So many interesting things have happened in the last month on transgender employment issues, I'm going to make a list. The most important news is about the signing of legislation in Iowa, Vermont, Colorado and Oregon. But not all is rosy...
- The Governor of Iowa signed the bill including gender identity into the state's antidiscrimination law, as did the Governor of Vermont, the Governor of Colorado, and the Governor of Oregon.
The Governor of Ohio by executive order restored a ban on discrimination against state employees based on gender identity and sexual orientation, which had been removed by his predecessor in 1999 However, the Governor also noted his opinion that any Ohio legislation purporting to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity would be rendered unconstitutional by the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage It is difficult to understand the connection, and I note that federal court opinions already cover all transgender employees in Ohio.
A transgender employee won a lawsuit against an insurer, Highmark Blue Shield, that refused to cover the costs of her sex reassignment surgery This comes on the heels of reports that more employers are covering the costs of such surgery
However, not all is rosy for transgender employment rights:
The Connecticut legislature failed to pass legislation adding gender identity to the state's non-discrimination law (I note that all transgender employees in Connecticut are covered by a state administrative ruling.)
The transgender experience in the job market: The American Lawyer publishes a letter, by one of the few transgender lawyers in a large law firm, discussing its article on strides made by gay lawyers in overcoming employment discrimination in large law firms, and noting that transgender lawyers have not been included in the largesse
ENDA: An editorial published in the Washington Blade, an important gay newspaper, suggests that the inclusion of transgender people in anti-discrimination legislation threatens gay people
Identification records: At a "Town Meeting" held on the newly released regulations under the Real ID Act, two witnesses testify about the negative effects on the transgender community, with one noting that "you don't know what it's like to get carted off the security line by a couple of burly cops" (comments at 41:00 and 1:15)
ENDA: The Concerned Women of America suggest that the federal legislation to ban employment discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would be an unconstitutional infringement of employers under the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion
Corporate Diversity: Micron Corp., after a shareholder resolution requiring protection of employees based on gender identity and sexual orientation, adds sexual orientation but refuses to add gender identity
And here are some other notable transgender tidbits:
The National Center for Transgender Equality and the Human Rights Campaign release a groundbreaking guide for transgender people about coming out as transgender
Identification records: Transgender passengers are having more and more passport problems because of federal rules written by people who don't understand transgender identities
A transgender police officer on the Kansas City police force came out, and things are going well for her so far
The San Francisco police commission elected a transgender woman as its president
Schools K-12: A Texas transgender high school student, suspended from school for dress code violations, is reinstated after intervention by a pro bono lawyer
Transgender experience in the job market: The Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative, aimed at reducing chronic unemployment and underemployment in the transgender community, established in San Francisco, and a similar program in Los Angeles, the Transgender Job Placement Program
Trans culture: Executives at Frameline, San Francisco's LGBT film festival, made the unprecedented decision to yank a film, The Gendercator, from this year's schedule due to community outrage over its satirical portrayals of transsexuals in a mythical future
A transgender woman, Jenny Bailey, has been chosen mayor of Cambridge, England, as it celebrates its 800th anniversary
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Oregon Gender Identity Bill to be Signed Today
Today at 10 a.m, the Governor of Oregon is expected to sign Senate Bill 2, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, as well as a bill for civil unions. Here it is in the Oregon Daily Emerald (hat tip to Autumn Sandeen)
So that would bring to nine the number of states with statutes prohibiting gender identity discrimination in employment. (Remember, it's ten if you're talking about discrimination in general, as Hawaii has a statute on housing that includes gender identity.) And now we wait for signatures from the Governors of Iowa, Vermont and Colorado, which will bring the number to 12.
So that would bring to nine the number of states with statutes prohibiting gender identity discrimination in employment. (Remember, it's ten if you're talking about discrimination in general, as Hawaii has a statute on housing that includes gender identity.) And now we wait for signatures from the Governors of Iowa, Vermont and Colorado, which will bring the number to 12.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Oregon House passes gender identity bill
The Oregon gender identity bill, SB2, that I discussed last week is moving through the legislative process smoothly. The Oregonian reports that the House voted 35-25 in favor of Senate Bill 2. Four Republicans -- Vicki Berger of Salem, Chuck Burley of Bend, Bob Jenson of Pendleton and John Dallum of The Dalles -- joined Democrats in voting for the bill.
The bill now moves to the Democrat-controlled Senate, where it has solid support. The Senate already has approved the anti-discrimination bill and is expected to support the version amended by the House. It could come before the Senate for a vote in the next week or two, and Gov. Ted Kulongoski has said he supports it.
This would raise to 9 the number of states with statutes prohibiting employment discrimination against transgender employees. There are 10 other state bills pending. You can find the full count in my updated post of April 8.
The bill now moves to the Democrat-controlled Senate, where it has solid support. The Senate already has approved the anti-discrimination bill and is expected to support the version amended by the House. It could come before the Senate for a vote in the next week or two, and Gov. Ted Kulongoski has said he supports it.
This would raise to 9 the number of states with statutes prohibiting employment discrimination against transgender employees. There are 10 other state bills pending. You can find the full count in my updated post of April 8.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Oregon Gender Identity Bill
Oregon’s legislation SB2, which would prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, had hearings yesterday before the Oregon House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee. Here’s the audio online.
The Eugene Register-Guard said that the hearings drew hundreds of people to the Capitol. Most of the crowd spilled out into five overflow rooms or the Capitol's galleria. The Register-Guard noted that religious conservatives testifying against the bill zeroed in on the concern that anti-discrimination legislation would inadequately safeguard religious organizations' rights to refuse jobs to people because of their sexual orientation.
From Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House Blend, March 16:
"And, over in Oregon, a bill to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the books for employment, housing, and public accommodations passed out of committee 3-1, and is now heading toward that State Senate's floor. In 2005, a similar bill -- coupled with a provision for civil unions -- passed through the state senate, but died in a house committee without ever getting a hearing. With both Oregon houses now controlled by Democrats, chances are considered significant for the bill to reach actually reach the Governor's desk." The bill is now being reviewed by a House committee, which will decide whether it should go to a vote of the full House. Governor Kulongoski has indicated he will sign the bill if the House passes it.
The bill includes the standard anti-discrimination provisions of most similar bills. From The Oregonian:
“The bill would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, workplace and public places. It would provide the authority to seek, through civil court action, actual and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for unlawful discrimination. It would require state agencies to eliminate discrimination against persons based on sexual orientation.
Here’s the text of SB2.
The bill is supported by local businesses. From The Oregonian: Eleven Oregon business executives urged legislators in a letter to support the bill. Among them were Julia Brim-Edwards, public affairs director for Nike Inc.; Malia H. Wasson, president of U.S. Bank; Peter Bragdon, vice president and general counsel for Columbia Sportswear; and Peggy Fowler, president and CEO of PGE.
Interesting factoids:
1) Oregon state regulations currently say that an “employer may not refuse to hire or promote or bar or discharge from employment or discriminate in compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because a person is transsexual when the person is otherwise qualified.” OR. ADMIN. R. 839-006-0206. [See comments for text of the reg]
2) SB2 contains a specific provision explicitly exempting religious groups.
3) From blogger Chewin On Glass: Oregon has two openly gay justices on the state supreme court.
Oregon cities and counties with gender identity protections:
Beaverton, Bend, Benton County, Corvallis, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Lincoln City, Multnomah County, Portland, and Salem,
There is one company in Oregon with a policy that includes gender identity: Nike
There are 3 other Fortune 1000 companies in Oregon would be affected: Precision Castparts, Lithia Motors, and StanCorp Financial.
