Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Template:Short description Template:Redirect Template:Use mdy dates Template:LGBT rights The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.
ENDA has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 except the 109th. Similar legislation has been introduced without passage since 1974.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The bill gained its best chance at passing after the Democratic Party gained the majority after twelve years of Republican majorities in the 2006 midterm elections. In 2007, gender identity protections were added to the legislation for the first time. Some sponsors believed that even with a Democratic majority, ENDA did not have enough votes to pass the House of Representatives with transgender inclusion and dropped it from the bill, which passed the House and then died in the Senate. President George W. Bush threatened to veto the measure. LGBT advocacy organizations and the LGBT community were divided over support of the modified bill.
In 2009, following Democratic gains in the 2008 elections, and after the divisiveness of the 2007 debate, Rep. Barney Frank introduced a transgender-inclusive version of ENDA. He introduced it again in 2011, and Senator Jeff Merkley introduced it in the Senate. On November 7, 2013, Merkley's bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support by a vote of 64–32. President Barack Obama supported the bill's passage, but the House Rules Committee voted against it.
From 2015 on, LGBT rights advocates moved to support the Equality Act, a bill with far more comprehensive protections than ENDA.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The Equality Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity not only in employment, but also housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and jury service.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The ruling was only on employment, like ENDA. LGBT rights advocates welcomed the ruling and called on Congress to pass the Equality Act, noting that as of 2020, 29 states do not have the full protections the Equality Act would provide for the LGBT community.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Evidence of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identityEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} In states that have anti-discrimination policies in place, LGBT complaints are equivalent to the number of complaints filed based on sex and fewer than the number of complaints filed based on race.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Evidence Discrimination based on sexual orientation occurs at a similar rate as sex and race at 4.7 per 10,000, as compared to discrimination based on sex at 5.4 and race at 6.5.</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> EEOC statistics from 2018 show that 1,811 LGBT complaints were filed.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
The Williams Institute estimates the number of LGBT employees as follows: 7 million private sector employees, 1 million state and local employees, and 200,000 employees of the federal government. Thirty percent of state and local LGBT employees live in California and New York. In comparison, less than half of one half of one percent of LGBT state and local employees live in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming combined.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> As one might expect, many of the documented complaints of discrimination by state and local governments against LGBT employees are in California and New York. Surveys that seek to document discrimination on the basis of perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity are often conducted with a pool of self identified LGBT people, making it difficult to ascertain the impact of this type of discrimination on non-LGBT individuals.
One source of evidence for hiring discrimination against openly gay men comes from a field experiment that sent two fictitious but realistic resumes to roughly 1,700 entry-level job openings. The two resumes were very similar in terms of the applicant's qualifications, but one resume for each opening mentioned that the applicant had been part of a gay organization in college. The results showed that applicants without the gay signal had an 11.5 percent chance of being called for an interview; openly gay applicants had only a 7.2 percent chance. The callback gap varied widely according to the location of the job. Most of the overall gap detected in the study was driven by the Southern and Midwestern states in the sample – Texas, Florida, and Ohio. The Western and Northeastern states in the sample (California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New York) had only small and statistically insignificant callback gaps.<ref>Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586–626.</ref>
Transgender people may experience higher rates of discrimination than the LGB population. A survey of transgender and gender non-conforming people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found 90 percent of respondents experienced harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In comparison, a review of studies conducted by the Williams Institute in 2007 found that transgender people experienced employment discrimination at a rate of between 15 and 57 percent of the population.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
In a survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 38 percent of LGBT people report incomes less than $35,000, compared to 33 percent of all U.S. adults over age 18.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
ProvisionsEdit
The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of some sexual orientations or gender identity. Sexual orientation is limited to "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality," thereby legalizing discrimination against asexual individuals. Religious organizations are provided an exception, broader than that found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<ref name=HuffPo>Template:Cite news</ref> Non-profit membership-only clubs, except labor unions, are similarly exempt.
