Connect with us

National

ENDA exec order could protect 16 million workers: report

Williams Institute examines policy for non-discrimination, domestic partner benefits

Published

on

An executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies would cover up to 16 million workers, according to a new study.

The report, published Monday by the Williams Institute at the University of California of Los Angeles, discusses the implications of a directive prohibiting federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination protections as well as policy requiring them to provide health insurance to same-sex partners of employees.

M.V. Lee Badgett, the author of the report and the Williams Institute’s research director, said in a statement the study highlights “the powerful impact” of federal policy prohibiting LGBT discrimination and “continued progress already made toward protecting LGBT workers through state law and voluntary corporate policies.”

The study finds state laws or company policies already in place at federal contractors protect 61 percent of employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and 41 percent from discrimination based on gender identity.

But an executive order from President Obama spelling out that companies receiving federal money can’t discriminate against LGBT workers would significantly expand protections, the report finds.

“We estimate that 11 million additional employees would gain protection against sexual orientation discrimination and 16 million employees would be protected against gender identity discrimination,” the report states.

Still, not all of these up to 16 million workers would identify as LGBT. Based on numbers that LGBT people make up 4 percent of the country’s workforce, the report estimates that the number of LGBT people who would gain protections as a result of the directive would be between 400,000 and 600,000 people.

The report also finds that a non-discrimination directive wouldn’t disproportionately affect defense contractors. According to the report, state law or company policy already covers 95 percent of employees at the companies from discrimination based on sexual orientation, while 69 percent of workers are protected based on gender identity.

Additionally, the study says the order wouldn’t place a heavier burden on small businesses because existing non-discrimination policies already equally cover employees in small, medium and large federal contractors — although Fortune 1000 employees have higher rates of coverage.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said the report is important because it shows millions would gain non-discrimination protections “once President Obama puts pen to paper and signs the document that is now sitting in the White House ready to go.”

“With an LGBT fairness record as impressive as Mr. Obama’s, I can’t think of a single legitimate reason he might not sign the order that two of his cabinet agencies have already recommended he sign,” Almeida said.

Multiple sources have told the Blade that the Labor and Justice Departments have cleared an administrative measure that would bar federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination protections and have sent their recommendation to the White House for final approval. The White House hasn’t said one way or the other whether Obama will issue the directive.

The measure is sometimes known as the “ENDA” executive order because it would accomplish the same goals as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress that would bar job bias against LGBT people in the public and private workforce. The executive order would only apply to companies doing business with the federal government.

The study also finds an order mandating that contractors provide domestic partner health benefit would have an impact, but come at little cost to companies.

Should the U.S. government require contractors to provide domestic partner benefits, between 14.3 million and 15.3 million more employees would have access to same-sex partner coverage. However, the study estimates between only 40,000 and 136,000 employees would sign up for coverage because not all of these employees are likely to have a same-sex partner, and even those that have them may not elect to receive benefits.

“Given the small number of employees who would take advantage of domestic partnership benefits across the tens of thousands of federal contractors, the ultimate burden on business for providing these benefits would be minimal,” Badgett concluded in a statement.

Findings in the study are based on on 2009 data from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission’s EEO-1 reports, which are required for federal contractors with 50 or more employees that contract for at least $50,000, and for non-contractor employers with 100 or more workers.

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular