Transgender bathrooms is a solution in search of a problem

In the blogging world, when you snooze, you lose. Yesterday, my fellow bloggers were all over the EEOC’s publication of guidance on bathroom access for transgender employees:

• Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog: Not letting transgender employees use the restroom of their gender identity is sex discrimination 
• Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space: EEOC issues transgender employee fact sheet 
• Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider: EEOC posts fact sheets on LGBT discrimination, transgender issues 
• Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog: Bathroom Access Rights Guaranteed By Title VII
• The Russ Runkel Report: EEOC & OSHA on transgender bathrooms access

Here’s the bottom line.

Ohio tries again to add LGBT rights to employment discrimination law

As I’ve said more times than I can count, I think it’s repulsive that, in 2016, it is lawful under Title VII and the employment-discrimination laws of most states to discriminate because of one’s LGBT status.

S.B. 318 [pdf], introduced in late April, looks to change this aberration in Ohio.

EEOC sues employers challenging sexual orientation discrimination as Title-VII sex discrimination

Yesterday, the EEOC filed two lawsuits, each claiming that an employer’s discrimination against an LGBT employee violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination.

From the EEOC’s press release:

Appellate court reinstates sex-discrimination claim of transgendered worker

A federal appellate court reinstated the sex-discrimination claim of a transgender auto mechanic. Credit Nation Auto Sales fired Jennifer Chavez less than three months after she notified it of her gender transition.

The employer argued that it fired her because it caught her sleeping in a customer’s vehicle while on the clock. Even though the court concluded that the employer’s reason was “true and legitimate”, it nevertheless reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the sex-discrimination claim.

EEOC stakes its turf on the issue of sexual orientation discrimination

As I thought of which David Bowie song to support today’s effort, the one that leapt to mind is “Space Oddity” (I was going to use “Changes”, but Dan Schwartz already claimed it for his post yesterday).

To me, it is a complete oddity that, in the 2016, it is still statutorily legal for an employer to fire an employee because of that employee’s sexual orientation. On this point, the EEOC and I see eye-to-eye. The difference, however, is that the EEOC is in a position do so something about it. What it is not doing is sitting around and waiting for Congress to do something about it.

John Oliver takes on LGBT discrimination, and gets it 100% correct

HBO’s last week with John Oliver is fast becoming my favorite “news” show on television. This past week, John took on the issue of LGBT discrimination. In a blistering 14:45, he summed up what I’ve been preaching for years—the time is long past due that it becomes the law of this nation that LGBT discrimination in employment and elsewhere is illegal and cannot be tolerated in a civilized and free society.

Enjoy.

EEOC announces that Title VII treats all LGBT discrimination as unlawful sex discrimination

Last week, the EEOC released a historic decision on same-sex employment discrimination rights [pdf]. The EEOC confirmed that, in its opinion, Title VII expressly bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. When you couple this decision with an earlier 2012 decision on transgender workplace rights, the EEOC has done what Congress has thus far refused—to re-write Title VII to include express prohibitions against LGBT discrimination.

How does the EEOC reason that allegations of sexual-orientation discrimination necessarily state a claim of Title-VII-protected sex discrimination?

When an employee raises a claim of sexual orientation discrimination as sex discrimination under Tide VII, the question is not whether sexual orientation is explicitly listed in Title VII as a prohibited basis for employment actions. It is not…. [W]e conclude that sexual orientation is inherently a “sex-based ccmsideration” and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII. A complaintant alleging that an agency took his or her sexual orientation into account in an employment action necessarily alleges that the agency took his or her sex into account….

Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex….

Sexual orientation discrimination is also sex discrimination because it is associational discrimination on the basis of sex. That is, an employee alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is alleging that his or her employer took his or her sex into account by treating him or her differently for associating with a person of the same sex.

What does this mean? ENDA or no ENDA, the EEOC will accept charges alleging LGBT discrimination under Title VII’s sex-discrimination prohibition. Indeed, the agency accepted more than 1,000 of these charges last year alone.

While neither nor courts have approved this broad stroke, now is as good a time as any to consider updating to your employment policies to reflect this paradigm shift.