All versions of the bill, irrespective of the military's changing policies with respect to service by open gays and lesbians, have provided an exclusion for the military as an employer of members of the armed forces, though not as an employer of civilians.<ref>103rd Congress: "For purposes of this Act, the term 'employment or employment opportunities' does not apply to the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces."; 112th Congress: "In this Act, the term 'employment' does not apply to the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces."</ref>
Since the 111th Congress, the legislation has included language to prevent any reading of the law as a modification of the federal definition of marriage established in the Defense of Marriage Act (1995).<ref>111th and 112th Congresses: "In this Act, the term 'married' refers to marriage as such term is defined in section 7 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the 'Defense of Marriage Act')."</ref> Since the 110th Congress, a related provision aimed at non-marital legal relations like civil unions and domestic partnerships prevents requiring an employer to treat unmarried and married couples similarly.<ref>112th Congress: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a covered entity to treat an unmarried couple in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits."</ref>
Legislative activityEdit
On May 14, 1974, Reps. Bella Abzug (D-NY) and Ed Koch (D-NY) introduced Template:USBill, an "Equality Act" which would have added "sex, marital status or sexual orientation" to the protected classes specified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus prohibiting discrimination in employment and access to public accommodations and facilities.<ref>(October 13, 2007) U.S. Congressmember Bella S. Abzug Stonewall.org. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> The bill died in June 1974 but a similarly named bill would later be introduced in the 115th United States Congress on May 2, 2017.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
In the early 1990s, supporters of the legislation decided to focus on employment. Rep. Gerry Studds introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on June 23, 1994.<ref>[Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 2d Session, 140 Cong. Rec. E 1311; Vol. 140 No. 81 (June 23, 1994).]</ref> The legislation failed in 1994 and 1995.<ref>Wendland, Joel. (April 9, 2007) A New Beginning for ENDA Template:Webarchive The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> In 1996, the bill failed on a 49–50 vote in the Senate and was not voted on in the House.<ref>Bull, Chris. (May 13, 1997) No ENDA in sight – Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1996 The Advocate. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref><ref>Manley, Roslyn. (June 17, 2003) New "Unified" Bill to Replace ENDA: A Left Coast Perspective Template:Webarchive TG Crossroads. Accessed October 20, 2007; MetroWeekly: Chris Geidner, "Double Defeat," September 15, 2011, accessed February 10, 2012</ref> Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy "believed that other senators looking for 'cover' on their vote in favor of DOMA might be more inclined to support ENDA."<ref>Template:Cite magazine</ref> Early versions of ENDA did not include provisions to protect transgender people from discrimination<ref>Template:USBill</ref> and ENDA was not introduced in the 109th Congress.
110th CongressEdit
_-_House_of_Representatives_vote.svg){kind=link}
In the 110th United States Congress there were two versions of the bill, both of which provided employment protections similar to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<ref name=cra64>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Reps. Barney Frank, Chris Shays, Tammy Baldwin, and Deborah Pryce introduced Template:USBill on April 24, 2007. It included gender identity within its protections. It defined gender identity as "gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth." It allowed employers to require adherence "to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning."<ref>Weiss, Jillian Todd. (April 26, 2007) The text of ENDA Transgender Workplace Diversity Blog. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref>
When that bill died in committee, Frank introduced Template:USBill on September 27, 2007, which did not include gender identity and contained exemptions concerning employer dress codes. It was endorsed by the Education and Labor Committee on October 18 and the House of Representatives passed it on November 7, 2007, by a vote of 235 to 184, with 14 members not voting.<ref>Final Vote Results For HR 3685</ref> Frank introduced a separate piece of legislation to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of gender identity.<ref>Eleveld, Kerry. (September 29, 2007) "ENDA to Be Separated Into Two Bills: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" The Advocate. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref>
Some LGBT activist organizations refused to support H.R. 3685 because of its failure to cover gender identity.<ref name=":0">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>http://nosubstitutes.org Template:Webarchive</ref> An exception was the Human Rights Campaign, which received wide criticism from the LGBT community for supporting a non-inclusive ENDA.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> The LGBT activist organizations that refused to support H.R. 3685 argued that not including transgender people undermined the underlying principle of ENDA.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> They claimed that failure to include gender identity/expression weakened the protection for the portion of the LGBT population that most needed its protections: gender non-conforming people, who they claimed are discriminated against in greater numbers than their gender-conforming compatriots.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Moreover, groups such as the National LGBTQ Task Force, among others,<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> later withdrew support in 2014 due to the ENDA's broad religious exemptions.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Others argued that this was ENDA's best chance of passing Congress in thirty years, that civil rights victories have historically been incremental, that concerns about the legislation's protections were unfounded, and that forgoing a chance to provide immediate workplace protections to millions of lesbians, gays and bisexuals was politically and morally wrong.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
