ILNews

Column: ENDA would protect sexual orientation, gender identity

August 13, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Stephanie L. Cassman and Theresa R. Parish

With same-sex marriage gaining momentum in Indiana and across the nation, it is no surprise that protection from discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity is most likely on the horizon. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, but is silent with respect to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Advocates have been working to fill this void with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. ENDA has been introduced in nearly every congressional session since 1994, but it has been unsuccessful in passing for various reasons, most of which are considered political.

cassman Cassman

For purposes of ENDA, “sexual orientation” means homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality, and “gender identity” means “the 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.” ENDA would prohibit employers from using sexual orientation or gender identity when making employment decisions relating to hiring, discharging, promoting or compensation. It would also be unlawful for employers to limit, segregate or classify employees or applicants based on sexual orientation or gender identity in any way that would have an adverse effect on employment. Further, ENDA would prohibit preferential treatment or the implementation of quotas on the basis of such actual or perceived orientation or identity. Similar to Title VII, ENDA would prohibit retaliation against employees who oppose such discriminatory practices. The damages available would be the same as under Title VII, including injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees.

parish Parish

ENDA would allow employers to maintain their current dress codes and grooming policies. However, employers would be required to permit an employee who has undergone gender transition to follow the same dress and grooming policies that apply to the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is in the process of transitioning. ENDA would not require employers to construct new or additional facilities, such as bathrooms.

Despite these protections, there would be limitations under ENDA. Similar to Title VII, ENDA would not apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees. ENDA also contains an exemption for corporations, associations, educational institutions or institutions of learning, or societies that are exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII.

ENDA certainly has hope for becoming law as the regulatory, social and political environments are steadily moving toward providing rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Several states have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in both the private and public workplaces. Indiana only prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the public workplace. The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because the person is transgender is discrimination because of sex and therefore is provided protection under Title VII. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012). The EEOC has also found that claims by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals alleging sex stereotyping is a valid claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011). Almost 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies, which collectively employ nearly 25 million people, have implemented policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and over 50 percent of those companies also prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. Most recently, on July 21, President Barack Obama signed an executive order making it illegal for federal contractors to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. While the executive order only governs the federal contracting community, protection is afforded to an estimated 28 million workers, which is approximately one-fifth of the nation’s workforce.

It sends a clear message to all employers that change is on the way.•

Stephanie L. Cassman, equity partner, and Theresa R. Parish, associate, practice employment law at Lewis Wagner LLP. They can be reached at scassman@lewiswagner.com and tparish@lewiswagner.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.   
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT