Under federal law, people cannot be discriminated against in the workplace due to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. Yet, in 29 states, you can be fired due to sexual orientation; in 33 states, you can be fired on the basis of gender identity.
This type of discrimination forces LGBT individuals to hide their true selves for fear of being fired or refused employment on the basis of whom they love. One’s sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to one’s ability to successfully fulfill job requirements. Why should it matter if the lawyer representing you in court identifies as LGBT?
Fortunately, there is a remedy to end this blatant, disgraceful form of discrimination: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). On Monday night, the Senate took an important step in advancing ENDA, a bill that had not been considered since 1996. In a procedural vote that was necessary to overcome a possible filibuster, the Senate voted 61 to 30 to move the bill to the floor for discussion. All Senate Democrats voted for the bill, and several Republicans joined them to help the bill overcome the key hurdle. A final vote is expected on Wednesday.
So why would someone oppose ENDA? House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reiterated one of the most common complaints about the bill this week. A spokesman for the congressman said, “The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs.” This argument has been used against other bills seeking to eliminate discrimination; most notably, it was stated as the number-one reason that not a single Republican voted for the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2012.
First, is this claim true? Will ENDA cause more “frivolous litigation”? Evidence suggests that it will not. A report released in July by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that state-level laws that resemble ENDA had not significantly increased the number of complaints or litigations in those states.
Yet, this may not be enough to conclude that, if passed, this new federal law will not burden businesses. So, why don’t we ask leaders in the business community — some of Republicans’ most trusted advisees — what they think about ENDA?
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, arguing that the law is, in fact, best for businesses. He wrote, “We’ve found that when people feel valued for who they are, they have the comfort and confidence to do the best work of their lives.” Cook is not alone. More than 100 major corporations have joined the Human Rights Campaign’s Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness. Additionally, 63 percent of small businesses support ENDA.
Support for the bill extends beyond businesses. An article from The Washington Post reported that majorities in every single state support legislation that protects against discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation — from 63 percent supporting in Mississippi to 81 percent supporting in Massachusetts.
This law goes beyond business. Our country draws strength from its incredibly diverse population. To discriminate is to deny the innate good of diversity and individuality.
We, as a country, like to talk about being a place where rights are protected, individuality is embraced and equality is fundamental. Yet, in reality, we often fall short of these ideals. Workplace discrimination against LGBT individuals clearly denies that everyone is equal. The allowance of such discrimination promotes an idea that there is something about being gay that makes you less of a person, and therefore less of a qualified job candidate or employee. These ideas must be rejected if we are to be a society that truly values every individual as an important member of the community.
Christine Dickason is a junior public policy leadership major from Collierville, Tenn.
-Christine Dickason
dickas@go.olemiss.edu
