DOCSLIB.ORG

Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting Biotechnology In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting Biotechnology In THE ENDURANCE TEST: EXECUTIVE POWER AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF LGBT AMERICANS Mathew S. Nosanchuk* INTRODUCTION .............................................................................441 I. FROM DISCRIMINATION TO NONDISCRIMINATION: LGBT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM 1950–2008 ............................ 447 A. Longstanding Prohibition is Relaxed, Then Eliminated ...................................................................447 B. The Clinton and (Second) Bush Administration, and Equal Opportunity for Lesbian and Gay Federal Employees ....................................................................452 II. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ................................................456 A. Expanding Benefits Through Existing Legal Authorities ...................................................................456 B. Expanding Benefits by Seeking Additional Legal Authority ......................................................................457 C. Legal Protections for Transgender Federal Employees ....................................................................459 D. Executive Branch Actions Expressed Through an Administration’s Litigating Positions ......................... 463 E. The Staying Power of Executive Branch Action ............ 469 CONCLUSION ................................................................................474 * Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. This article expands upon remarks delivered at the Albany Government Law Review’s Symposium, held on October 13, 2011, at Albany Law School. The author wishes to thank Civil Rights Division colleagues Jocelyn Samuels, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Sharon McGowan, the Co-Chair of the Division’s GLBT Working Group, for their helpful comments; and Hammad Ahmed and Jessica Agarwal for their excellent research assistance. The author also wishes to thank Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez for his commitment to using the division’s existing authorities to ensure equal opportunity for LGBT individuals, and the dedicated attorneys of the division’s GLBT Working Group for making this commitment a reality. 440 2012] THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF LGBT AMERICANS 441 INTRODUCTION Presidents, using their executive power, play a central role in the advancement of civil rights in America. One of the most noteworthy acts in this regard was President Harry S. Truman’s decision to end racial segregation of the U.S. military,1 which took place before the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education2 in 1954, and before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.3 President Truman accomplished this, not through legislation, but through an executive order.4 His executive order, in turn, built on an earlier one signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, prohibiting racial discrimination in the defense industry.5 Both presidents nudged the federal government closer towards the goal of greater racial equality at a time when it was extremely difficult to move affirmative civil rights legislation through the Congress. Only after these executive orders did Congress pass important civil rights legislation—landmark bills to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, and disability in employment, public accommodations, housing, and education, ensuring equal opportunities to millions of Americans.6 For lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, whose efforts to achieve equal opportunity and protection from discrimination are only measurably advanced in recent decades, the trajectory is arguably similar. Executive branch actions to expand civil rights preceded legislative advances, but that was not always the case when it came to equal opportunity for LGBT individuals. During the mid-twentieth century, as executive power was employed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, executive branch action did not remove barriers for equality to LGBT individuals. On the contrary, it erected them. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10,450, entitled “Security Requirements for Government Employment.”7 This executive 1 Exec. Order No. 9981, 13 Fed. Reg. 4313 (July 26, 1948). 2 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 3 The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.). 4 Exec. Order No. 9981, 13 Fed. Reg. 4313 (July 26, 1948). 5 Exec. Order No. 8802, 6 Fed. Reg. 3109 (June 25, 1941). 6 See, e.g., Fair Housing Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 81 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3631 (2006)). 7 Exec. Order No. 10,450, 18 Fed. Reg. 2489 (Apr. 27, 1953). 442 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 5 order required background investigations into applicants for federal positions or federal employees to ensure that their employment was not inconsistent with the interests of national security.8 Disqualifying conduct included “sexual perversion,” a term that included homosexuals.9 The executive order, therefore, made it extremely difficult for gay men and lesbians to obtain or hold federal jobs or obtain federal contracts. It was not until 1975 that the bar to federal service for homosexuals was removed, and executive branch action turned a corner and began to protect gay men and lesbians from discrimination.10 During the forty years since executive branch action first began providing hope and protection to LGBT Americans, Congress failed to pass any significant pro-equality legislation for LGBT individuals until very recently.11 Achieving legislative expansion of LGBT rights and protections remains an uphill battle. The federal hate crimes law that finally passed in October 2009, for example, was first introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy in 2001 during the 107th Congress and reintroduced in every subsequent Congress until it finally was passed in the 111th Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in October 2009.12 Legislation to prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT individuals was first introduced in 1974 by Representative Bella Abzug, to amend existing civil rights statutes.13 Then it was reintroduced as a 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Compare 5 C.F.R. § 731.201(b) (1974) (allowing as grounds for dismissal from federal civil service employment for conduct that is “[c]riminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful”), with 5 C.F.R. § 731.202(b)(2) (1976) (removing “immoral” conduct as a grounds for dismissal). But see Voyles v. Ralph K. Davies Med. Ctr., 403 F. Supp. 456 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act did not protect employment discrimination based on sexual preference). 