The case involved a California woman who claimed she was denied a contractor job with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after the contractor learned she had undergone a procedure to change her gender from male to female.
Mia Macy, an Army veteran and former police detective, initially applied for the position as a man and was told that she was qualified for the job as a ballistics technician. Then she informed the contractor that she was changing her gender. After that, she was told funding for the job was cut. She later learned someone else was hired for the position.
Macy filed a complaint with the ATF, which told her that federal job discrimination laws did not apply to transgender people. The Transgender Law Center, a legal rights advocacy group in San Francisco, took up her case.
“The term `gender’ encompasses not just a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity,” the EEOC decision said.
The ruling does not yet determine that she was discriminated against but that she can bring a charge of discrimination under the law.
EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said the unanimous ruling from the five-member agency does not create a new cause of action. It clarifies that charges of gender stereotyping are considered claims of sex discrimination under existing law.
Until now, Pizer said, it was common for transgender workers to have their complaints rejected by EEOC regional offices and state civil rights agencies due to confusion about the state of the law.
“This is a confirmation that the courts are correct, so public and private employers coast to coast now have the benefit of the EEOC making this clear,” she said.
Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said the EEOC’s decision is misinterpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“Those who are discriminated against because they are transgender are not discriminated because they are male or female, it is because they are pretending to be the opposite of what they really are, which is quite a different matter,” he said.
Currently 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity. Mark Snyder, a spokesman for the Transgender Law Center, said that EEOC offices in the remaining states would now have to heed the new decision.
Federal employment discrimination laws cover private and public employers with 15 or more employees.
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
|Part of a series on|
|Lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGBT)
|Laws around the world
Recognition of relationships
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees.
ENDA has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 (except the 109th). Similar legislation has been introduced without passage since 1974. The bill gained its best chance at passing after the Democratic Party broke twelve years ofRepublican Congressional rule in the 2006 midterm elections. In 2007, gender identity protections were added to the legislation for the first time. Some sponsors believed that even with a Democratic majority, ENDA did not have enough votes to pass the House of Representatives with transgender inclusion and dropped it from the bill, which passed the House and then died in the Senate. President George W. Bush threatened to veto the measure. LGBT advocacy organizations and the LGBT community were divided over support of the modified bill.
In 2009, following Democratic gains in the 2008 elections, and after the divisiveness of the 2007 debate, Rep. Barney Frank introduced a transgender-inclusive version of ENDA. He introduced it again in 2011, and Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced it in the Senate. President Barack Obama supports the bill’s passage.
Evidence of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity
In states that have anti-discrimination policies in place, LGB complaints are equivalent to the number of complaints filed based on sex and fewer than the number of complaints filed based on race.
The Williams Institute estimates the number of LGBT employees as follows: 7 million private sector employees, 1 million state and local employees, and 200,000 employees of the federal government. Thirty percent of state and local LGBT employees live in California and New York. In comparison, LGB people make up only one half of one percent of state and local employees in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming combined. This suggests that the need for policies to address discrimination may vary markedly from state to state. Surveys that seek to document discrimination on the basis of perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity are often conducted with a pool of self identified LGBT people, making it difficult to ascertain the impact of this type of discrimination on non-LGBT individuals.
One source of evidence for hiring discrimination against openly gay men comes from a field experiment that sent two fictitious but realistic resumes to roughly 1,700 entry-level job openings. The two resumes were very similar in terms of the applicant’s qualifications, but one resume for each opening mentioned that the applicant had been part of a gay organization in college. The results showed that applicants without the gay signal had an 11.5 percent chance of being called for an interview; openly gay applicants had only a 7.2 percent chance. The callback gap varied widely according to the location of the job. Most of the overall gap detected in the study was driven by the Southern and Midwestern states in the sample — Texas, Florida, and Ohio. The Western and Northeastern states in the sample (California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New York) had only small and statistically insignificant callback gaps.
Transgender people may experience higher rates of discrimination than the LGB population. A survey of transgender and gender non-conforming people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found 90 percent of respondents experienced harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it. In comparison, a review of studies conducted by the Williams Institute in 2007 found that transgender people experienced employment discrimination at a rate 15 to 57 percent.