111th CongressEdit
On June 24, 2009, Frank introduced Template:USBill to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,<ref name="advocate.com">Frank Introduces Trans-Inclusive ENDA|News|Advocate.com:</ref> with 114 original cosponsors, up from 62 cosponsors for the trans-inclusive bill of 2007."<ref name="advocate.com"/> The lead Republican cosponsor was Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).<ref name="wblade06-17">Template:Cite news</ref> Republican Main Street Partnership members Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE), Todd Russell Platts (R-PA), Judy Biggert (R-IL), and Leonard Lance (R-NJ) were among the original cosponsors.<ref>Cosponsors - H.R.2015 - 110th Congress (2007-2008): Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007</ref> The bill was referred to the House Education and Labor Committee, which held a hearing on the legislation on September 23, 2009.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> At the end of the 111th Congress, H.R. 3017 had 203 cosponsors in the House.<ref>Cosponsors - H.R.3017 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009</ref>
On August 5, 2009, Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced ENDA legislation (Template:USBill) that included gender identity,<ref name=Thomas1584>Template:USBill</ref> with 38 original cosponsors including Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Chris Dodd (D-CT).<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Sen. Merkley said "It's certainly possible that this could be passed by year's end, though the [congressional] schedule is very crowded."<ref name="Advocate08-05">Template:Cite news As Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Merkley successfully managed the enactment of Oregon's state version of ENDA, the Oregon Equality Act. Template:Cite news</ref>
The U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on the legislation on November 5, 2009.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Before the hearing, Sen. Merkley spoke at a press conference alongside two transgender women, Diane Schroer and Earline Budd. However, no transgender witnesses testified at the Senate hearing.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> As of March 13, 2010, S. 1584 had 45 co-sponsors and was pending before the HELP committee.<ref name="Thomas1584" />
112th CongressEdit
On April 6, 2011, Frank introduced an ENDA bill (Template:USBill) in the House to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.<ref name="MetroWeekly 4-6-11">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
On April 14, 2011, Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced an ENDA bill (Template:USBill) in the Senate.<ref name="merkleypr112">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The bill had 39 original cosponsors. On June 19, 2012, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions held a hearing on the bill, the first such hearing to include testimony by a transgender witness.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
113th CongressEdit
Template:Sister project On April 25, 2013, Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced an ENDA bill in the House (Template:USBill) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced an ENDA bill in the Senate (Template:USBill).<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
On July 10, 2013, the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee approved ENDA by a 15–7 vote. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced he would offer three amendments when the Senate takes up the measure.<ref name="Senate20130710">Template:Cite news</ref>
A cloture vote succeeded in the Senate on November 4, 2013, with 61 voting in favor and 30 against, allowing the Senate to schedule a vote.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte (NH), Susan Collins (ME), Orrin Hatch (UT), Dean Heller (NV), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), and Pat Toomey (PA) voted for cloture,<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> joining 52 of 53 Democratic senators and both independent senators.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) supported the legislation, but were unable to attend the cloture vote.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
After rejecting by a vote of 43–55 an amendment by Senator Toomey to expand the religious exemptions<ref name="Advocate-11-07">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> and accepting by unanimous voice vote an amendment by Senator Portman to prevent government retaliation against religious institutions,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> the Senate approved ENDA on November 7, 2013, on a 64–32 vote.<ref name="2013 roll call">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Arizona Republicans Jeff Flake and John McCain unexpectedly<ref name="Advocate-11-07"/> joined Sen. Murkowski and the seven Republicans who had supported three days earlier. Both independents and 52 of 53 Democrats again supported the measure, with McCaskill present but Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, who supported the bill's passage,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> absent.