11 See, e.g., Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (repealing 10 U.S.C. § 654); Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2835, 2835–44 (2009) (codified in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C.). 12 H.R. 1343, 107th Cong. (2001); S. 625, 107th Cong. (2001); H.R. 4204, 108th Cong. (2004); S. Amdt. 3183, 108th Cong. (2004); H.R. 2662, 109th Cong. (2005); S. 1145, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 1592, 110th Cong. (2007); S. 1105, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 1913, 111th Cong. (2009); S. 909, 111th Cong. (2009); S. Amdt. 1511, 111th Cong. (2009); Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2835, 2835–44. 13 Nondiscrimination Legislation Historical Narrative, NAT’L GAY & LESBIAN TASK FORCE, http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/narrative (last visited Mar. 31, 2012). 2012] THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF LGBT AMERICANS 443 stand-alone bill in the 103rd Congress in 1994, yet despite having been voted on and reintroduced numerous times in every Congress but one, it still has not become law.14 Advocates in the LGBT civil rights movement therefore looked to the president and the executive branch to use whatever authority it had, short of legislation, to make LGBT equality a matter of federal policy and law.15 President Bill Clinton campaigned on promises to extend civil rights for LGBT Americans.16 Almost immediately after he was elected, LGBT advocates began circulating via fax machine draft executive orders that would follow in President Truman’s footsteps to lift the ban on military service by gays and lesbians and that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal employment.17 The effort to bring about an end to the ban was unsuccessful, generating opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of Congress, and prompted congressional action that codified the new policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), into law on September 20, 1993.18 The other significant piece of LGBT-related legislation to pass during the 14 H.R. 4636, 103d Cong. (1994); S. 2238, 103d Cong. (1994); H.R. 1863, 104th Cong. (1995); S. 932, 104th Cong. (1995); S. 2056, 104th Cong. (1996); H.R. 1858, 105th Cong. (1997); S. 869, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 2355, 106th Cong. (1999); S. 1276, 106th Cong. (1999); H.R. 2692, 107th Cong. (2001); S. 1284, 107th Cong. (2001); H.R. 3285, 108th Cong. (2003); S. 1705, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 2015, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 3685, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 2981, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 3017, 111th Cong. (2009); S. 1584, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 1397, 112th Cong. (2011); S. 811, 112th Cong. (2011). 15 Of course, the courts play a vitally important role too in the effort to secure constitutional protections for LGBT individuals, but this article focuses
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Individual Losses to Movement Victories: How Sex Became a Civil Liberty
    Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 1 Spring 2014 Individual Losses to Movement Victories: How Sex Became a Civil Liberty Dara E. Purvis [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Purvis, Dara E. (2014) "Individual Losses to Movement Victories: How Sex Became a Civil Liberty," Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality: Vol. 2 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse/vol2/iss2/1 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality Volume 2: Issue 2 Individual Losses to Movement Victories: How Sex Became a Civil Liberty Review by Dara E. Purvis* HOW SEX BECAME A CIVIL LIBERTY. By Leigh Ann Wheeler. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 2013. For those of us who teach courses relating to sexuality and the law, it can be a Sisyphean task to help contemporary students grasp a world in which giving a lecture about birth control that involved the visual aid of a packet of spermicide could result in criminal prosecution. Yet, in order to understand today’s headlines about legal challenges to required insurance coverage of contraceptives, one must be able to trace how and why political, social, and legal understandings of sexual- ity moved it from a deeply illicit taboo towards constitutionally protected rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virgiinia
    Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools March 2021 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Introduction 5 Background 6 Terminology 6 Related Laws 7 Guiding Principle to Support Transgender Students 8 Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination 9 Student Privacy/Confidentiality 11 Student Identification 12 School Records 14 Dress Code 16 Access to Activities and Facilities 17 Student Participation in School Activities and Events 17 Access to Facilities 18 Professional Development and Training 19 Other Considerations 20 Appendix A: Resources 22 Resources for School Divisions 22 Model and Existing Policies and Guidelines 22 Professional Development Resources 23 Resources for Students 23 Resources for Parents 24 Advocacy Organizations 24 References 26 2 Acknowledgements The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) would like to extend appreciation to those who provided input and offered expertise throughout the development of these model policies. Rebecca Askew (she/her), Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Policy, Virginia Department of Education Amy Aussiker (she/her), Ph.D., School Psychologist, Carroll County Public Schools, Jane Ball (she/her), School Social Worker, Hanover County Public Schools Anthony Belotti (he/they), Student Representative Jennifer Boysko (she/her), State Senator, Virginia Senate Erica Brown-Meredith (she/her), Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Longwood University, Virginia Association of School Social Workers L. Frances Brown (she/her), School Psychologist (retired), Henrico County
    [Show full text]
  • Hrc-Coming-Out-Resource-Guide.Pdf