It is unclear whether LGBT individuals earn more or less than the general population. In a survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 38 percent of LGBT people report incomes less than $35,000, compared to 33 of all U.S. adults over age 18. Some organizations believe that no such gap exists, and that LGBT people may in fact have higher incomes than non-LGBT families. The American Family Association (AFA) argues that homosexuals as a class enjoy privileged, rather than disadvantaged, economic and cultural positions in society and that their household income is above average.
The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Religious organizations are provided an exception from this protection, similar to that found in theCivil Rights Act of 1964. Non-profit membership-only clubs, except labor unions, are similarly exempt.
All versions of the bill, irrespective of the military’s changing policies with respect to service by open gays and lesbians, have provided an exclusion for the military as an employer of members of the armed forces, though not as an employer of civilians.
Since the 111th Congress, the legislation has included language to prevent any reading of the law as a modification of the federal definition of marriage established in the Defense of Marriage Act (1995). Since the 110th Congress, a related provision aimed at non-marital legal relations like civil unions and domestic partnerships prevents requiring an employer to treat unmarried and married couples similarly.
On May 14, 1974, the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, Reps. Bella Abzug (D-NY) and Ed Koch (D-NY) introduced H.R. 14752, the “Gay Rights Bill”, which would have added sexual orientation to the protected classes specified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibited discrimination in employment and access to public accommodations and facilities.
The “United ENDA” coalition protests the removal of gender identity from the 2007 bill at San Francisco City Hall.
In the early 1990s, supporters of the legislation decided to focus on employment. Rep. Gerry Studds introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on June 23, 1994. The legislation failed in 1994 and 1995. In 1996, the bill failed on a 49-50 vote in the Senate and was not voted on in the House. Its level of support in the Senate may have represented an attempt by some to compensate for their recent support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. These early versions of ENDA did not include provisions to protect transgender people from discrimination and ENDA was not introduced in the 109th Congress.
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. Reps. Barney Frank, Chris Shays, Tammy Baldwin, and Deborah Pryceintroduced H.R. 2015 on April 24, 2007. It included gender identity within its protections. It defined gender identity as “gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” It allowed employers to require adherence “to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.”
When that bill died in committee, Frank introduced H.R. 3685 on September 27, 2007, which did not include gender identity and contained exemptions concerning employer dress codes. It was endorsed by the Education and Labor Committee on October 18 and the House of Representatives passed it on November 7, 2007, by a vote of 235 to 184, with 14 members not voting. Frank introduced a separate piece of legislation to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of gender identity.
Some LGBT activist organizations refused to support H.R. 3685 because of its failure to cover gender identity. An exception was the Human Rights Campaign, which received wide criticism from the LGBT community for supporting a non-inclusive ENDA. The LGBT activist organizations that refused to support H.R. 3685 argued that not including transgender people undermined the underlying principle of ENDA. They claimed that failure to include gender identity/expression weakened the protection for the portion of the gay population that most needed its protections: gender non-conforming gays, who they claimed are discriminated against in greater numbers than their gender-conforming compatriots. 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.
On June 24, 2009, Frank introduced H.R. 3017 to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, with 114 original cosponsors, up from 62 cosponsors for the trans-inclusive bill of 2007.” The lead Republican cosponsor was Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen(R-FL). Republican Main Street Partnership members Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE), Todd Russell Platts (R-PA), Judy Biggert (R-IL), and Leonard Lance (R-NJ) were among the original cosponsors. The bill was referred to the House Education and Labor Committee, which held a hearing on the legislation on September 23, 2009. At the end of the 111th Congress, H.R. 3017 had 203 cosponsors in the House.
On August 5, 2009, Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced ENDA legislation (S. 1584) that included gender identity, with 38 original cosponsors including Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Chris Dodd (D-CT). Sen. Merkley said “It’s certainly possible that this could be passed by year’s end, though the [congressional] schedule is very crowded.” As of March 13, 2010, S. 1584 had 45 co-sponsors and was pending before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which held a hearing on the legislation on November 5, 2009.
On April 14, 2011, Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced an ENDA bill (S. 811) in the Senate. The bill had 39 original cosponsors. On June 19, 2012, the Senate Committee on Housing, Employment, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on the bill before the Senate Committee on Housing, Employment, Labor and Pensions, which included the first testimony by a transgender witness.
