endaNOW

by Mary Garrigan | Rapid City Journal

Kathy Kandt doesn’t need to see a report by the University of California to tell her that job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity exists in South Dakota.

“At least one-third of the GLBTQ (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning) community that trickles in and out of our doors here at the Black Hills Center for Equality reports incidents of harassment, some old and some fairly fresh,” Kandt said. “Yes, there is on-the-job harassment and discrimination because of gender identity here in good, old Rapid City.”

Legislation that would broaden anti-discrimination provisions in state employment law to include sexual orientation and gender identity may be introduced in the 2010 legislature, said Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry, D-Watertown. Turbak Berry requested the new research from UCLA’s Williams Institute, a think tank that focuses on sexual orientation law and public policy, to have factual information on hand, “especially since discussion sometimes becomes more emotional than fact-based when the topic involves sexual orientation or gender.”

There are about 12,400 gay, lesbian and bisexual people living in South Dakota, according to the UCLA report, a figure based on data it extrapolated from the U.S. Census and the National Survey of Family Growth. There may be as many as 2,000 transgender individuals in the state, as well, so passing nondiscrimination legislation here could protect 14,000 or more South Dakota citizens from sexual orientation discrimination, the report said.

Study co-author Lee Badgett called the report a “very conservative estimate” of both the size of the LGBT population in the state and the extent of the discrimination they face.

About 4 percent of the adult U.S. population can be identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, based on Census data from people living as part of a same-sex couple, Badgett said. But the report’s estimates of South Dakota’s LGBT population may be low, since fewer of them may live together as couples in a more conservative political and social climate, Badgett said.

“Living together is a fairly visible act,” she said.

Neither South Dakota law nor federal employment law specifically protects people from job discrimination due to sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, 20 states have a law on sexual orientation discrimination and, of those, 13 also include gender identity. The federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act working its way through Congress right now also would address sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The problem is that there’s no law preventing this discrimination, so there’s really no one to report it to when it does happen,” said Badgett. “It’s a bit of a Catch-22.”

Those legal realities make sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace hard to track, she said.

While there is little or no research specifically on discrimination against LGBT people in South Dakota, national data from 15 studies conducted since the mid-1990s show that 15 to 43 percent of LGBT respondents experienced discrimination in the workplace, mirroring Kandt’s estimates that at least one-third of the LGBT community in Rapid City has, too.

A 2008 General Social Survey found that 37 percent of gay and lesbian people nationwide reported workplace harassment in the past five years and 12 percent reported losing a job because of their sexual orientation.

Census data on same-sex couples in South Dakota shows that lesbians and gay men are often underemployed and underpaid, when compared to their heterosexual counterparts in the work force. The picture that emerges from Census data is that South Dakotans who live in same-sex couples are less likely to be fully employed when compared to married heterosexual couples (62 percent versus 71 percent) and they earn less than married heterosexual couples here, despite higher levels of education. The average man in a same-sex couple in South Dakota earns $24,551 per year, about one-third less than the $37,248 average earnings for married heterosexual men. Women in same-sex couples earn half as much as married heterosexual women, $9,980 per year compared to $20,015. Badgett said those earnings and employment data are likely to be related to discrimination faced by LGBT people.

Turbak Berry plans to support any bill that would protect more citizens –- including LGBT people –- from workplace discrimination but said she wouldn’t necessarily be the prime Senate sponsor of it.

“Whoever leads the way, I am hopeful the legislature will join the many private employers in South Dakota who already recognize how destructive employment discrimination is –- not only to individual citizens and families, but also to business and productivity.”

About 80 percent of the 50 largest employers in South Dakota have policies that prohibit discrimination against LGBT workers. In addition, the Williams Institute found that the state’s two largest universities as well as the cities of Brookings, Lead and Vermillion and the counties of Minnehaha, Clay and Shannon have implemented policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

The UCLA report predicted that passing such legislation in South Dakota would result in about five LGBT persons filing complaints with state agencies.

Robert Youngs, Jr. | Battlecreek Enquirer

While I’ll admit I’m aware of the concept and that I don’t doubt such a thing exists, why aren’t we discussing the discrimination that goes unnoticed by so many?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, public facilities, universal suffrage and in employment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. For 45 years, it’s been illegal to discriminate based on the aforementioned items.

Discrimination based on race may still unfortunately happen, but the laws are there.

But what about straight privilege?

It is still legal in 19 states and Puerto Rico to discriminate in all employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sexual orientation is how one identifies in their romantic or physical attraction to the opposite sex, to the same sex, or both. Gender identity is how an individual identifies in his or her own mind as male, female or neither.

Let me add that both variables are fluid and work more on a sliding scale, and there are no definite stops on it.

Here, in Michigan, and in Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, it is illegal to be discriminated against with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity for only state employment.

This means it is totally legal for any private-sector employer to exclude whomever they want from employment based on a real or perceived issue with regard to sexual orientation or gender identity.

While some towns in Michigan, most recently being Kalamazoo, do prohibit such discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing, it is still largely legal to discriminate as such.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have enacted bans on discrimination with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity in all employment.

With the tough times we’re experiencing economically as a nation, why would an employer knowingly keep someone from working and earning a living, even if they think someone might be gay?

This is the question that’s bothered me for quite some time.

We all have the right to fair employment and to succeed. As the Declaration of Independence states, we all have the right to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Why should we knowingly live in a society where not everyone is protected, and consent to a lack of protection for all?