    G T Being brave doesn’t mean that you’re not scared. It means that if you are scared, you do the thing you’re afraid of anyway. Coming out and living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or supportive straight person is an act of bravery and authenticity. Whether it’s for the first time ever, or for the first time today, coming out may be the most important thing you will do all day. Talk about it. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Welcome 3 Being Open with Yourself 4 Deciding to Tell Others 6 Making a Coming Out Plan 8 Having the Conversations 10 The Coming Out Continuum 12 Telling Family Members 14 Living Openly on Your Terms 15 Ten Things Every American Ought to Know 16 Reference: Glossary of Terms 18 Reference: Myths & Facts About LGBT People 19 Reference: Additional Resources 21 A Message From HRC President Joe Solmonese There is no one right or wrong way to come out. It’s a lifelong process of being ever more open and true with yourself and others — done in your own way and in your own time. WELCOME esbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans Lare sons and daughters, doctors and lawyers, teachers and construction workers. We serve in Congress, protect our country on the front lines and contribute to the well-being of the nation at every level. In all that diversity, we have one thing in common: We each make deeply personal decisions to be open about who we are with ourselves and others — even when it isn’t easy.
    [Show full text]
  • Thematic Review: American Gay Rights Movement Directions and Obje
    Name:_____________________________________ Class Period:______ Thematic Review: American Gay Rights Movement Although the topic of homosexuality continues to ignite passionate debate and is often omitted from history discussions due to the sensitivity of the topic, it is important to consider gays and lesbians when defining and analyzing modern American identity. The purpose of this activity is to review the struggle for respect, dignity, and equal protection under the law that so many have fought for throughout American history. Racial minorities… from slaves fighting for freedom to immigrants battling for opportunity… to modern-day racial and ethnic minorities working to overcome previous and current inequities in the American system. Women… fighting for property rights, education, suffrage, divorce, and birth control. Non- Protestants… from Catholics, Mormons, and Jews battling discrimination to modern day Muslims and others seeking peaceful co-existence in this “land of the free.” Where do gays and lesbians fit in? Once marginalized as criminals and/or mentally ill, they are increasingly being included in the “fabric” we call America. From the Period 8 Content Outline: Stirred by a growing awareness of inequalities in American society and by the African American civil rights movement, activists also addressed issues of identity and social justice, such as gender/sexuality and ethnicity. Activists began to question society’s assumptions about gender and to call for social and economic equality for women and for gays and lesbians. Directions and Objectives: Review the events in the Gay Rights Thematic Review Timeline, analyze changes in American identity, and make connections to other historically significant events occurring along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • Gay Rights Through the Looking Glass: Politics, Morality, and the Trial of Colorado's Amendment 2
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1994 Gay Rights Through the Looking Glass: Politics, Morality, and the Trial of Colorado's Amendment 2 Suzanne B. Goldberg Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Suzanne B. Goldberg, Gay Rights Through the Looking Glass: Politics, Morality, and the Trial of Colorado's Amendment 2, 21 FORDHAM URB. L. J. 1057 (1994). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/970 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GAY RIGHTS THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: POLITICS, MORALITY AND THE TRIAL OF COLORADO'S AMENDMENT 2 Suzanne B. Goldberg* Courts have long struggled to resolve the question of how far a community may go in exercising its power to treat minority mem- bers differently. Popular prejudice, "community morality" and in- vidious stereotypes repeatedly have had their day in court as judges work to reconcile equal protection and privacy rights with their own attitudes about the place of people of color, women and gay people in society.1 In the early 1990s, the tension between the American ideal of equality and the reality of human diversity starkly emerged. A national wave of citizen-sponsored initiatives seeking to amend state constitutions and local charters to prohibit governments from protecting lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens from discrimination spread across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts
    SHAW.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2017 3:32 AM Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts Katherine Shaw* Abstract The President’s words play a unique role in American public life. No other figure speaks with the reach, range, or authority of the President. The President speaks to the entire population, about the full range of domestic and international issues we collectively confront, and on behalf of the country to the rest of the world. Speech is also a key tool of presidential governance: For at least a century, Presidents have used the bully pulpit to augment their existing constitutional and statutory authorities. But what sort of impact, if any, should presidential speech have in court, if that speech is plausibly related to the subject matter of a pending case? Curiously, neither judges nor scholars have grappled with that question in any sustained way, though citations to presidential speech appear with some frequency in judicial opinions. Some of the time, these citations are no more than passing references. Other times, presidential statements play a significant role in judicial assessments of the meaning, lawfulness, or constitutionality of either legislation or executive action. This Article is the first systematic examination of presidential speech in the courts. Drawing on a number of cases in both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, I first identify the primary modes of judicial reliance on presidential speech. I next ask what light the law of evidence, principles of deference, and internal executive branch dynamics can shed on judicial treatment of presidential speech.