Arguments in favor of ENDA
Most proponents of the law[who?] 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. Currently, these employees are unable to find protection in thecourts because sexual orientation is not considered to be a suspect class by the federal courts and by many U.S. states. 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. Advocates argue that homosexuality is not a “choice” but a personal identity, a claim supported by the American Psychology Association (APA), and that all working people have a right to be judged by the quality of their work performance and not by completely unrelated factors. 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. The APA also states that there is significant discrimination against homosexuals in the workforce. There are also studies showing that local anti-discrimination laws are ineffective, and federal law is needed.
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. Assessments of the impact of comparable state policies also show a minimal impact on caseload.Regarding constitutionality, the act incorporates language similar to that of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has consistently been upheld by the courts.
Arguments in opposition to ENDA
Ed Vitagliano, director of research for the American Family Association (AFA), a conservative Christian organization, wrote in 2007 that there was “no real problem of discrimination against homosexuals.” He 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. Consumer surveys show that self-identified gay individuals likely have higher incomes than the average US household, and ENDA opponents argue that many gay people hold positions of cultural influence as well.
The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) fears that the legislation will have a negative impact on school children, in that ENDA would threaten a stable and supportive learning environment. A non-discrimination policy would eliminate schools’ ability to avoid hiring against transgender teachers. The TVC is concerned that parents are not being adequately informed of the presence of transgender teachers in their children’s classrooms. It argues that children should not be “subjected to [a transgendered] man’s [sic] bizarre sexual transformation” because in its view transgender individuals are “seriously mentally disturbed.” The TVC argues that individuals cannot change their sex, even with surgery, and that it is impossible to transition from one sex to another.
|Congress||Short title||Bill number(s)||Gender identity included?||Date introduced||Sponsor(s)||# of cosponsors||Latest status|
|112th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act||H.R. 1397||Yes||April 6, 2011||Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)||171||Referred to the Education and the Workforce, House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and Judiciary committees.|
|S. 811||Yes||April 14, 2011||Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)||43||Referred to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee.|
|111th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009||H.R. 3017||Yes||June 24, 2009||Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)||203||Died in the Judiciary, House Administration, Education and Labor, and Oversight and Government Reform committees. Hearings held September 23, 2009 in Education and Labor committee.|
|H.R. 2981||Yes||June 19, 2009||Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)||12||Died in the House Judiciary Committee|
|S. 1584||Yes||August 5, 2009||Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)||45||Died in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearings held November 5, 2009.|
|110th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007||H.R. 2015||Yes||April 24, 2007||Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)||184||Died in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties|
|H.R. 3685||No||September 27, 2007||Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)||9||Passed the House (235–184), died in the Senate|
|108th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003||H.R. 3285||No||October 8, 2003||Rep. Christopher Shays(R-CT)||180||Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations|
|S. 1705||No||October 2, 2003||Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)||43||Died in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|
|107th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2001||H.R. 2692||No||July 31, 2001||Rep. Christopher Shays(R-CT)||193||Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations|
|S. 1284||No||July 31, 2001||Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)||44||Died in the Senate|
|106th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999||H.R. 2355||No||June 24, 1999||Rep. Christopher Shays(R-CT)||173||Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations|
|S. 1276||No||June 24, 1999||Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT)||36||Died in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|
|105th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997||H.R. 1858||No||June 10, 1997||Rep. Christopher Shays(R-CT)||140||Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations|
|S. 869||No||June 10, 1997||Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT)||34||Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources|
|104th Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1995||H.R. 1863||No||June 15, 1995||Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA)||142||Died in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution|
|S. 932||No||June 15, 1995||Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT)||30||Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources|
|S. 2056||No||September 5, 1996||Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)||3||Failed in Senate (49-50)|
|103rd Congress||Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994||H.R. 4636||No||June 23, 1994||Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA)||137||Died in the House Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights|
|S. 2238||No||July 29, 1994||Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)||30||Died in the SenateThe above clearly shows the status of federal law regarding discrimination and that it was not passed but sent to
While I was a little hard on myself these are the real facts of where we stand on any federal legislation that would permanently guarantee job discrimination against Transgendered people.