Equal in love, but not yet equal at work—the next frontier of LGBT rights

Friday was certainly exciting. SCOTUS surprised everyone by releasing Obergefell v. Hodges [pdf] a day earlier than expected.

In case you missed it, in a 5-4 opinion authored by swing-vote Justice Kennedy, SCOTUS held that gay marriage as a nation-wide fundamental right:

The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry…. State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.

What is getting all the press, however, is the beautifully poetic closing paragraph of Justice Kennedy:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

What is next for LGBT rights? The right to be free from employment discrimination.

Shortly after Obergefell’s publication, Wonkblog published a stirring post calling for the end of all workplace discrimination against LGBT individuals. In that post, Wonkblog was kind enough to share this map (created by the Human Rights Campaign) of the current state of LGBT workplace-discrimination laws:

 

Where are we on this issue?

• 21 states and the District of Columbia ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• 18 of those states also ban workplace discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
• Per Executive Orders, the federal government, along with its contractors and subcontractors, are also prohibited from discriminating against their employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
• 89 percent of the Fortune 500 include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies.

We have come a long way in just the past few years. Indeed, I believe that a majority of Americans now support the extension of all civil rights to the LGBT community. Yet, Congress has consistently failed to act on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would extend Title VII’s coverage to sexual orientation and gender identity. SCOTUS’s ruling in Obergefell is a huge step in the right direction. Let’s hope it is a step that will lead Congress to passing the ENDA sooner rather than later.

Transgender rights take center stage

It’s been a big week for the rights of transgender Americans.

• Caitlyn (née Bruce) Jenner had her coming out party on the cover of Vanity Fair and become the quickest person to reach 1 million followers on Twitter, in less than four hours, besting President Obama’s record from two weeks ago.

• The EEOC published a guide addressing the rights of LGBT employees working in the federal sector [pdf], and continues to litigate cases under Title VII’s sex-discrimination prohibitions on behalf of transgender employees.

• OSHA published a statement of “best practices” for bathroom access for transgender employees [pdf], clarifying that employees should be entitled to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify, and that no employer should require an employee to use a specific gender’s bathroom, or a segregated transgender-only bathroom facility.

While we wait for the law the catch up to society’s opinion on LGBT rights (i.e., same-sex marriage rights and official statutory extension of Title VII’s protections to LGBT employees), our federal agencies are doing the best they can to modernize these laws for us. If you are still discriminating against LGBT employees, it’s time to stop. You are officially behind the times. It was not that long ago that LGBT rights were a joke. Now, we are on the verge of a breakthrough. Are you going to ride the wave, or hold onto the jam of the door that Caitlyn Jenner just kicked down kicking and screaming. The choice, for now, is yours, unless you run afoul of the EEOC, OSHA, or a court, each of which is doing is best to do what Congress has, thus far, refused.

OSHA chimes in on transgender bathrooms

OSHA is no stranger to regulating workplace bathrooms. Now, Employment Law 360 [sub. req.] reports that OSHA and the National Center for Transgender Equality “have entered into a partnership to develop and distribute information to ensure transgender employees have safe and adequate access to workplace restrooms.” According to NCTE Executive Director Mara Keisling, “Transgender workers can be prevented from using common workplace restrooms, which is a threat to their physical health and a violation of federal law.” Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels adds, “Through this alliance, we will jointly work with the NCTE to develop products and guidance materials to improve workplace safety and health for all workers.”

This is an interesting issue, and, especially for employees and employers for whom this issue causes some degree of discomfort, can present a real problem. Yet, this is a problem with a simple solution—establish a unisex bathroom. Or, you can permit transgender employees to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify. Either way, this is an issue you should be discussing with your employees and building in your EEO / anti-harassment training. This issue is not going away (see Bruce Jenner), and the sooner you address it in your workplace, the less risk you are taking.

