From Govexec.com;

"Legislation that would guard federal employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was introduced last week with the support of 11 lawmakers."

Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act (HR 3128).

The legislation, proposed by House Government Reform Committee ranking member Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., would amend the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act affirming "that federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary."

The proposed law, if passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, would add to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination against employees or potential employees that include race, gender, national origin, age, handicaps, marital status and political affiliation.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0705/070505p1.htm



Questions for Debate;

1. How should minorites that can be visibly identified feel about homosexuals enjoying the same protection?

2. How exactly can this be enforced, in that sexual orientation cannot be assessed without actually asking? (Which in turn opens a new question; have you ever seen an application outside of the military that asks about sexual orientation?)

3. How will this affect the rest of the American economy (i.e. will it set precedence?) ?

You sure seem to be on the "discrimination" kick this week.

1. How should minorites that can be visibly identified feel about homosexuals enjoying the same protection?

Most likely the same way that everyone else does. Some will feel apprehensive because of their own bigotry, some will be downright hostile, and others will be perfectly ok.

2. How exactly can this be enforced, in that sexual orientation cannot be assessed without actually asking? (Which in turn opens a new question; have you ever seen an application outside of the military that asks about sexual orientation?)

It's not like people from another country walk around with their native flag tatooed on their forehead. I'm sure you (as well as most people out there) have been in a social setting where some ignorant and hateful person has said "what a fag" or some such nonsense. It'd be hard to go through highschool and not encounter it. Now, did the person in question introduce him/herself as a homosexual, or did their behaviour correspond to a set of preconceived stereotypes held by the jerk in question? Chances are it was the latter.


3. How will this affect the rest of the American economy (i.e. will it set precedence?) ?

None at all. Don't worry, the gays aren't bringing down America just yet. This is just a law effecting federal employees. It is not binding for private groups... that being said, most large corporations already have similar policies.

I intentionally wanted a response such as this, as it sets up further questioning.

Frankly, people that "act" in a certain way are not necessarily homosexual and thus, it would be nearly impossible to prove cognitive discrimination, wouldn't it? You're talking about mannerisms, possibly dress, etc. People use these assessment tools in every social situation.

For instance, someone comes into the office for an interview at a gov't agency and is denied the job. He/She then begins the process to pursue a discrimination suit. How exactly could they prove that the interviewer (or whomever) discriminated against them due to their sexual orientation?

Would they say that a certain shirt or speech pattern gave it away? I have met gay people that never would fit the "mold", and of course heterosexuals that might be mistaken.

I agree that many people say ignorant things, or have pre-conceived notions based upon their ignorance. However, it's nearly impossible to prove that said ignorance was the basis of discrimination.

How exactly could one prove in court that their sexual preferences were the basis of being mistreated???
hmmm.....

Finally, you mention that it won't affect private business. However, I believe that in America, what is good for the goose if often good for the gander. By that I mean that if someone were to sue for discrimination based upon sexual orientation in reference to a gov't position; the decision could then be used as a basis for future court decisions elsewhere. Couldn't it???

Now, if we were talking about calling co-workers names (as forementioned), it could fall into a sexual harassment suit and is already protected. (as long as it's unwelcomed, unwarranted, and creates a hostile working environment).

Since you missed it I will say it again; most large corporations have sexual orientation dscrimination policies. From the IBM webpage.





How does a plaintiff "prove" that they were discriminated against on a basis of race for that matter? It's not like the employer signs a "this is why we rejected you" box.

2. How exactly can this be enforced, in that sexual orientation cannot be assessed without actually asking? (Which in turn opens a new question; have you ever seen an application outside of the military that asks about sexual orientation?)

That's just it; by not asking. Also, it should be enforced the same way any other such law is enforced. There should be a venue through which to file a complaint if one feels one has been dismissed or overlooked due to sexual orientation. Of course, the employers will be able to provide alternative explanations, but that's a problem with any such law. It is unquestionable that this law will still be circumvented, but at least no one can hold such a policy without putting themselves at risk.

