Suchergebnisse

There is no state-wide statute in Arizona that protects its LGBT citizens from employment discrimination in either the public or private sectors. Five municipalities have extended such protection through local ordinances. Those ordinances are inconsistent, however, with regard to inclusion of gender identity protection. In recent years there has been considerable debate in Arizona about the extension of partner benefits to public sector employees, but there is currently no such protection for state government employees. Indicia of hostility and animus toward gay people have surfaced during legislative consideration of these proposals.

South Carolina state and local law provides virtually no protection against job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. No state-wide statute has been enacted in South Carolina to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity despite substantial efforts to pass such legislation. South Carolina has enacted an extensive administrative grievance procedure for public employees, but an Attorney General's Opinion in 1975 concluded that "homosexuality is a valid ground for refusing State employment." That opinion has not been changed or rescinded. Several South Carolina universities and one municipality have enacted non-discrimination policies. However, the one local ordinance addressing these issues does not cover employment discrimination.

There is no state law in Alabama prohibiting any form of employment discrimination. Rather, Alabama defers to federal law for providing its citizens with protections against discrimination based upon age, race, religion, sex, national origin, and disabilities. Only a few unsuccessful attempts have been made to enact legislation to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, and none to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Neither the state nor any locality in Alabama prohibits sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.

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.

Idaho is the only state to have reinstated its felony sodomy law after it was taken off the books; public outcry about the 1971 elimination of the state's law making homosexual conduct subject to felony conviction led the Idaho legislature to reinstate the old criminal code in 1972. Despite Lawrence v. Texas, Idaho has not repealed its sodomy law. Thus, Idaho's public code continues to characterize sodomy as "the infamous crime against nature," punishable by imprisonment of not less than five years. Idaho does not include LGBT persons in any protected category for the purpose of employment discrimination. A bill that would have prohibited employers with more that five employees (including the State of Idaho but excepting certain religious organizations) from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity was proposed in the Idaho Senate on January 21, 2008. The bill was defeated in February of 2009. Similar bills have failed in the past.

Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 378, the Fair Employment Practices Act (the "Act"), prohibits public and private employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, religion, color, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, genetic information, marital status or arrest and court record. Legislation that would have added gender identity to the Act's list of protected categories passed in the Legislature but was vetoed by Governor Linda Lingle.

New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") protects against discrimination based on marital status, domestic partnership status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and mental or physical disability, including AIDS and HIV related illnesses.1 In addition to the LAD, New Jersey's Administrative Code includes an anti-discrimination policy for state government employees.2 This policy also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

In 1982 Wisconsin became the first state to pass a comprehensive statute prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination; and its cities, Madison and Milwaukee, recently expanded their local ordinances to prohibit employment and housing discrimination based on gender identity. On the other hand, Wisconsin singled out gays and lesbians from other protected groups when it denied affirmative action programs to remedy sexual orientation discrimination in its landmark 1982 legislation; Milwaukee's Equal Rights Commission, charged with receiving and reviewing complaints of private employer discrimination, has not operated for five years; and Wisconsin's statewide employment discrimination statute excludes gender identity protection and does not provide for a private right of action.

In 2003, the New Mexico legislature amended its Human Rights Act (the "Act"), originally adopted in 1978, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and consumer credit. The legislation passed thirteen years after its introduction and was adamantly opposed by several legislators and citizen groups, who launched a campaign to overturn it by referendum.

Alaska's anti-discrimination statute provides no protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The state university system has rebuffed repeated attempts to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics in its anti-discrimination policy. In addition, there are currently no municipal laws offering protection for local government workers (a 1993 Anchorage law was enacted and then repealed in the same year). In 2002, the governor issued an administrative order declaring that the "goal" of state officials is to prohibit and prevent job discrimination against state employees based on, inter alia, sexual orientation; gender identity is not included in the administrative order. However, there appear to be no remedies available under the order, beyond the possibility of filing a complaint.

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.

The California Fair Employment Practices and Housing Act (―FEHA‖) prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in both public and private employment as well as housing. Despite having strong state laws in place, discrimination against LGBT state and local government employees has been well documented.

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.

In 2001, Maryland enacted legislation that prohibits discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in employment, housing, and public accommodations.1 The laws of Montgomery County and Baltimore City also include gender identity as a protected class. Similar legislation has been proposed in the Maryland legislature, but has not passed.

Efforts to enact a law banning workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians in Oregon began in 1973, and such legislation was introduced in every one of the 17 regular legislative sessions between 1973 and 2007. In 2005, the Senate passed an omnibus anti-discrimination bill, but the bill died in the House. Finally, in 2007, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law was enacted. The new law, which defines sexual orientation to include gender identity, took effect January 1, 2008. Oregon Ballot Measure 145, which was meant to overturn the Oregon Equality Act, was withdrawn before November 2008. Its proponents stated they would not have enough time to gather the signatures required by the deadline. It was the most recent of dozens of attempts to repeal or prevent anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBT people in Oregon.