Arguments Against the Bill
The opposition to the bill is organized and fierce. Interestingly, the main focus of controversy is sexual orientation, with much less concern about gender identity. This is interesting in light of the arguments within the GLBT community about the federal ENDA bill. Some gay advocates, such as Chris Crain, oppose inclusion of gender identity in the federal bill because of fears that gender identity is much more controversial than sexual orientation. As it appears, however, there is plenty of controversy about sexual orientation, and not much about gender identity as a separate category.
Representative Dennis Richardson says that he opposes the bill because, in his view, sexual orientation and gender identity are "behavior-based activities" that should not be elevated to the same status as race and religion by the granting of civil rights. This argument is just silly. Religion is obviously a "behavior-based activity," freely chosen by individuals based on belief. It is not something we are born into, like race or national origin. There is no logical basis for an argument that being gay or transgender is a "lifestyle choice" but religion is not. There is also some evidence that sexual orientation and gender identity are influenced by biology, but I have no opinion one way or the other on the matter. My identity does not need such justifications. Autumn Sandeen has an interesting post on this issue, as well.
Richardson specifically notes that he believes in constitutional protection against discrimination and that individuals should have the right to live their own lives with a minimum of interference, but says he is unwilling to use the force of governmental power to protect sexual orientation and gender identity from the beliefs of religious Oregonians.
This argument has some flaws. First, it has long been recognized that using state court doctrines to enforce discriminatory contracts is, in fact, state action, which violates the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment requiring equal protection of the laws. The same would seem to be true of the employment at will doctrine. The idea that this governmental force is used to legitimize unequal protection based on religious beliefs raises First Amendment questions.
Another problem with Representative Richardson’s argument is that the bill contains an exemption for religious organizations, so that churches opposed to GLBT identities will not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in the operation of their churches.
From The Oregonian: “The bill allows religious groups to discriminate against hiring or housing gays or permitting them to use their facilities. Still, senators opposing the bill objected to a provision that says religious groups can discriminate only for activities connected to the "primary purpose of the church or institution" and not for commercial activities, such as running an apartment house or restaurant. The courts would be deciding a church's primary purpose, they said....Proponents said the bill's religious exemption was carefully crafted, supported by many religious groups, including Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, a statewide association of 16 denominations. What's more, they said, it was unnecessary, given religious protections already provided by the state and federal constitutions. They also argued that the bill does not give special or minority status to gays and lesbians, nor does it make curriculum requirements of schools.
From Gay Rights Watch: Senate Bill 2, DOES NOT as The Oregon Family Council claims, creates new language in statute "leaving it up to a court to decide what is or is not 'closely connected with the primary purposes of the church.'" This exact language already exists in Oregon's current anti-discrimination statute (ORS 659A.006, Section 2, Sub C).
Gay Opinion Blog has a well-written column by a gay pastor on the other side of the religious issue. Reverend Wes Mullins, assistant pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church of Portland, argues that assertions that religious institutions will not be properly protected is simply a smoke-screen designed to obscure what is truly motivating opponents' actions -- fear of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) persons.
A truly startling argument is the one made by Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, who questioned whether gays and lesbians encounter discrimination in work and housing. As a group, they earn more, are better educated and live in better homes on average, he said. Given recent national publicity to the events in Largo, Florida, this position is surprising. However, it is interesting how many times I have seen this issue raised. When I was an educated middle-class white man, I also wondered “what discrimination???” when people of color, women and others raised the issue. From Oregon Public Broadcasting: Asling Coughlin, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon: "You know, we've heard testimony from people who have been fired from their jobs and denied accomadation based on their sexual orientation. And unfortunately in 2007 it's still prevalent. And we like to think that one case of discrimination is one too many and unfortunately there are definitely more than one case."
