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 and The opinions expressed are those of the authors.   


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.