Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit

Employment Non-Discrimination has been an issue in the U.S. for decades.

Congresses have introduced legislation that has always been defeated or tabled or killed in Committees.

Citing the fact that an LGBT classification has apparently been omitted in laws addressing discrimination begs the question why.

Perhaps now that the Supreme Court has "certified" marriage legal between any 2 people, Congress can better justify a National law.

Many employers have already made non-discrimination policies that include the LGBT and obviously it works (subject to any cited law suits).

Perhaps some questions before were about "proof". Proof like authenticating somebody is actually in the LGBT group and would justify the right to sue.

Now maybe that "proof" is available with a marriage license issued by a government agency.

Common government certificates like birth certificates and drivers licenses and passports usually don't document any LGBT status.

Compare all the current laws and see if anything includes LGBT status.


There are powerful Lobby groups on both sides of this issue.

Who has the "advantage" after last week's Supreme Court ruling?

Who has the funding "advantage"?


Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers


Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Legislative activity

Well ?

a reply to: xuenchen

Can you explain how this is any different from the laws already prohibiting anti-discrimination?

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you explain how this is any different from the laws already prohibiting anti-discrimination?

We've heard from other Members that the LGBT groups are not in the existing Federal laws.

Maybe read through those and see.

I don't see any direct references and I don't know of any past lawsuits that would set precedent on a Federal level.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, there's already federal laws in place prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, transgender, etc....

The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), www.eeoc.gov...

The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011), www.eeoc.gov...; Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), www.eeoc.gov...

Source

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you explain how this is any different from the laws already prohibiting anti-discrimination

............based on sexual orientation?

Does lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transsexual fall under the banner of sexual orientation? Yes.

People need to shut up about all this anyway. There are more pressing issues to take care of.

In 31 states we the GLBTQ+ can get fired, denied services and property just based on our Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. the fact that 31 states can legally discriminate is a travesty.

The GLBTQ+ should be a federally protected class

www.vox.com...

The cause isn't a religious freedom law like the one that triggered a national firestorm in Indiana, which critics said would enable discrimination on religious grounds. Instead, 31 states, including Indiana, have long allowed discrimination against LGBTQ people because they don't include sexual orientation or gender identity in existing civil rights statutes. In these states, it's not religious freedom laws that allow discrimination; it's the lack of civil rights laws.

a reply to: admirethedistance

Looks like there's been some modest success.

Perhaps an Employment Non-Discrimination Act is not necessary?

What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Are you sure about that? Because based on my understanding of what I posted earlier and what xuenchen posted, that's not true.

I'm not too good at understanding all the legal crap, though, so I may be mistaken.

a reply to: admirethedistance

That is for Federal Employees

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Told you I wasn't good at understanding legal stuff.

a reply to: admirethedistance

I'm not the best at it either

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Surely between the recent SC ruling and the laws already in place for federal employees, if anyone in the private sector werento be unjustly fired or whatever due to discrimination of that nature, there would be enough precedent for them to win any resulting lawsuit...Right?

a reply to: admirethedistance

I would assume and hope, especially since it's a Civil Rights issue.. i hope this is our next step without having to go through lawsuits and back and forth arguments

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
In 31 states we the GLBTQ+ can get fired, denied services and property just based on our Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. the fact that 31 states can legally discriminate is a travesty.

The GLBTQ+ should be a federally protected class

www.vox.com...

The cause isn't a religious freedom law like the one that triggered a national firestorm in Indiana, which critics said would enable discrimination on religious grounds. Instead, 31 states, including Indiana, have long allowed discrimination against LGBTQ people because they don't include sexual orientation or gender identity in existing civil rights statutes. In these states, it's not religious freedom laws that allow discrimination; it's the lack of civil rights laws.

The EEOC links posted only apply to federal workers. In my state, sexual orientation has been added to our anti-discrimination laws by decree of a previous governor and only applies to state workers and does not include gender identity.

Although some local municipalities have enacted their own ordinances, at the state level discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is perfectly legal. Same sex marriage is legal but you can be married on Sunday and go to work on Monday and be fired for being gay, unless you work for the state government. Gender identity has no protection at the state level regardless and one could be fired for it even if a person did work for the state.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
In 31 states we the GLBTQ+ can get fired, denied services and property just based on our Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. the fact that 31 states can legally discriminate is a travesty.

The GLBTQ+ should be a federally protected class

www.vox.com...

The cause isn't a religious freedom law like the one that triggered a national firestorm in Indiana, which critics said would enable discrimination on religious grounds. Instead, 31 states, including Indiana, have long allowed discrimination against LGBTQ people because they don't include sexual orientation or gender identity in existing civil rights statutes. In these states, it's not religious freedom laws that allow discrimination; it's the lack of civil rights laws.

Yes,

Also employers can fire you or not hire you if you have nicotine in your drug test. Or, they find out you smoke later, even on your own time.

Most of the same people who will scream against discrimination due to one's personal choices will actually promote the exact same discrimination on someone else's personal choices.

www.forbes.com...

While there are no federal laws protecting smokers against pre-employment discrimination, 29 states currently prohibit it. If you aren’t located in one of those 29 states, you may be able to decline to hire smokers as part of a “smoke-free workplace,”


Firing Smokers

In many cases, employers have no idea whether an employee smokes until that employee is on staff. Once an employee has been identified as a smoker, firing that employee can be tricky. In some cases, courts have upheld employers’ decisions to dismiss employees for smoking, even when the activities are taking place after hours. The argument in many of these cases centers on health insurance premiums, which can be higher for all employees, even if only some employees smoke.

a reply to: EKron

Exactly! thanks for your input it's always welcome

in this titled 'Land of the Free' it seems a travesty that as a person you can get denied your Job, services and property just for being GLBTQ+

a reply to: infolurker

Drugs and being GLBTQ+ are completely different, i'm sorry if you can't understand that

a reply to: Darth_Prime

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

www.eeoc.gov...


These are federal guidelines and apply to all employment. This does not mean they are enforced equally or applied equally. That is what the court system is for. However, you can be fired for a variety of reasons and they can almost always justify them so they are very difficult to prove when they are abused or ignored.

The OP posed the issue of having to prove that you are LGBT according to ENDA. I don't know much about application of non-discrimination laws, but I don't think there is a burden on the victim to prove that the perp knows something about them, and whether that something is true or not.

originally posted by: rationalconsumer
The OP posed the issue of having to prove that you are LGBT according to ENDA. I don't know much about application of non-discrimination laws, but I don't think there is a burden on the victim to prove that the perp knows something about them, and whether that something is true or not.

Some would argue that anybody could say they were in that group and sue.

Any defense would surely ask for proof.

A marriage license could be accepted as proof.

I don't know if any of the government employee cases certified anything.

Perhaps proving the "perp's" state of mind would be enough?