Senator Starr’s argument is undercut by the prejudice displayed in the fierce opposition to the bill. From The Portland Mercury, regarding the initial hearings: [T]hose who were opposing the bill—many at the behest of the conservative Oregon Family Council (OFC)—unwittingly did a better job of making the case for the anti-discrimination law, by trotting out thinly veiled insults against gays and citing "evidence" that homosexuality is immoral, "harmful," and "destructive." Others made outlandish and baseless claims that gays have a life expectancy of around 40 years, and that gays are "17 times more likely" to be sexual predators....Other opponents of the bill—like former State Senator Charles Starr—claimed the bill might lead to reverse discrimination, by oppressing anti-gay Christians."To say that [gays'] sex acts are unhealthy or against nature would bring forth outright suppression of biblical truths," Starr said. Another man testifying later in the afternoon claimed the law would "criminalize the Christian worldview that simply wants to state that it's okay to believe that a certain lifestyle choice is immoral."
Regarding the “special rights” argument that is so perennially popular in these debates: The bill’s opponents don’t seem to realize that the creation of “protected classes” comes from the need to overcome the “employment at will” doctrine of American law, which has always been openly acknowledged by all as a discriminatory device, and not from any desire to create “special rights.” From Oregon Public Broadcasting: Roseburg Republican Jeff Kruse was among those voting against Senate Bill 2. He said he doesn't favor discrimination. But he said he believed the bill is a foothold for what he called mandating certain types of education in schools. Jeff Kruse: "Mr. President. If I had my way, I would take all the discrimination language we have in statute, eliminate it all, as say Thou Shalt Not Discriminate and be done with it, because that's truly how I think it should be." Representative Kruse’s position clearly comes from a misunderstanding of the law.
(If you are viewing this blog on LexisNexis, note that hyperlinks are available in the original at http://jweissdiary.blogspot.com See the "Archives" menu on the right for older posts.)
The Eugene Register-Guard said that the hearings drew hundreds of people to the Capitol. Most of the crowd spilled out into five overflow rooms or the Capitol's galleria. The Register-Guard noted that religious conservatives testifying against the bill zeroed in on the concern that anti-discrimination legislation would inadequately safeguard religious organizations' rights to refuse jobs to people because of their sexual orientation.
From Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House Blend, March 16:
"And, over in Oregon, a bill to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the books for employment, housing, and public accommodations passed out of committee 3-1, and is now heading toward that State Senate's floor. In 2005, a similar bill -- coupled with a provision for civil unions -- passed through the state senate, but died in a house committee without ever getting a hearing. With both Oregon houses now controlled by Democrats, chances are considered significant for the bill to reach actually reach the Governor's desk." The bill is now being reviewed by a House committee, which will decide whether it should go to a vote of the full House. Governor Kulongoski has indicated he will sign the bill if the House passes it.
The bill includes the standard anti-discrimination provisions of most similar bills. From The Oregonian:
“The bill would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, workplace and public places. It would provide the authority to seek, through civil court action, actual and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for unlawful discrimination. It would require state agencies to eliminate discrimination against persons based on sexual orientation.
Here’s the text of SB2.
The bill is supported by local businesses. From The Oregonian: Eleven Oregon business executives urged legislators in a letter to support the bill. Among them were Julia Brim-Edwards, public affairs director for Nike Inc.; Malia H. Wasson, president of U.S. Bank; Peter Bragdon, vice president and general counsel for Columbia Sportswear; and Peggy Fowler, president and CEO of PGE.
Interesting factoids:
1) Oregon state regulations currently say that an “employer may not refuse to hire or promote or bar or discharge from employment or discriminate in compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because a person is transsexual when the person is otherwise qualified.” OR. ADMIN. R. 839-006-0206. [See comments for text of the reg]
2) SB2 contains a specific provision explicitly exempting religious groups.
3) From blogger Chewin On Glass: Oregon has two openly gay justices on the state supreme court.
Oregon cities and counties with gender identity protections:
Beaverton, Bend, Benton County, Corvallis, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Lincoln City, Multnomah County, Portland, and Salem,
There is one company in Oregon with a policy that includes gender identity: Nike
There are 3 other Fortune 1000 companies in Oregon would be affected: Precision Castparts, Lithia Motors, and StanCorp Financial.
