Comments on: New group joins fight against workplace discrimination

By: Kostas Dactelides

Kostas Dactelides — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:26:07 +0000

Do you address situations where an employer literally led a witch hunt against me to push me out of the organization once they learned I have Multiple Sclerosis?

By: Kesluk & Silverstein

Kesluk & Silverstein — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:09:43 +0000

It’s great to see more workplace discrimination advocacy groups organizing their efforts to achieve equality and equal opportunity. We wish them nothing short of success in their endeavors. [URL removed]

By: Babs

Babs — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 03:41:04 +0000

Wrong!! ENDA would have passed in the last session only if Leadership acted, there were not only the votes to pass, but also the votes to kill a motion to recommit. Hey if IBM and Walmart have gender identity in their employment policy…. what’s the big F deal? wake up, it’s 2011!

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:48:55 +0000

The bill has failed every time trans people were thrown under the bus, including in 2007, so I don’t follow your reasoning that including protections for trans people is the key thing holding ENDA back. We suffer the bulk of the actual discrimination in employment, housing, and health care among the LGBT community, yet we’re seen as the most expendable people when it comes to fighting such discrimination. I guess actually combating workplace discrimination is secondary to Meida-Friendly Legislative Victories, and you’re just politically correct if you think otherwise.

By: Miguel Barduz

Miguel Barduz — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:22:51 +0000

This is destined to fail because this new group insists on following the failed tactic of insisting on a bill that covers the very different categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. The two don’t belong in the same bill and when activists insist on all-or-nothing, the get nothing.

When ENDA was first proposed in the 1990s, it was the result of an approach to seek protections that were least controversial and had the greatest support. So we dropped the prior approach of seeking a comprehensive law that would cover employment, housing and public accommodations in favor of a more limited bill that would cover only employment, but which would be much more likely to actually get passed. That made good sense. And everyone understood that, by limiting the bill, we weren’t accepting or validating discrimination in other areas. It was a matter of making progress and not insisting on getting everything at once.

Then, bizarrely, we chose to completely undermine this approach by insisting that “gender identity” be added, even though there is very little prospect that such a provision could get passed. And we took an all-or-nothing approach, even though the sexual orientation provision would have passed and could have been enacted into law 2 years ago.

The result is complete failure. Gay people suffer discrimination without redress because fools like Almeida think it is more important to score political correctness points and show “solidarity” with the fiction of “LGBT”.

They will fail and they will deserve to fail. But not before they have pocketed a few years’ of good salaries.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:39:44 +0000

Hopefully they will advocate better than HRC. Good luck to them!

By: response

response — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:28:38 +0000

The enforcement procedures on those local ordinances are too week… they will not get plaintiffs to a trial like the one the police officer got in California based on a state statute.

By: Tom erickson

Tom erickson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:21:42 +0000

Tico and Joe: I can think of no better advocates. Where can I give??

By: Kathy

Kathy — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:46:34 +0000

“If I had worked as a police officer in Philadelphia, Miami, St. Louis or Houston, I never would have gotten my day in court.”

All of those places have local nondiscrim laws. I believe they all cover sexual orientation & gender identity.