As one might expect, many of the documented complaints of discrimination by state and local governments against LGBT employees are in California and New York.
The Western and Northeastern states in the sample (California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New York) had only small and statistically insignificant callback gaps.
[14] In comparison, a review of studies conducted by the Williams Institute in 2007 found that transgender people experienced employment discrimination at a rate of between 15 and 57 percent of the population.
[16] The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of some sexual orientations or gender identity.
In the 110th United States Congress there were two versions of the bill, both of which provided employment protections similar to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
[33] Frank introduced a separate piece of legislation to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of gender identity.
[35][36] An exception was the Human Rights Campaign, which received wide criticism from the LGBT community for supporting a non-inclusive ENDA.
[35][39] Moreover, groups such as the National LGBTQ Task Force, among others,[40] later withdrew support in 2014 due to the ENDA's broad religious exemptions.
[41] Others argued that this was ENDA's best chance of passing Congress in thirty years, that civil rights victories have historically been incremental, that concerns about the legislation's protections were unfounded, and that forgoing a chance to provide immediate workplace protections to millions of lesbians, gays and bisexuals was politically and morally wrong.
[51] Before the hearing, Sen. Merkley spoke at a press conference alongside two transgender women, Diane Schroer and Earline Budd.
[62] Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) supported the legislation, but were unable to attend the cloture vote.
Political proponents of the law intend it to address cases where gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees have been discriminated against by their employers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Proponents argue that such a law is appropriate in light of the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process to all.
[73] 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.
[73] The Congressional Budget Office in 2002 estimated that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's complaint caseload would rise by 5 to 7% as a result of the proposed law.
In 1994, Barry Goldwater, a hero among the conservative and libertarian movements, became honorary chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
[77] Ed Vitagliano, director of research for the American Family Association (AFA), expressed concern about the impact of anti-discrimination laws on religious organizations.
He cited a lack of clarity around whether the narrow exemption would apply to support staff and lay employees in addition to churches and clergy.
It said that "If ENDA passes, students and children in daycare centers all across the nation will be subjected to individuals experimenting with their gender identities.
"[79] Some Libertarians argue that laws against private sector discrimination are acts of coercion that infringe on employers' property rights and freedom of association.
[80] The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said ENDA goes beyond prohibiting unjust discrimination and poses several problems.
It notes, for example, that the bill: (1) lacks an exception for a "bona fide occupational qualification," which exists for every other category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, except for race; (2) lacks a distinction between homosexual inclination and conduct, thus affirming and protecting extramarital sexual conduct; (3) supports the redefinition of marriage, as state-level laws like ENDA have been invoked in state court decisions finding marriage discriminatory or irrational; (4) rejects the biological basis of gender by defining "gender identity" as something people may choose at variance with their biological sex; and (5) threatens religious liberty by punishing as discrimination the religious or moral disapproval of same-sex sexual conduct, while protecting only some religious employers.
[81] In June and July 2014, several pro-LGBT advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Transgender Law Center, and Lambda Legal, announced they were withdrawing support for the 113th Congress version of ENDA because of their concerns about the breadth of its religious exemption in relation to the ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..[82] From the 114th Congress onwards, efforts to pass non-discrimination legislation has focused on the broader Equality Act which focuses on additional protections including in housing and the jury system as well as employment.