In the House, on September 17, 2014, Representative Polis filed a discharge petition, that, if signed by a majority of the House membership, would force a vote on the version of ENDA with a narrow religious exemption.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> By September 22, it had been endorsed by 190 of the 218 that constitute a majority.<ref>U.S. House of Representatives Motion to Discharge a Committee from the Consideration of a Resolution, accessed September 22, 2014</ref> On December 3, 2014, 6 of the 8 Republican co-sponsors asked House Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on the legislation "as part of any available legislative vehicle including the National Defense Authorization Act" before the end of the 113th Congress.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Later that day, the House Rules Committee voted 7 to 3 against adding ENDA as an amendment to the 2015 defense authorization bill.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
114th Congress onwardsEdit
From the 114th Congress onwards, efforts to pass non-discrimination legislation has focused on the broader Equality Act which focuses on additional protections including in housing and the jury system as well as employment.
ArgumentsEdit
In favor of ENDAEdit
Political proponents of the law intend it to address cases where gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees have been discriminated against by their employers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, these employees are unable to find protection in the courts because sexual orientation is not considered to be a suspect class by the federal courts and by many U.S. states. Proponents argue that such a law is appropriate in light of the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process to all. Advocates argue that homosexuality is not a "choice" but a personal identity, a claim supported by the American Psychological Association (APA), and that all working people have a right to be judged by the quality of their work performance and not by completely unrelated factors.<ref name= APA_ENDA>Examining the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA): The Scientists Perspective American Psychological Association. Accessed May 22, 2010.</ref> According to a study published in 2001 by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, reports of discrimination based on sexual orientation are roughly equal to those on race or gender.<ref>Rubenstein, William B. (January 30, 2002) Do Gay Rights Laws Matter?: An Empirical Assessment Template:Webarchive The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> The APA also states that there is significant discrimination against homosexual people in the workforce.<ref name= APA_ENDA/>
The Congressional Budget Office in 2002 estimated that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's complaint caseload would rise by 5 to 7% as a result of the proposed law.<ref>(April 24, 2002) CBO Cost Estimate: S. 1284 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2002 Congressional Budget Office. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> Assessments of the impact of comparable state policies also show a minimal impact on caseload.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Regarding constitutionality, the act incorporates language similar to that of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,<ref name=cra64/> which has consistently been upheld by the courts.
In 1994, Barry Goldwater, a hero among the conservative and libertarian movements, became honorary chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
In opposition to ENDAEdit
Ed Vitagliano, director of research for the American Family Association (AFA), expressed concern about the impact of anti-discrimination laws on religious organizations. He cited a lack of clarity around whether the narrow exemption would apply to support staff and lay employees in addition to churches and clergy.<ref name="Vitagliano">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) has claimed that the legislation would have a negative impact on school children by eliminating schools' ability to avoid hiring transgender teachers. It said that "If ENDA passes, students and children in daycare centers all across the nation will be subjected to individuals experimenting with their gender identities."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Some libertarians argue that laws against private sector discrimination are acts of coercion that infringe on employers' property rights and freedom of association.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said ENDA goes beyond prohibiting unjust discrimination and poses several problems. It notes, for example, that the bill: (1) lacks an exception for a "bona fide occupational qualification," which exists for every other category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, except for race; (2) lacks a distinction between homosexual inclination and conduct, thus affirming and protecting extramarital sexual conduct; (3) supports the redefinition of marriage, as state-level laws like ENDA have been invoked in state court decisions finding marriage discriminatory or irrational; (4) rejects the biological basis of gender by defining "gender identity" as something people may choose at variance with their biological sex; and (5) threatens religious liberty by punishing as discrimination the religious or moral disapproval of same-sex sexual conduct, while protecting only some religious employers.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
