Suchergebnisse

Missouri has no state statute prohibiting public employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Since 1998, legislators in the Missouri General Assembly have introduced bills that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, specifically in the areas of employment, public accommodations, and housing; none of the attempts have been successful.

Wyoming, the least populous state in the United States, currently has no laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Legislation was introduced in 2009 that would add sexual orientation to the list of enumerated classes that are currently protected against employment discrimination, but the bill would not extend such protections to gender identity.

There are no state laws in Texas that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although five of Texas's six largest cities have local ordinances partially banning such discrimination in specific contexts.1 State legislators have repeatedly introduced bills at the state level to add sexual orientation and/or gender identity as protected classes in various contexts, although none of these bills has left the committee stage.

Fatima Hatun née Beatrice Michiel -- Elena Civalelli/Suor Deodata and Mihale/Catterina Šatorović -- Maria Gozzadini and her daughters-Aissè, Eminè, Catigè

Currently, Michigan has not enacted any statewide legislation prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Michigan Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act"), which prohibits employment discrimination based on various categories, including religion, race, and sex, does not prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. Indeed, in Barbour v. Department of Social Services, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that harassment and discrimination based upon a person's sexual orientation is not an activity proscribed by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Barbour court, however, did hold that a gender discrimination claim brought pursuant to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act may be based on incidents of homosexual advances that directly relate to the employee's gender. More recently, a bill was introduced in January 2007 to include "sexual orientation and gender identity or expression," but that bill did not go beyond the Judiciary Committee.