    [Show full text]
  • STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC SECURITY for CHILDREN LIVING in LGBT FAMILIES January 2012
    STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR CHILDREN LIVING IN LGBT FAMILIES January 2012 Authors In Partnership With A Companion Report to “All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families.” Both reports are co-authored by the Movement Advancement Project, the Family Equality Council, and the Center for American Progress. This report was authored by: This report was developed in partnership with: 2 Movement Advancement Project National Association of Social Workers The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is an independent National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the largest think tank that provides rigorous research, insight and membership organization of professional social workers in analysis that help speed equality for LGBT people. MAP works the world, with 145,000 members. NASW works to enhance collaboratively with LGBT organizations, advocates and the professional growth and development of its members, to funders, providing information, analysis and resources that create and maintain professional standards, and to advance help coordinate and strengthen their efforts for maximum sound social policies. The primary mission of the social work impact. MAP also conducts policy research to inform the profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the public and policymakers about the legal and policy needs of basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to LGBT people and their families. For more information, visit the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, www.lgbtmap.org. oppressed, and living in poverty. For more information, visit www.socialworkers.org. Family Equality Council Family Equality Council works to ensure equality for LGBT families by building community, changing public opinion, Acknowledgments advocating for sound policy and advancing social justice for all families.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Orientation: Developments in the Law and Issues for the Courts
    Sexual Orientation: Developments in the Law and Issues for the Courts Prepared at Seattle University School of Law for the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission From Gay Marriage to Domestic Violence to Hate Crimes: What You Need to Know About the Cases Coming to Your Court Tuesday, October 4, 2011 53rd Washington Judicial Conference Primary Authors: Cynthia B. Jones, Seattle University School of Law Niloufar A. Park, Seattle University School of Law Tammy M. Sittnick, University of Washington School of Law Quita St. John, Seattle University School of Law With the Assistance of: The Honorable Mary I. Yu, King County Superior Court Professor David M. Skover, Seattle University School of Law Professor Julie Shapiro, Seattle University School of Law Professor Anne M. Enquist, Seattle University School of Law Stephanie Wilson, Reference Librarian, Seattle University School of Law Tracey A. Thompson, Staff Attorney, Teamsters Local Union No. 117 Jeffrey L. Nesiba, Seattle University School of Law Aaron Pritchard, Seattle University School of Law Additional Credits: The authors would like to thank Nancy Bradburn-Johnson, Bonnie Canada- Thurston, Corey Edmonds, Rudolph Hasl, Gloria Hemmen, Kimberley Prochnau, Doris Russell, Suzanne J. Thomas, and Kellye Testy for their support of and assistance with this project. Second Edition Edited by: E. Ross Farr Table of Contents I. Preface Preface to Second Edition............................................................................I-1 Introduction ..................................................................................................I-2
    [Show full text]
  • Gender Identity Sexual Orientation Discrimination Workplace
    Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace A Practical Guide Chapter 19: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Its Scope, History, and Prospects Suzanne B. Goldberg, Esq., Terra Hittson, Class of 2014 & Kevin Hu, Class of 2014 Editor-in-Chief Christine MiChelle Duffy, esq. Pro Bono Partnership Parsippany, New Jersey State Laws Executive Editor Denise M. VisConti, esq. Littler Mendelson, P.C. San Diego, California With the assistance of The National LGBT Bar Association and its Executive Director D’Arcy Kemnitz, Esq. AArlington, VA Copyright © 2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Reprinted by permission Nothing contained herein is to be considered the rendering of legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. These materials and any forms or agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace : a practical guide / Editor-in-Chief Christine Michelle Duffy, Esq., Pro Bono Partnership, Parsippany, New Jersey ; State Laws Executive Editor Denise M. Visconti, Esq., Littler Mendelson, P.C., San Diego, California ; with the assistance of The National LGBT Bar Association and its Executive Director D’Arcy Kemnitz, Esq. pages cm Includes index. ISBN 978-1-61746-300-6 1. Transgender people--Employment--Law and legislation--United States. 2. Gays--Employment--Law and legislation--United States. 3. Gender identity-- Law and legislation--United States. 4. Transphobia--Law and legislation--United States. 5. Homophobia--Law and legislation--United States. I. Duffy, Christine Michelle, editor. II. Visconti, Denise M., editor.