In June and July 2014, several pro-LGBT advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Transgender Law Center, and Lambda Legal, announced they were withdrawing support for the 113th Congress version of ENDA because of their concerns about the breadth of its religious exemption in relation to the ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..<ref name="MyUser_The_Huffington_Post_July_13_2015c">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Legislative historyEdit
| Congress | Short title | Bill number(s) | Gender identity included? | Date introduced | Sponsor(s) | # of cosponsors | Latest status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 103rd Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994 | Template:USBill | No | June 23, 1994 | Gerry Studds (D-MA) |
137 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights |
| Template:USBill | No | July 29, 1994 | Ted Kennedy (D-MA) |
30 | Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources | ||
| 104th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1995 | Template:USBill | No | June 15, 1995 | Gerry Studds (D-MA) |
142 | Died in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution |
| Template:USBill | No | June 15, 1995 | Jim Jeffords (R-VT) |
30 | Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources | ||
| Template:USBill | No | September 5, 1996 | Ted Kennedy (D-MA) |
3 | Failed in Senate (49–50) | ||
| 105th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997 | Template:USBill | No | June 10, 1997 | Christopher Shays (R-CT) |
140 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| Template:USBill | No | June 10, 1997 | Jim Jeffords (R-VT) |
34 | Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources | ||
| 106th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999 | Template:USBill | No | June 24, 1999 | Christopher Shays (R-CT) |
173 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| Template:USBill | No | June 24, 1999 | Jim Jeffords (R-VT) |
36 | Died in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | ||
| 107th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2001 | Template:USBill | No | July 31, 2001 | Christopher Shays (R-CT) |
193 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2002 | Template:USBill | No | July 31, 2001 | Ted Kennedy (D-MA) |
44 | Died in the Senate | |
| 108th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 | Template:USBill | No | October 8, 2003 | Christopher Shays (R-CT) |
180 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| Template:USBill | No | October 2, 2003 | Ted Kennedy (D-MA) |
43 | Died in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | ||
| 110th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 | Template:USBill | Yes | April 24, 2007 | Barney Frank (D-MA) |
184 | Died in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties |
| Template:USBill | No | September 27, 2007 | Barney Frank (D-MA) |
9 | Passed the House (235–184), died in the Senate | ||
| 111th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 | Template:USBill | Yes | June 24, 2009 | Barney Frank (D-MA) |
203 | Died in the Judiciary, House Administration, Education and Labor, and Oversight and Government Reform committees. Hearings held September 23, 2009 in Education and Labor committee. |
| Template:USBill | Yes | June 19, 2009 | Barney Frank (D-MA) |
12 | Died in the House Judiciary Committee | ||
| Template:USBill | Yes | August 5, 2009 | Jeff Merkley (D-OR) |
45 | Died in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearings held November 5, 2009. | ||
| 112th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 | Template:USBill | Yes | April 6, 2011 | Barney Frank (D-MA) |
171 | Died in the Education and the Workforce, House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and Judiciary committees. |
| Template:USBill | Yes | April 14, 2011 | Jeff Merkley (D-OR) |
43 | Died in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee. Hearings held June 12, 2012. | ||
| 113th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 | Template:USBill | Yes | April 25, 2013 | Jared Polis (D-CO) |
205 | Referred to the Education and the Workforce, House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and Judiciary committees. |
| Template:USBill | Yes | April 25, 2013 | Jeff Merkley (D-OR) |
56 | Passed in Senate (64–32), died in the House. |
From the 114th Congress onwards, efforts to pass non-discrimination legislation has focused on the broader Equality Act which focuses on additional protections including in housing and the jury system as well as employment.
See alsoEdit
ReferencesEdit
External linksEdit
- H.R. 3017: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 on GovTrack
- A page on ENDA on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, endorsing ENDA
- A scientific examination of ENDA by the American Psychological Association
- Transcript of the 2002 Senate Hearings on ENDA
- A 2005 analysis by the Arizona Human Rights Foundation discusses ENDA's history, the corporate response to it, religious issues and gender identity inclusion issues
- A Campus Progress debate about ENDA and gender-identity protections.
- Directory of EEOC and state anti-employment discrimination agencies
- The Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 by Richard R. Hammar
- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination in Employment: A Legal Analysis of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Congressional Research Service
- The Employment Non-Discrimination Act: An Argument for H.R. 3685 by Deborah L. Cook Template:Webarchive