[Image courtesy of Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider]

Sex stereotyping as transgender discrimination

Last week the EEOC settled, for $150,000, one of its first cases alleging sex discrimination against a transgender employee. This week, another transgender employee filed a remarkably similar lawsuit in federal court in Louisiana. The key difference between the two cases? The Louisiana employer had a formal policy against employees presenting at work as a gender other than their birth gender:

Title VII does not (yet) specifically identify “sexual orientation” as a protected class. But, sexual stereotyping has been illegal for decades. Keep this in mind, and keep an open mind, if your employee shows up as John on Friday and Joan the following Monday.

LGBT rules for federal contractors now in effect

If you are a federal contractor or subcontractor, this is big week for you. On April 8, the OFCCP’s Final Rule Implementing Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors took effect.

What does this mean for federal contractor’s and subcontractors?

• You must take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated, without regard to their sexual orientation and gender identity.
• You must include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited bases of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Clause in all federal contracts, subcontracts, and purchase orders.
• You must update all solicitations or advertisements for employment to state that the contractor considers all applicants for employment without regard to any of the protected bases, which now must include sexual orientation and gender identity.
• You must post updated notices in the workplace for applicants and employees, which state that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected traits in employment.

Here’s what President Obama said when he signed the Executive Order last year:

It doesn’t make much sense, but today in America, millions of our fellow citizens wake up and go to work with the awareness that they could lose their job, not because of anything they do or fail to do, but because of who they are—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender. And that’s wrong. We’re here to do what we can to make it right—to bend that arc of justice just a little bit in a better direction….

Equality in the workplace is not only the right thing to do, it turns out to be good business. That’s why a majority of Fortune 500 companies already have nondiscrimination policies in place. It is not just about doing the right thing—it’s also about attracting and retaining the best talent….

And yet, despite all that, in too many states and in too many workplaces, simply being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender can still be a fireable offense….

For more than two centuries, we have strived, often at great cost, to form “a more perfect union”—to make sure that “we, the people” applies to all the people. Many of us are only here because others fought to secure rights and opportunities for us. And we’ve got a responsibility to do the same for future generations. We’ve got an obligation to make sure that the country we love remains a place where no matter who you are, or what you look like, or where you come from, or how you started out, or what your last name is, or who you love—no matter what, you can make it in this country.

Here’s to a day, hopefully in the very-near future, when this arc of justice no longer needs to be bent.

DOL proposes expanded FMLA coverage for same-sex couples

Same-sex spousal rights in this country are a mess. There is hope that the Supreme Court will clear it all up later this year when it hears the issue. In the meantime, the Department of Labor has proposed a change to the FMLA’s definition of “spouse.” From the DOL:

We announced a rule change under the FMLA to make sure that eligible workers in legal, same-sex marriages, regardless of where they live, will have the same rights as those in opposite-sex marriages to care for a spouse. We’ve extended that promise so that no matter who you love, you will receive the same rights and protections as everyone else.

For the purposes of the FMLA, marriage will now be determined based on where the couple got married, not on where an employee lives. This is called a “place of celebration” rule.  That means that access to federal FMLA leave for an individual in a same-sex marriage is protected regardless of the marriage laws of the state in which that worker resides.

Thus, as proposed, the meaning of “spouse” under the FMLA would depend on the law of state in which the marriage was celebrated, not the law of the state where the employee lives or works. So, if your business is in Ohio and your employee lives and works in Ohio (which does not currently permit same-sex marriages), but travels to New York for a lawful and valid same-sex wedding ceremony, you would have to grant that employee the same FMLA benefits as you would to any other “spouse.”

This rule takes effect March 27, which means you have only 30 days to prepare your FMLA policies and practices for this important change. What should you be doing to prepare? Jeff Nowak offers three really good ideas:

1. Train your leave administrators and supervisors on the new rule.  If any of these employees are remotely involved in the leave management process (e.g., they pick up the phone when an employee reports an absence, they answer employee questions about absences, they determine eligibility and/or designation rights under FMLA), they need to understand their responsibilities under the new rule, since benefits available to certain employees will have changed.

2. Review and amend your FMLA policy and procedures, as well as all FMLA-related forms and notices, to the extent that they specifically define the term “spouse” in a way that does not account for the new rule.