3. How will this affect the rest of the American economy (i.e. will it set precedence?) ?

Most companies already have such a policy. Many states already have such a policy. Many schools have such a policy. This will, in all probability, change nothing; there is nothing to change.

Wow.

I didn't miss your claim that most large corporations have a sexual discrimination policy in place, but chose to ignore it. There are plenty of large corporations with and without such policies. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 320 of 500 Fortune 500 companies has such a policy. That leaves 36% of FORTUNE 500 companies without said policies....

You mention that it's tough to prove that someone discriminated against race, however, you missed my whole point. It's obvious that in an office where there is only one black person, for instance, that if he/she is treated differently that their race is in question.

However, there often can be a homosexual in an office that doesn't "broadcast" their homosexuality. It's not as if they wear their sexual preference on their shirt... where as gender, age, national origin, or race are unavoidably obvious.

Finally, the problem that I have is that it opens the door for frivolous suits, time spent in court, and overall mayhem... Take a gander at this suit;
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....03643296&EDATE=

Are we not going to fire non-producers now because of the fear of homosexual reprisal???

How many homosexuals will now be able to sue based upon their admitted sexual orientation? Will we now begin to move them into our circle of "diversity" in the workplace???

It's the basic premise that sexual orientation is a matter of visual perception is a farce...

One might ask the same question of race discrimination policies, even though the 'visual cues' are more obvious (read: there at all). Are we going to not fire Latino non-producers for fear of a racial reprisal? But of course these racial discrimination laws do exist, and America's corporations do not seem to be suffering terribly from them.

Such suits are rare. There are some conservatives who like to use scare tactics as a way of arguing against any legislation that has to do with equal protection. They will try and tell us that suddenly a bunch of homosexuals will be suing corporations and the government for millions. This is unrealistic. Such suits do not happen with any regularity.

And your last sentence is irrelevant. In the case of discrimination because of a nonvisual trait like sexual orientation, the bar will likely be high. How many judges will even hear a case based on one fired person claiming such discrimination? I think there would need to be some corroboration - other workers who witnessed specific instances where the plaintiff's sexual orientation was insulted, for example.

I think it would be excellent to add sexual orientation to laws regarding government employment. However, it's not far enough. I think that instead of picking specific groups, there should be a blanket policy, in which employers can only fire people for work-related reasons. No one should be able to say to a clerk, "your obesity disgusts me. You're fired." Or, "you are too ugly to work here - go away."

1. All decent human beings -- "visible minorities" or otherwise -- should celebrate such protection. It's good for everybody.

2. This will be very easy to enforce. The fact that people aren't required to wear huge signs that say I AM [CHECK ONE] HETEROSEXUAL HOMOSEXUAL BISEXUAL ASEXUAL OTHER is totally irrelevant to the fact that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is very real, and that measures can be taken to punish it when it happens. One very important thing that laws against such forms of discrimination will do will be to allow people to come out of the closet without fear of losing their jobs. A woman will be able to make a casual reference to her wife without facing the possibility of unemployment.

It's easy for me to imagine what it's like to have to live in the closet at work. I'm Hispanic, but most people can't tell. Suppose it were perfectly legal to fire me for that reason. I would have to keep my ethnicity -- which isn't "visible" to most people, it seems -- a secret. Imagine what a burden that would be to live with every day.

3. Like all forms of anti-discrimination laws, this will be a big boost for the American economy. Most private businesses are smart enough to realize that discrimination is bad for business, and adopt such policies simply out of self-interest. (The fact that it allows them to act decently is a side benefit.)

1. How should minorites that can be visibly identified feel about homosexuals enjoying the same protection?

Happy? I don't know how other people should feel about anything. People should feel whatever it is that they're feeling.

Everyone should think that discrimination isn't fair to those being discriminated against. People ought to be judged on what they do, who they are, not stuff that they don't control. I know, that's still a debating point for homosexuality, nature or nurture. Well, give it the benefit of the doubt when it comes to employment. Copulation isn't supposed to be part of a job description (although it might be implied -- different issue).