Arguments Against the Bill
The opposition to the bill is organized and fierce. Interestingly, the main focus of controversy is sexual orientation, with much less concern about gender identity. This is interesting in light of the arguments within the GLBT community about the federal ENDA bill. Some gay advocates, such as Chris Crain, oppose inclusion of gender identity in the federal bill because of fears that gender identity is much more controversial than sexual orientation. As it appears, however, there is plenty of controversy about sexual orientation, and not much about gender identity as a separate category.
Representative Dennis Richardson says that he opposes the bill because, in his view, sexual orientation and gender identity are "behavior-based activities" that should not be elevated to the same status as race and religion by the granting of civil rights. This argument is just silly. Religion is obviously a "behavior-based activity," freely chosen by individuals based on belief. It is not something we are born into, like race or national origin. There is no logical basis for an argument that being gay or transgender is a "lifestyle choice" but religion is not. There is also some evidence that sexual orientation and gender identity are influenced by biology, but I have no opinion one way or the other on the matter. My identity does not need such justifications. Autumn Sandeen has an interesting post on this issue, as well.
Richardson specifically notes that he believes in constitutional protection against discrimination and that individuals should have the right to live their own lives with a minimum of interference, but says he is unwilling to use the force of governmental power to protect sexual orientation and gender identity from the beliefs of religious Oregonians.
This argument has some flaws. First, it has long been recognized that using state court doctrines to enforce discriminatory contracts is, in fact, state action, which violates the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment requiring equal protection of the laws. The same would seem to be true of the employment at will doctrine. The idea that this governmental force is used to legitimize unequal protection based on religious beliefs raises First Amendment questions.
Another problem with Representative Richardson’s argument is that the bill contains an exemption for religious organizations, so that churches opposed to GLBT identities will not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in the operation of their churches.
From The Oregonian: “The bill allows religious groups to discriminate against hiring or housing gays or permitting them to use their facilities. Still, senators opposing the bill objected to a provision that says religious groups can discriminate only for activities connected to the "primary purpose of the church or institution" and not for commercial activities, such as running an apartment house or restaurant. The courts would be deciding a church's primary purpose, they said....Proponents said the bill's religious exemption was carefully crafted, supported by many religious groups, including Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, a statewide association of 16 denominations. What's more, they said, it was unnecessary, given religious protections already provided by the state and federal constitutions. They also argued that the bill does not give special or minority status to gays and lesbians, nor does it make curriculum requirements of schools.
From Gay Rights Watch: Senate Bill 2, DOES NOT as The Oregon Family Council claims, creates new language in statute "leaving it up to a court to decide what is or is not 'closely connected with the primary purposes of the church.'" This exact language already exists in Oregon's current anti-discrimination statute (ORS 659A.006, Section 2, Sub C).
Gay Opinion Blog has a well-written column by a gay pastor on the other side of the religious issue. Reverend Wes Mullins, assistant pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church of Portland, argues that assertions that religious institutions will not be properly protected is simply a smoke-screen designed to obscure what is truly motivating opponents' actions -- fear of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) persons.
A truly startling argument is the one made by Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, who questioned whether gays and lesbians encounter discrimination in work and housing. As a group, they earn more, are better educated and live in better homes on average, he said. Given recent national publicity to the events in Largo, Florida, this position is surprising. However, it is interesting how many times I have seen this issue raised. When I was an educated middle-class white man, I also wondered “what discrimination???” when people of color, women and others raised the issue. From Oregon Public Broadcasting: Asling Coughlin, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon: "You know, we've heard testimony from people who have been fired from their jobs and denied accomadation based on their sexual orientation. And unfortunately in 2007 it's still prevalent. And we like to think that one case of discrimination is one too many and unfortunately there are definitely more than one case."