3. Be mindful that this new regulation covers individuals who enter into a same-sex marriage. However, the FMLA does not protect civil unions or domestic partnerships, so employers are well advised to determine whether FMLA applies in any particular situation.  That said, employers are free to provide greater rights than those provided for under the FMLA.

Of course, as Robin Shea correctly points out, if the Supreme Court rules later this year that states must recognize valid same-sex marriages entered in other states (as it should), then the necessity of this DOL regulatory change is short lived.

Courtesy of the DOL, here are all of the resources you need on this important issue:

• Text of the Final Rule (effective March 27) [pdf]
• DOL Fact Sheet
• FAQs
• DOL Press Release

Feds impose LGBT affirmative action on federal contractors

If you are a federal contractor of subcontractor, in four months you will have new affirmative action obligations relating to sexual orientation and gender identity.

According to a Final Rule issued last week by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, beginning  April 5, 2015, federal contractors and subcontractors must include federal contractors and subcontractors must include sexual orientation and gender identity in their affirmative action plans.

According to the Rule, which implements Executive Order 13762, federal contractors and subcontractors must:

• Take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated, without regard to their sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited bases of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Clause in all federal contracts, subcontracts, and purchase orders.
• Update all solicitations or advertisements for employment to state that the contractor considers all applicants for employment without regard to any of the protected bases, which now must include sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Post updated notices in the workplace for applicants and employees, which state that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected traits in employment.

Notably, and different than affirmative action for other protected traits, the Rule does not require contractors to set placement goals on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity, nor does it require contractors to collect and analyze any data on these bases (although the OFCCP will consider statistical and non-statistical data in determining whether contractors have met their nondiscrimination obligations).

While Congress continues to drag it feet  on ENDA, the Obama Administration continues to do what it can to extend equal employment opportunity for all.

Federal court holds that Title VII does not protect the transgendered

LGBT rights continue to dominate headlines. Last month, the 6th Circuit became the first federal appellate court to uphold a state-law same-sex marriage ban, teeing up a likely showdown in the Supreme Court sometime next year. In September, the EEOC filed its first two lawsuits alleging sex discrimination on behalf of transgender employees (here and here).

Now, a federal court in Texas has expressly held that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination does not extend to a transgender employee. Eure v. The Sage Corp. (W.D. Tex. 11/19/14) (h/t: Eric Meyer) involves a truck-driving instructor born a female but who presents as a male.  Eure alleged that her employer’s National Project Director, upon seeing her with a student, said, “What is that and who hired that,” adding that Sage did not hire “cross genders.”

The court, however, dismissed Eure’s sex-discrimination claim, concluding that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination does not cover transgender employees.

In some cases, the plaintiffs bringing successful sex stereotyping claims are transgender people, arguing that the discrimination that they have suffered is because their coworkers perceived their behavior or appearance as not “masculine or feminine enough.” However, courts have been reluctant to extend the sex stereotyping theory to cover circumstances where the plaintiff is discriminated against because the plaintiff’s status as a transgender man or woman, without any additional evidence related to gender stereotype non-conformity…. [D]iscrimination based on transgender status is [not] per se gender stereotyping actionable under Title VII.

What lessons can we learn from this case? While many courts have extended Title VII’s protections to address sexual orientation and gender identity based on “sex stereotyping” (i.e., an employee’s failure to conform to traditional male or female gender roles), this issue is far from settled. Because the issue is not clear, we not-so-patiently wait for Congress to step in and address the issue by amending Title VII to make this coverage clear and unambiguous. In the meantime, you, as an employer, are free to decide the issue for your own workplace by drafting (and, more importantly, enforcing) policies of inclusion for LGBT employees.

The times they are a changin’ for LGBT discrimination

Last week, the The U.S. Office of Special Counsel announced a landmark determination that the Department of the Army engaged in “frequent, pervasive and humiliating,” gender-identity discrimination against an Army software specialist who had transitioned from male to female.

