Inclusive ENDA: Passage is Essential
The first Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bill that would create a federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was introduced into Congress fifteen years ago. Fifteen years feels like a very long time given the progress that has been made generally on LGBT social issues and understanding during that same time span.
Today, a version of that same bill – but one that expands the prohibitions to include gender identity discrimination as well as sexual orientation discrimination – is again being introduced. Its passage is essential. In the last year, GLAD’s InfoLine received nearly 250 calls from people who faced some form of discrimination in employment. The bottom line is that if people cannot work, they cannot take care of the most basic needs for themselves and their families.
It is simply remarkable to me that in 2009, we still have to make the case for the most basic employment protections to be written into out nation’s laws. And yet we do. Those unfamiliar with law often find it surprising to learn that in most states, discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people is perfectly legal. In New England, we have made much progress. Of the 6 New England states where GLAD focuses our work, all have sexual orientation discrimination prohibitions written into state law and half have gender identity discrimination prohibitions. Much work remains to be done legislatively in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts (read an update here).
Two years ago (2007) marked the first time that a federal bill was introduced that included both sexual orientation and gender identity employment prohibitions. Its introduction reflected a tremendous amount of collaborative work among legal and political groups to both demonstrate the need and the viability of the approach. The subsequent stripping of the bill of the gender identity provision made the “trans” part of the bill a focus of the community’s discussion and, to the extent there can be any silver lining of that debacle, what emerged was broad community consensus for a unified approach and solution. What lies ahead is the hard work involved in passing a law.
It is my hope and wish that the public discussion about an inclusive ENDA is well behind us. I have no idea whether or not we had to go through that process or if there was a way it could have been avoided. Regardless, what is clear is that much basic work remains to be done to advance an anti-discrimination law that protects queer people whether L, G, B, or T.
Help Ensure ENDA Becomes Law
You can help build momentum for the bill’s passage by contacting your legislator today and asking him or her to become a cosponsor. Becoming a cosponsor shows that the representative will stand firm with our community in support of this important legislation.
- Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and have them connect you to your representative (based on your zip code)
- Once you’ve made your call, reiterate your support with an email
- Set up a meeting for you and other community members to visit with your representative in his or her home district office during the August recess. You can find contact information for your representative here
- For talking points and tips on approaching your legislator, visit www.unitedenda.org
- Forward this information to your friends, families, and colleagues across the country, and ask them to contact their legislators, too.
Comments
- On June 25, 2009 at 4:33 pm, EarthAngel commented:
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if ENDA also included intersex people?
- On June 26, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Jennifer Levi commented:
Yes, it would be wonderful and it would be my hope that we could successfully argue that either ENDA does or already existing federal sex discrimination laws do protect an intersex person who faced discrimination in employment relating to the person’s intersex condition or identity.
The reality is that federal laws do not typically identify a subcategory of person protected by law. In other words, federal law prohibits discrimination against persons based on sex rather than prohibiting discrimination against women. ENDA proposes to add a federal prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It does not specify that discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people is prohibited. To the extent that an intersex person could ultimately prove that the discrimination experienced was because of the individual’s sex or gender identity, either existing federal law or ENDA should protect that person.
- On June 26, 2009 at 3:35 pm, Wimsy commented:
DOMA has got to go, too. Constitutional cases have always held that a marriage that is valid where performed is valid anywhere. DOMA seeks to change that because the profoundly retarded states don’t want to recognize gay marriage. They also didn’t want to recognize emancipation, or women’s right to vote, or inter-racial marriage, prevented the Equal Rights Amendment from passing, and are violently opposed to ENDA because they want to preserve their right to treat others like garbage. It’s time we stopped coddling bigots.
- On June 26, 2009 at 9:30 pm, EarthAngel commented:
Jennifer, if that is possible then that is terrific. The experience of intersex people in other countries who have tried arguing for protection under laws that do not specifically mention the word intersex, such as disability discrimination laws, sex discrimination laws, sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination laws, is not positive.
Generalized language seems to be an ongoing problem as defendants often choose to argue that because intersex is left out as a word, and definitions of those other terms are loose or even inaccurate compared to what might have been intended, that intersex people are specifically not covered. Sloppily written laws continue to be a problem for intersex people.
Wimsy, how right you are. Let us hope the Obama administration refuses to do that - coddling bigots who cannot cope with the real world. My concern is though, that this administration is continuing the tendency of leaving intersex people out of it, as in their declaration of June as LGBT Pride Month. No mention of intersex. Why? Intersex is not a subset of L, G, B or T. What is their intention regrading intersex?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/