Senator Starr’s argument is undercut by the prejudice displayed in the fierce opposition to the bill. From The Portland Mercury, regarding the initial hearings: [T]hose who were opposing the bill—many at the behest of the conservative Oregon Family Council (OFC)—unwittingly did a better job of making the case for the anti-discrimination law, by trotting out thinly veiled insults against gays and citing "evidence" that homosexuality is immoral, "harmful," and "destructive." Others made outlandish and baseless claims that gays have a life expectancy of around 40 years, and that gays are "17 times more likely" to be sexual predators....Other opponents of the bill—like former State Senator Charles Starr—claimed the bill might lead to reverse discrimination, by oppressing anti-gay Christians."To say that [gays'] sex acts are unhealthy or against nature would bring forth outright suppression of biblical truths," Starr said. Another man testifying later in the afternoon claimed the law would "criminalize the Christian worldview that simply wants to state that it's okay to believe that a certain lifestyle choice is immoral."
Regarding the “special rights” argument that is so perennially popular in these debates: The bill’s opponents don’t seem to realize that the creation of “protected classes” comes from the need to overcome the “employment at will” doctrine of American law, which has always been openly acknowledged by all as a discriminatory device, and not from any desire to create “special rights.” From Oregon Public Broadcasting: Roseburg Republican Jeff Kruse was among those voting against Senate Bill 2. He said he doesn't favor discrimination. But he said he believed the bill is a foothold for what he called mandating certain types of education in schools. Jeff Kruse: "Mr. President. If I had my way, I would take all the discrimination language we have in statute, eliminate it all, as say Thou Shalt Not Discriminate and be done with it, because that's truly how I think it should be." Representative Kruse’s position clearly comes from a misunderstanding of the law.
(If you are viewing this blog on LexisNexis, note that hyperlinks are available in the original at http://jweissdiary.blogspot.com See the "Archives" menu on the right for older posts.)
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Corvallis, Oregon passes gender identity law
On election night, over 60 percent of voters in Corvallis, Oregon backed Measure 02-56, amending their city charter to provide non-discrimination for gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation. Corvallis joins two Oregon counties and six other cities: Multnomah County, Benton County, Beaverton, Bend, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Portland, and Salem. (The HRC laws database over at http://www.hrc.org/worklife/gdsearch doesn't include Hillsboro, but there is one. I've sent them a note.)
Of the 4 Fortune 500 companies in Oregon (Nike, Precision Castparts, Lithia Motors, and StanCorp Financial), only Nike has a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
The list of cities and counties with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity keeps growing. It's probably a good idea to stop every once in a while and count. How many are there now?
When I search the HRC laws database (http://www.hrc.org/worklife/gdsearch) for cities in any state with an employment anti-discrimination law or policy that includes gender identity and applies to all residents, there are 72 cities, 14 counties and 6 states on the list. There should be a 7th, Washington State which went into effect in June. I've sent HRC a note.
For the sticklers, I note that, while there are 7 states that prohibit discrimination against transgender employee (CA, IL, ME, MN, NM, RI and WA), there are, in fact, 15 states that have state-wide law protecting transgender employees. How can that be? Well, there are 3 more states that have executive orders prohibiting employment discrimination against public employees, though there is no state-wide statute: IN, NJ and PA. (The HRC database doesn't include NJ, but there is one. I've sent HRC a note. What is going on with HRC's database?) Also, there are 6 states with court rulings prohibiting discrimination against transgender employees: CT, FL, HI, MA, NJ, and NY. When you add all these together, that makes 16, no 15 (can't count NJ twice!) (Hey, calling all nerds out there - did I get that right?) (Re Hawaii: although there is or was a bill pending, it hasn't been passed, though the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission seems to be interpreting sex to include some transgender people. Actually, I'm not sure if Hawaii's law is a court ruling or an executive order, or what. Here's the text and you tell me.)
The HRC employer database (http://www.hrc.org/worklife/ndgisearch) shows 435 employers with policies prohibiting gender identity discrimination, including 118 Fortune 500 companies, and 75 colleges and universities.