2. How exactly can this be enforced, in that sexual orientation cannot be assessed without actually asking? (Which in turn opens a new question; have you ever seen an application outside of the military that asks about sexual orientation?)

As pointed out, discrimination suits are hard but not impossible to prove. Still, other clear things come up in employment, like health care coverage for significant others. If the sigoth is of the same sex, voila.

This became an issue a few years back in Colorado Springs. City Council voted to exclude homosexual couples from the health coverage, saving a few hundred bucks a year while spending a lot more than that in legal fees.

3. How will this affect the rest of the American economy (i.e. will it set precedence?) ?

Nope. What fed employees get does not translate to what anyone else gets. However, watch as this administration blocks any such anti-discrimination legislature. That's the trend that might affect the rest of the American economy (i.e., losing good people to prejudice, such as fed anti-terrorist translators).

1. How should minorites that can be visibly identified feel about homosexuals enjoying the same protection?

I am not sure why they should feel any way about this. Discrimination is not limited to skin color.


2. How exactly can this be enforced, in that sexual orientation cannot be assessed without actually asking? (Which in turn opens a new question; have you ever seen an application outside of the military that asks about sexual orientation?)

Why does this matter? If there is discrimination based on sexual orientation, someone will know about it. The incident will be reported. Evidence of current and past practices will be considered. I see no enforcement problem just because we don't ask about sexual orientation when someone gets a job in the federal civil service.

3. How will this affect the rest of the American economy (i.e. will it set precedence?) ?

I don't think this raises an issue of setting precedent. It is more of the federal government catching up. Many many state laws (at every level) already have this type of prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination.

The only issue I see from this type of legislation is at the local level (not here at the federal level). If a city passes a broad ordinance that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination, it could raise 1st amendment problems. For example, if a private individual has strong religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and therefore does not want to hire a gay person, or some such thing. It might raise a free exercise claim. But I cannot imagine this issue coming up in the federal civil service.

To answer the first part of your quote, I would say that often times people are not fired because of being admitted parts of protected groups. For instance, I've been involved in discussions both within my own professional experience as well as in professional organizations that revolved around "tip-toeing" around certain races, ages, or percieved handi-caps; simply because of threat/fear of suit. It's a reality that many seasoned directors in corporate America have felt first hand. Maybe it's not going to be on Nightline, but it's a reality none the less. What if you had someone in your organization that was over 50, had MS, and was black whom didn't meet performance expectations on a regular basis....? Would you think twice about letting them go? If so, why/why not?

It's not a conservative scare tactic, it's an impediment to capitalism and an another example of true conservative ideology vs liberal belief. This is part of what seperates us in general.

However, you didn't answer my question. What I'm driving at is that if we have homosexuality as another protected portion of our society, will we include them in Affirmative Action practices? We already protect older Americans, handicapped Americans, Americans of color, women, and people from other countries. Basically, what you're telling me is that white, heterosexual men under 40 are the only non-protected demographic in the US???

Where does it end? You mention obesity? At what point will we begin to have a scale or calipers to assess obesity in the workplace? ...Which I believe is probably one of the most discriminated against groups in the US. Their ailment is visibly obvious, generally not socially accepted as the norm, and if I were to guess an issue for people of this demographic. Well, the problem is that do we include just chunky people? People with a large bone structure, etc? How exactly can this law be enforced???

Discrimination suits are far more common place than you really would like to admit. Heck, the IRS even added a deduction in 2004 for employers whom had to pay costs incurred in discrimination suits!
http://www.selfemployedweb.com/2004-tax-changes.htm

Check these stats out:
Sexual harassment charges increased 146 percent between 1992 and 2001. They have increased 150,000 percent since 1980. Pregnancy discrimination charges increased 126 percent between 1992 and 2001. Sexual discrimination charges increased 112 percent during the same period. Racial discrimination charges increased 484 percent between the 1980-1989 decade and the 1990-1999 decade.
National origin charges increased 112 percent in the period 1992-2001.
(stats directly from the EEOC)

Now, if I were to make an educated guess, some of these suits were probably warranted. What about those that weren't?
We all see the ambulance chasing lawyer commercials on TV every day. Don't you all agree that frivolous law suits affect our car insurance?? What about medical suits???