    [Show full text]
  • PANEL TRANSCRIPT Recorded March 14, 2016 South by Southwest Interactive Festival Austin, Texas
    Transcript: America’s LGBT S pies – Secret Agents (of Change) PANEL TRANSCRIPT Recorded March 14, 2016 South by Southwest Interactive Festival Austin, Texas PARTICIPANTS Tracey Ballard – CIA Katrina Gossman – FBI / ODNI Kris Gill – NGA Rita Sampson - ODNI Rita Sampson: Good Afternoon. I’m Rita Sampson and I’m the Chief of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and we want to welcome you here today for the session on America’s LGBT spies, secret agents of change. I want to just let you know we are talking about the entire Intelligence Community, which is a collaboration of about 17 different intelligence agencies and today IC EEOD Chief Rita Sampson welcomes audience members we’re going to hear personal stories and to the “Secret Agents of Change” panel. perspectives from three of those agencies. But before we get going I also have the pleasure of introducing you to the number two person in the United States Intelligence Community and that is Stephanie O’Sullivan who has joined us here today from Washington DC to share some of her thoughts and perspectives. So if you will help me welcome Ms. O’Sullivan with a round of applause. Stephanie O’Sullivan: I am glad everybody is here this afternoon because I think we have some really important things to talk about. I asked Rita if I could say a few words and I won’t take longer than that because like you, I’m here to listen and learn even though I’ve heard some of these amazing stories before.
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue
    Vermont Human Rights Commission Newsletter June 2016 From the Executive Director: The recent shooting of patrons at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando that left 49 dead and 53 wounded is a stark reminder of the violent acts regularly visited on the LGBTQ community. While this heinous act has been linked to the terrorist ideology of ISIS, it is just the most recent example of violent acts regularly committed “Race, gender, religion, against the LGBTQ community by individuals who are fueled by hatred, ignorance and fear of difference. sexuality, we are all peo- Since the crime, there has been a concerted attempt by some to pretend that it was ple and that’s it. We’re another mass shooting against a random group of Americans. It was not. This was a hate crime and attempts to change the dialogue are disrespectful of those all people. We’re all who died or were wounded and of the LBGTQ community generally. The problem with naming it, is that those who want an excuse to continue their discriminatory equal.” actions towards these groups find themselves struggling with their consciences. As well they should be. With struggle perhaps comes better understanding and that is what will ultimately change people’s attitudes. - Connor Franta Respect, concern, and dignity for all individuals regardless of difference are the pillars of a fair and just society. LGBTQ individuals are members of our families, parents of children, our co-workers, our friends, and our neighbors and they con- tribute immensely to the diversity and well-being of our communities, our State and this country.
    [Show full text]
  • DOL Issues Final Rule on Government Contractor Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Non-Discrimination and Affirmative Action Requirements
    ® One Minute Memo 60s DOL Issues Final Rule on Government Contractor Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Non-Discrimination and Affirmative Action Requirements By Lawrence Z. Lorber, Laura J. Maechtlen, Cameron A. Smith, and Annette Tyman On December 9, 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued the Final Rule implementing Executive Order (“EO”) 13672, which will require affirmative action and non-discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for federal government contractors. See our prior post on EO 13672, which President Obama signed on July 21, 2014.1 The Final Rule becomes effective on April 10, 2015, 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register today. While the Final Rule was expected to be published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2014, later that morning the OFCCP published a notice soliciting comments under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), which requires an analysis of the administrative burdens new regulations will have on small businesses. The agency had already issued its FAQs on the effect of EO 13672 and we do not expect the substance of the Final Rule to change despite the PRA comments period. EO 13672 amends EO 11246, first introduced by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories, specifically race, color, religion, sex and national origin that are protected from discrimination and require affirmative action. EO 13672 is the first federal action prohibiting discrimination on these grounds, given that efforts to extend workplace protections to LGBT employees through the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) have been mired in legislative gridlock.
    [Show full text]