According to a press release issued by the OSC, the employee

experienced a significant change in working conditions when the Army improperly restricted her restroom usage, repeatedly referred to her by her birth name and male pronouns, and excessively monitored her conversations with coworkers. In response, the Army agreed to provide training to correct and prevent future discrimination. The Army already had permitted Ms. Lusardi to use the restroom associated with her gender identity.

You can download the full decision here.

Congress has been slow to amend Title VII expressly to prohibit LGBT discrimination. Yet, courts, agencies, the White House and, now, the U.S. military, continue to fill in the gaps.

The time will come when it becomes per se illegal for all employers to discrimination against an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Until that time, we will have to rely on courts’ creative solutions to fit these claims under Title VII’s general prohibitions against sexual stereotyping and sexual discrimination. Nevertheless, employers should not wait for Title VII to include LGBT as a protected class. Instead, employers can, and should, do right by all of their employees by adopting progressive anti-discrimination policies that make it clear that they are employers are inclusion for all employees, even if Title VII still permits discrimination against some.

President signs Executive Order banning LGBT discrimination by the federal contractors and government

Yesterday, President Obama amended two prior Executive Orders, adding new protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Executive Order 11246, which extends anti-discrimination obligations to federal contractors, now also includes prohibitions against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Executive Order 11478, which already banned sexual orientation discrimination by the federal government, now also includes a prohibition against gender identity discrimination. The provisions affecting federal employees takes effect immediately. Those impacting federal contractors will take effect within 90 days, after the Secretary of Labor implements regulations.

Currently, only 18 states prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Ohio is not one of them. These amendments will extend these protections to 28 million federal employees and employees of federal contractors. Thus, if you are an Ohio company with federal contracts, this prohibition will apply to you.

It is time for employers to stop invidious discrimination against LGBT employees. According to the White House, 91% of Fortune 500 already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 61% already prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. Yet, according to President Obama, “In too many states and in too many workplaces, simply being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender can still be a fireable offense.… I firmly believe that it’s time to address this injustice for every American.” 

I agree. It’s incomprehensible and unjustifiable for an employer to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s antithetical to what this country stands for — government of the people, by the people, for the people, and justice for all (no matter with whom they happen to go to bed at night). Eventually, Congress will act, pass ENDA, and make LGBT discrimination a thing of the past. Until then, do right by your employees. Enact policies prohibiting this type of discrimination in your workplace. Send a message that you are an employer of inclusion, and not exclusion. 

The united colors of harassment claims

Let’s take a look at two recent settlements of harassment claims brought by the EEOC:

1. A Tampa, Florida, bank paid $300,000, resulting from a manager’s ongoing harassment of subordinate female employees, which included repeatedly trapping a 20-year-old behind the teller counter with his body, telling a woman she should wear a bathing suit to work, regularly staring at women’s breasts, and frequently caressing and grabbing a female employee.
2. A Charlotte, North Carolina, security-services company paid $155,000, resulting from a two managers’ repeated harassment of subordinate male employees, which included making offensive sexual comments, soliciting nude pictures, asking one to undress in front of him, soliciting sex in exchange for promotions, forcing accompaniment to a gay bar while on duty, touching certain employees’ chest and genitals.

It’s difficult to compare settlements in different cases based on value. They involve different parties, lawyers, judges, and allegations. Yet, it strikes me that if one compares the offensiveness of the misconduct alleged in these two cases, number two seems a whole lot more egregious than number one. Yet, number one paid double. I’ll ignore making the generalization that we, as a society, view same-sex harassment differently than the harassment of women by men, and, instead, conclude that similar cases offer lend to different results, often for arbitrary reasons.

I’ll leave you with the words of Lynette A. Barnes, EEOC regional attorney, who comments that employers need to halt all workplace sexual harassment:

All workers have the right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment. No one should have to put up with sexual comments or touching while they are just trying to make a living. Employers need to halt or prevent it—and the best prevention is training supervisors and managers on how to put a stop to such misconduct as soon as it appears.

I’ll let you decide about which of these two cases she made this observation.