How many of us (other than myself) are involved in employement insurance and understand the impact on real wages? ? ?

If you have objective evidence that a particular person is not performing a job as required, you certainly have the right to ask her to leave, no matter what group she might belong to. If a person has objective evidence that there is discrimination in the workplace, she has the right to protest it. This seems fair to me.



I respectfully request that you not assume that you have ideals and I only have beliefs, and I will return the favor.



This was the question? It was sure hard to tell, since Affirmative Action has nothing at all to do with prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal employment. Forbidding discrimination is not -- repeat, not -- Affirmative Action. There was a good debate here about AA, with some dynamite defenses of it, on another thread, which you might want to check out:

Link


If a white, heterosexual young man has objective evidence that he is being discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, age, or sexual orientation, he should sue, and I would support him 100%.

It's possible for anyone to bring lawsuits without merit against anyone, of course, but that doesn't mean we put an end to lawsuits. To use your analogy, if it's true that it's possible to for a physician to be falsely accused of malpractice, does that mean we eliminate malpractice suits in general? Of course not. We just try to do the best we can to minimize lawsuits without merit.

I applaud your postivity, but believe that maybe I'm a little more tenured and calloused on topics such as these.

In my personal experience, what I've found is that nearly any labor lawyer and any seasoned HR professional would envoke the "it's cheaper to keep 'em" statement.

Let's say someone in the office was a known homosexual, and performing in a sub-par manner (and trust me... in corporate America, everything revolves around objective documentation). When it came time for disciplinary action, let's say, and said person began claiming discrimination, would I pursue further action as confidently as had they not been homosexual?? Probably not. This also applies to nearly any "protected" group. An international company the size of mine is often a target of frivolous suits, unemployment claims, etc. One suit would cost far more money than poor performance... so, in this case, most decision makers prefer to tread lightly.

Well , that in itself is bad management practice, and so if it hamstrings the companies that behave that way, more fool them.

Here in the UK we have, by comparison to the USA (especially those states where businesses can fire people peremptorally without any need or requirement to justify themselves), strict laws that govern firing people.

There are three ways to get rid of people - the first is summary sacking for gross misconduct. This covers the standard offences like stealing from work or from colleagues, turning up drunk or high on drugs, physical assualts on other staff or management or customers, and anything else that the company deems totally unacceptable (most businesses define harassment of other staff as gross misconduct, though they have to be able to prove it if required).

To get rid of people because the business has changed, rather than because of any failing on their part, you have to offer them redundancy. As a minimum, you have to offer to pay them one weeks' wages for every year of service they have put in, up to twelve years i.e. the legal minimum for redundancy is about three month's wages as a lump sum. Since, even with the almost full employment we have here*, it takes an average of 20 weeks to find another job after being made redundant, this helps former employees survive for themselves without becoming dependent on the state.

Lastly, for workers whose performance isn't up the the required standard, there is a well-defined disciplinary procedure. Larger companies (like to one you cite in your example) have people in HR who specialise in employment law and who can advise managers on the correct procedures to go through to sack someone who isn't up to the job. I know this because I used such experts myself to help me with some disciplinary problems I had in my team.

If any of these courses of action are not carefully considered, and backed up with evidence where necessary, then the employee is entitled to take their case to an industrial tribunal, a statutory panel with powers to award compensation for unfair or constructive (basically, where the employee is put in a position where they are forced to resign) dismissal. Sometimes the tribunal can even tell the company they have to give the person their job back, though that doesn't happen all that often, and it usually only takes effect long enough to allow the employer to go through redundancy (and pay people off) like they probably should have in the first place.

