LGBT employment discrimination in the United States
Clinton acknowledged its limitations in a statement:[6] The Executive Order states Administration policy but does not and cannot create any new enforcement rights (such as the ability to proceed before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).[3][4] In March 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in EEOC v. RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes that transgender people are protected by federal sex discrimination laws.Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in a 6–3 decision on June 15, 2020, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.[20] Minnesota became the first state to ban employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity when it passed the Human Rights Act in 1993.25 out of 50 US states, and the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands[23] have statutes that explicitly codifies and protects against both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment in both the public and private sector: California,[24] Colorado,[25] Connecticut, Delaware,[26] Hawaii,[27] Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,[22] Nevada,[28] New Hampshire,[29] New Jersey,[30] New Mexico, New York,[31] Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.Similarly to Indiana, the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, covering Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, have found sex protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include the category of gender identity.Before Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), there were numerous court cases that discussed the meaning of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[114] The Supreme Court noted that Hopkins’ failure to meet gender norms was taken into account by Price Waterhouse when making their employment decision.[117] Oncale proceeded to file a complaint against his employer claiming his rights under Title VII were violated by the sexual harassment that had taken place at work.[118] The Court ruled unanimously that all discrimination based on sex was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act regardless of the victim’s gender.[122] The argument consisted of analyzing the broad meaning of “because of sex” and looking at the dictionary definition of “homosexual.”[122] Because of this statutory groundwork, Bostock argues that discriminating against an employee for their sexual orientation “requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex,” and thus, is able to convince the Court to rule that sexual orientation discrimination violates the protections laid out in Title VII.[125] After lots of input from other government agencies and branches, the Supreme Court reached a decision in 2013 confirming that DOMA creates a “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” against same-sex couples which violates their protections under the Fifth Amendment.[126] The landmark LGBTQ rights case came in 2015 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment protections and liberties to same-sex couples.[127] The majority held the prohibition against same-sex marriage from multiple states as unconstitutional and reflected both the judicial precedent and historical reasoning approach in their ruling.Also, in consultation with the attorney general, the heads of the respective agencies must ensure that existing policies are being followed and develop a plan to combat workplace discrimination.
Sexual orientation
and
gender identity
discrimination prohibited in public and private employment
Gender identity
discrimination prohibited in public and private employment
Sexual orientation
discrimination prohibited in public and private employment.
Sexual orientation
and
gender identity
discrimination prohibited in public employment
Sexual orientation
and
gender identity
discrimination prohibited in public employment.
Gender identity
discrimination prohibited in private employment.
Sexual orientation
and
gender identity
discrimination prohibited in public employment only
No state-level prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sexual orientation
discrimination prohibited in public employment only
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Bostock v. Clayton CountyR.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionEqual Employment Opportunity Commissionexecutive orderBill ClintonExecutive Order 12968Executive Order 13087Title VIIU.S. District CourtColleen Kollar-KotellyExecutive Order 13672Trump administrationDepartment of JusticeEmployment Non-Discrimination ActU.S. CongressEquality ActWilliam BarrPennsylvaniaWisconsinMinnesotaDistrict of ColumbiaPuerto RicoUS Virgin IslandsCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareHawaiiIllinoisMarylandMassachusettsMichiganNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkOregonRhode IslandVermontVirginiaWashingtonIndianaSeventh Circuit Court of AppealsCourts of Appeals for the SixthEleventh CircuitsAlabamaFloridaGeorgiaKentuckyTennesseeArizonaMontanaNorth CarolinaKansasAlaskaMissouriCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana IslandsEast LansingAnn ArborList of cities and counties in the United States offering an LGBT non-discrimination ordinanceHuman Rights CampaignCorporate Equality IndexFortune 500Out & EqualWilliams InstituteList of U.S. ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination lawsStatutory interpretationPrice Waterhouse v. HopkinsOncale v. SundownerAnn HopkinsSupreme CourtGerald BostockClayton County, GeorgiaCongressConstitutional interpretationHoustonLawrence v. TexasDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentUnited States v. WindsorObergefell v. HodgesEdith WindsorDefence of Marriage ActFifth Amendmentequal protectionsame-sex marriagede TocquevilleCOVID-19Equality Act (United States)LGBT rights by country or territoryEmployment discrimination law in the United StatesJustiawhitehouse.govNational ArchivesCBS NewsWashington BladeThe AdvocateWayback MachineThe New York TimesThe Topeka Capital-JournalAssociated PressLGBTQ rights in the United StatesFederalOne, Inc. v. OlesenRomer v. EvansMatthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention ActDon't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010Violence Against Women ActPavan v. SmithMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights CommissionBostockHarris Funeral HomesAltitude ExpressG.G. v. Gloucester County School BoardExecutive Order 13988Respect for Marriage Act303 Creative LLC v. ElenisImmigration Act of 1917Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952Executive Order 10450Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965Bowers v. HardwickDoD Directive 1304.26Defense of Marriage Act