Differences of opinion show why we need ENDA

In response to last Tuesday’s post on an Ohio case refusing to protect “sexual orientation” under Ohio’s sex-discrimination laws, EEOC Commissioner (and Twitter friend) Chai Feldblum recommended that I check out a recent decision from the District of Columbia, Terveer v. Billington.

In that case, Peter Terveer, a Library of Congress employee, sued his supervisor for sex discrimination, alleging that the supervisor had created “a hostile environment” by subjecting him to a slew of anti-gay comments.

The employer argued for the dismissal of Terveer’s complaint, since Title VII does not include protections against sexual-orientation discrimination. The court disagreed, and permitted Terveer’s case to proceed under Title VII’s protections from sex discrimination and religious discrimination:

Under Title VII, allegations that an employer is discriminating against an employee based on the employee’s non-conformity with sex stereotypes are sufficient to establish a viable sex discrimination claim.… Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant denied him promotions and created a hostile work environment because of Plaintiff’s nonconformity with male sex stereotypes.… 

Title VII seeks to protect employees not only from discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs, but also from forced religious conformity or adverse treatment because they do “not hold or follow [their] employer’s religious beliefs.” … [P]laintiffs state a claim of religious discrimination in situations where employers have fired or otherwise punished an employee because the employee’s personal activities or status—for example, divorcing or having an extramarital affair—failed to conform to the employer’s religious beliefs.… The Court sees no reason to create an exception to these cases for employees who are targeted for religious harassment due to their status as a homosexual individual.

This article at Slate.com argues that Terveer shows that anti-gay job discrimination is already illegal. To the contrary, the more prudent conclusion is that Terveer, when contrasted against Burns v. The Ohio St. Univ. College of Veterinary Medicine (the Ohio case I discussed last Tuesday), demonstrates that different courts can, and do, reach different conclusions on this issue. Instead of showing that anti-gay discrimination is already illegal, these cases illustrate the need to amend Title VII to make it absolutely clear that sexual-orientation discrimination is not only abhorrent, but is also illegal.

Sexual-orientation discrimination ban to become law

My apologies if the headline baited you in, but today is April Fools’ Day, and, no, neither Congress nor Ohio’s legislature is close to amending any workplace discrimination laws to include sexual orientation as a protected class.

But, they very much need to.

I read with great interest a series of opinion pieces in last week’s New York Times, entitled, If Gays Can Marry and Be Fired for Doing So. Among the authors was EEOC Commissioner (and Twitter friend) Chai Feldblum, who argued that marriage equality laws demonstrate that Title VII already protects sexual-orientation discrimination as sex discrimination. On Twitter, I asked Chai if, in light of her op-ed, she believes that we do not need to amend Title VII expressly to include sexual orientation. Her response?

We still need (a strong) ENDA for clarity & certainty. MT @jonhyman: Does this mean you don’t think we need ENDA? http://t.co/HgtvN2ksk3
— Chai Feldblum (@chaifeldblum) March 25, 2014

If you need any greater reminder of the need for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which would amend Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity, look no further than Burns v. The Ohio St. Univ. College of Veterinary Medicine, decided last week by an Ohio appellate court. That case dismissed a claim by a lesbian veterinary resident because Ohio’s workplace discrimination laws do not cover “sexual orientation.”

Each appellate district in this state that has considered such a claim has concluded that the term “sex” in R.C. 4112.02(A) does not include sexual orientation.… Likewise, courts analyzing the analogous provision of Title VII have held that, for purposes of that law, “sex” does not include sexual orientation.…

In this appeal, appellant unabashedly argues for a change in the law. However, this claim and this court are not the forum for achieving the change that appellant seeks.… Legislative measures proposing to amend R.C. Chapter 4112 and Title VII to add the term “sexual orientation” have been, as yet, unsuccessful.… Under our system of separation of powers, this court’s role is limited to interpreting and applying R.C. Chapter 4112 as it currently exists.

Readers, now is the time to end sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace. It is foolish that we, as a supposedly enlightened society, cannot decide that it’s not okay to discriminate. Let’s end this foolish practice, and send a signal to all of our citizens that we truly are the land of the free and the home of the brave.