Here is a link to a government website explaining UK employment law

* Please note - despite all of this "red tape" and "bureacracy" the UK's unemployment rate is low in international terms - 4.7% - so while these rules might seem "an impediment to capitalism" the UK labour market and wider economy are doing fine, thanks very much.

In my experience as a man manager in the UK, it is not materially harder to fire someone who is bad at their job than I imagine it is in the USA. As much as anything else, the law here forces managers to consider carefully if that is the right course of action - let's be honest, nobody really gets out of bed in the morning with the intention of being the worst person that they can be. More often, people find themselves in jobs they are no good at for a mixture of reasons, some of which usually involve poor training and management from the business, as well as laziness and a bad attitude from the employee. The system here, from a management perspective, is about giving the employee chances to turn themselves around. If they start doing their job propely, then everyone's a winner. If they don't, then by going through the process correctly, the manager has effectviely given the employee enough rope to hang themselves with. Most employees know they are caught out fair and square, and never take their case to a tribunal. And, most employment tribunal judgements that go against the employer do so because the employers has not gone through the process correctly - either by not gathering appropriate evidence, not giving enough time for a turnaround, or (in the cases that make the headlines) by firing someone for the "wrong" reasons (e.g. their race or, in this context, their sexuality).

Now, to the question at hand; I will try to answer from the perspective of Uk labour law so you can see how it might work once these mooted protections are in place...

1. How should minorites that can be visibly identified feel about homosexuals enjoying the same protection?
Homosexuality has been protected from workplace discrimination in the same way that race and disability have for some years now (with the notable and anomalous exception of the Armed Forces). Nobody from a "minority that can be visibly identified" automatically has any particular animus against colleagues whose sexuality affords them some similar protections for that reason alone. Of course, that's not the same as saying "everybody likes gays" - other minorites have no immunity to homophobia, any more than gays have immunity from racism, sexism, and so on. So if similar legislation came into America, I don't think anyone else should bat an eyelid. Except maybe sloppy employers who think that good due diligence in staff management is an unbearable impediment to their business. In my own view, any employer who can't take the time to treat their staff as human beings deserves to have their business suffer.
The rule of thumb is that unless something affects the ability or an employee to meet the needs of his or her employment contract (which, also unlike much of the USA, is a compulsory document for all employees), the business has no business (!) poking around there.

2. How exactly can this be enforced, in that sexual orientation cannot be assessed without actually asking? (Which in turn opens a new question; have you ever seen an application outside of the military that asks about sexual orientation?)
Restrospectively, through something analogous to the employment tribunal service (e.g. some kind of specialist employment court).

3. How will this affect the rest of the American economy (i.e. will it set precedence?) ?
The British example would seem to indicate that it does not have to affect the wider US economy at all, let alone adversely. I don't think that such legislation is anything particularly to be feared.

1. How should minorites that can be visibly identified feel about homosexuals enjoying the same protection?

2. How exactly can this be enforced, in that sexual orientation cannot be assessed without actually asking? (Which in turn opens a new question; have you ever seen an application outside of the military that asks about sexual orientation?)

3. How will this affect the rest of the American economy (i.e. will it set precedence?) ?


1. How should they feel? I'd hope they wouldn't feel anything one way or the other, or that they'd be supportive. Everyone who is subject to arbitrary discrimination that jeopardizes their life or livelihood should be protected from it when possible.

2. Some people will want to be "out" at work; others won't, for a number of reasons. Some people will be more "out" than others. To me, the idea of this protection is to provide the freedom TO be out if you want to be -- not a mandate that you must be.

3. I hope it DOES set a precedence. There is no reason to deny otherwise qualified gay men and lesbians employment.

I spent many years in relationships with women, although I don't think of myself as a lesbian per se -- just flexible. LOL At the same time, I have always been a competent and skilled worker. The latter should have bearing on my ability to secure and maintain employment -- NOT who I was sleeping with at the time.