LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
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."
Clinton acknowledged its limitations in a statement:[6] 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).
[3][4] 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.
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in a 6–3 decision on June 15, 2020, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
"[11] 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.
[20] 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.
25 out of 50 US states, and the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands[23] have statutes that explicitly codifies and protects against both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment in both the public and private sector: California,[24] Colorado,[25] Connecticut, Delaware,[26] Hawaii,[27] Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,[22] Nevada,[28] New Hampshire,[29] New Jersey,[30] New Mexico, New York,[31] Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
One state being Pennsylvania[32][33][34] have acquired such protections through executive orders, regulations, court rulings or binding decisions under a human rights commission since 2018.
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.
[41] 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).
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.
[114] The Supreme Court noted that Hopkins’ failure to meet gender norms was taken into account by Price Waterhouse when making their employment decision.
[117] 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.
[118] 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.
[122] The argument consisted of analyzing the broad meaning of “because of sex” and looking at the dictionary definition of “homosexual.”[122] 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.
[125] 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.
[126] 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.
[127] 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.
[128] 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).
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.
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.