This is where the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) comes in. In our country, we should all have the right to be employed and succeed.

ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers who employ over 15 people.

This isn’t a behavioral thing, nor is it a moral issue. People can be and are excluded from employment because they love someone of the same sex or because they iden-tify with the opposite gender they were assigned at birth.

Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow support ENDA. I have written both personally.

Regardless of where you stand, we all have at least one family member, friend, acquaintance or co-worker who may identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

If you haven’t made a New Year’s resolution yet, resolve to protect the rights of everyone.

To stand apathetically on the sidelines of the field of equality detracts from the fight.

I humbly ask you to ask your friends, family and elected officials to support ENDA.

Equal rights are not a special interest.

I’m straight, and I understand the fight.

Because the Employment Non Discrimination Act is desperately needed by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to combat employment discrimination and is also ripe legislatively, our organizations call on the members of the House Committee on Education and Labor and Congress to take immediate action and pass ENDA without further delay.

Passing a bill of far reaching impact such as ENDA requires considerable labor. Written in large part almost fifteen years ago, with even older roots, tens of thousands of people and organizations have formed and advocated for ENDA. Simply from the perspective of LGBT organizations, our lawyers have helped craft language, our field staff members have mobilized supporters, our communications teams have told our stories, and our lobbyists have logged countless thousands of hours on Capitol Hill and in coalition meetings.

Outside of Washington DC, state, local and some national organizations have worked hard to move ENDA and secure employment protections. They have passed state and local laws, developed relationships with their members of Congress, and leveraged those relationships to educate Congress and push for passage of ENDA. Many individual activists and allies have undertaken considerable time and effort to meet with members of Congress and press for their support.

So many people have worked so hard. All the while, though, people across our country wait, desperate to keep the jobs they have and to work in the jobs they seek. They are the ones who matter and they are the ones who cannot afford to wait if they are to overcome discrimination and have the jobs that they need to feed their families, pay the rent, and contribute to their communities. They need to know that they can get work and keep it without being fired for who they are. They cannot wait any longer nor should they have to.

by Susan Silber, Senior Partner at Silber, Perlman, Sigman & Tilev
posted on the American Constitution Society blog

For months now, we have been waiting for congressional action on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), (HR 3017) and (S1584), federal legislation to end workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There has been a sense that action on this bill was due shortly after work was completed on the hate crimes bill, which was signed into law last month.

Recently, House and Senate Committees held hearings on ENDA. Testimony in both chambers in favor of this measure has been compelling, illustrating the nationwide problem of job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, outlining the inadequacy of federal law to address the issue, delineating the inconsistent patchwork of state and local laws that presently exists, and demonstrating how enacting ENDA to include its provisions among our nation’s existing system of non-discrimination laws would help correct these problems.

ENDA’s provisions – banning discrimination in workplaces while protecting religious freedom by including the same religious exemption that currently exists in Title VII – strike the correct balance between the needs of employees and employers, between the need to end discrimination levied against people because of the bias of others while ensuring that businesses can function effectively with an appropriate focus on productivity and sustainability. For this reason, many corporations support ENDA, including those in states where business has experience with non-discrimination laws including similar provisions. A Government Accounting Office (GAO) report issued on October 1, 2009, describes in great detail the experiences of the states that have state-level non-discrimination laws that bar these types of discrimination, some of them in place for more than three decades. Similarly, experience with the implementation of federal non-discrimination laws demonstrate that these laws function effectively as intended, by establishing legal requirements that prevent discrimination in the first place, by providing equal opportunity for job candidates and employees, and by remedying discrimination when it has occurred and can be proven through solid evidence. This legislation is well-written and will be effective.

Mark-up was postponed this week, but from my perspective it should be rescheduled immediately or soon after the Thanksgiving recess. There is no reason to wait to enact this legislation, which is needed and long overdue.

As a member of the employment discrimination bar, as I look ahead to when ENDA is law, I can see that ENDA will work as intended. Employers will understand their basic obligations under our system of federal laws designed to treat all workers fairly, and to ensure that no one is refused a job, denied a promotion, or fired because of personal characteristics that have nothing to do with work. This law will assist employers and employees alike, because it will convey to everyone that job candidates and employees are to be evaluated and treated in accordance with those factors that make a difference to business and in the workplace: a job candidate’s credentials, qualifications and experience, and employee’s skills, talents, hard work and productivity. These are the worker attributes that contribute both to the bottom line of employers, and to our nation’s productivity.

“Bosses and supervisors learn that mistreatment, harassment and disrespect — let alone hirings and firings based on sexual orientation or gender identity — are unacceptable. Peer pressure and a workplace culture drive home the message that it’s safe to reveal, if not your “real” self, then let’s just say, a workable version of it.

–The Oregonian editorial in support of ENDA

from GayAgenda.com

Tom Perez, the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, told senators Thursday a bill to prevent employers from discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation creates a “level playing field.”

Perez testified in support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (S. 1584) before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The ENDA legislation has been proposed many times in the past, but this is the first time since 2002 it’s had a hearing in the Senate.

Perez disputed critics who say the bill would create a quota system for employers. That’s a “quintessential red herring” and “just dead wrong,” Perez said.

The Civil Rights Division regularly receive letters from individuals complaining of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment, Perez testified.

“We cannot in good conscience stand by and watch unjustifiable discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals occur in the workplace without redress,” said Perez. “We have come too far in our struggle for ’equal justice under the law’ to remain silent or stoic.”

read more