When I started my research in 2002, there were no states, about a dozen cities, and less than 100 employers on the list.
Of the 4 Fortune 500 companies in Oregon (Nike, Precision Castparts, Lithia Motors, and StanCorp Financial), only Nike has a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
The list of cities and counties with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity keeps growing. It's probably a good idea to stop every once in a while and count. How many are there now?
When I search the HRC laws database (http://www.hrc.org/worklife/gdsearch) for cities in any state with an employment anti-discrimination law or policy that includes gender identity and applies to all residents, there are 72 cities, 14 counties and 6 states on the list. There should be a 7th, Washington State which went into effect in June. I've sent HRC a note.
For the sticklers, I note that, while there are 7 states that prohibit discrimination against transgender employee (CA, IL, ME, MN, NM, RI and WA), there are, in fact, 15 states that have state-wide law protecting transgender employees. How can that be? Well, there are 3 more states that have executive orders prohibiting employment discrimination against public employees, though there is no state-wide statute: IN, NJ and PA. (The HRC database doesn't include NJ, but there is one. I've sent HRC a note. What is going on with HRC's database?) Also, there are 6 states with court rulings prohibiting discrimination against transgender employees: CT, FL, HI, MA, NJ, and NY. When you add all these together, that makes 16, no 15 (can't count NJ twice!) (Hey, calling all nerds out there - did I get that right?) (Re Hawaii: although there is or was a bill pending, it hasn't been passed, though the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission seems to be interpreting sex to include some transgender people. Actually, I'm not sure if Hawaii's law is a court ruling or an executive order, or what. Here's the text and you tell me.)
The HRC employer database (http://www.hrc.org/worklife/ndgisearch) shows 435 employers with policies prohibiting gender identity discrimination, including 118 Fortune 500 companies, and 75 colleges and universities.
When I started my research in 2002, there were no states, about a dozen cities, and less than 100 employers on the list.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Hillsboro, Oregon passes gender identity protection
The City of Hillsboro Tuesday evening unanimously approved a city-wide ban on discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
In enacting such a law, the City of Hillsboro has joined two Oregon counties and eight cities that have enacted similar laws: Multnomah County, Benton County, Salem, Portland, Beaverton, Bend, Ashland, Lake Oswego, Eugene and Lincoln City.
It's interesting to note that the vote in Hillsboro was unanimous, and applies to all employees, whereas the vote in Kalamazoo this week was 9-8, and that ordinance applied only to city employees. Why the difference? Both cities are of about the same population (around 80,000). Both have around the same levels of religious affiliation and racial diversity. Both Michigan and Oregon are considered blue states and went for Kerry in the last election. If one reads up on the economies of the two cities in Wikipedia, it is interesting to note that Hillsboro is inundated with Fortune 500 businesses, whereas Kalamazoo isn't. (I recognize that Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best source of info, but I do have other things to do today...)
Many high-tech companies operate in Hillsboro, making it the center of Oregon's Silicon Forest. In particular, Intel's largest site is in Hillsboro. Sun Microsystems High-End Operations is headquartered in Hillsboro. Other high-tech companies with factories in Hillsboro include Fujitsu, Epson, NEC, and TriQuint Semiconductor. Genentech recently announced its plans to locate a state-of-the-art product packaging and distribution facility there. Hillsboro is also 18 miles from Portland, a major metropolitan area with many major employers.
What does Kalamazoo have? It was home to The Upjohn Company, a pharmaceutical manufacturer (now part of Pfizer). Pfizer remains a rather large employer in the area, although they did cut many jobs from the plants leaving many middle-class residents jobless. Besides that, they have a lot of breweries. It's also not very close to any major cities; the closest major metropolitan area appears to be South Bend, Indiana, which recently defeated their own proposed gender identity ordinance.
This fits right in with my dissertation hypothesis that the passage of gender identity ordinances follows the perceived need for diversity leadership among business leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)