National
More pressure on Obama to bar workplace discrimination
House Democrats call on president to issue executive order
Supporters of an executive order barring discrimination against LGBT federal workers were buoyed this week by the results of a new poll showing that 73 percent of Americans support such a measure.
Brian Moulton, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, talked about the polling unveiled earlier this week by his organization during a briefing for staffers Thursday on Capitol Hill, saying support for the order comes from a diverse array of demographic groups — including conservatives.
“Rarely do we have support from this range of groups of people,” Moulton said. “The lowest support, which was 60 percent of support for the executive order, was among self-identified conservatives.”
Support came from 61 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of people 65 and older, 80 percent among black Americans, 72 percent among Hispanics, 77 percent of Catholics and 64 percent of born-again Christians.
“I think the data both on the executive order specifically, but the long-standing public polling we’ve had on the issue of non-discrimination over the years, shows that this is something that very much the American people support, and I think that’s also reflected in the fact that we have such strong support in corporate America,” Moulton said.
Other data, Moulton said, reveals that most people think federal workplace non-discrimination protections for LGBT people already exist. According to the poll, 87 percent think it’s illegal to discriminate against LGBT people in the workplace — even though no such law exists.
The survey of 800 likely voters nationwide was conducted for HRC by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research from Nov. 9 to Nov. 13, 2011. Even though the poll was conducted in November, the findings were published just this week.
Moulton was among five LGBT rights supporters who spoke on the panel, which was staged by the LGBT Equality Caucus and geared toward encouraging President Obama to issue an executive order requiring companies doing business with the U.S. government to have non-discrimination policies inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Because the measure is similar in its goal to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the directive has sometimes been referred to as the “ENDA” executive order, although the order would be more limited in scope because it only affects federal contractors.
Multiple sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have told the Blade the Labor and Justice Departments have cleared such a measure. The White House hasn’t said whether it will issue the executive order.
Reps. Lois Capps (left) and Frank Pallone speak before a panel of LGBT advocates (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Joining supporters during the briefing were Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who are circulating a letter among House Democrats calling for President Obama to issue the executive order.
Pallone said the executive order is needed to address the lack of workplace protections for LGBT workers.
The lawmaker said the ultimate goal is passage of ENDA, but the scenario is unlikely given the current leadership of the House.
“I think it’s fair to say it has probably no chance of passage whatsoever with the Republicans in control of the House,” Pallone said. “With the federal contractors, this is something we think we can do in the interim to set a precedent and help a lot of people, knowing full well that what we’d really like to see is ENDA.”
Capps said issuing the executive order would be in line with Obama’s decision to issue executive orders to facilitate job opportunities while most legislation remains deadlocked in a divided Congress.
“He’s calling it ‘We Can’t Wait,'” Capps said. “This is one more step he can take toward the agenda of clearly that’s something in the interest of the American public.”
Pallone and Capps are the initial signers of the letter they are circulating among colleagues — along with retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). They’ve set the deadline for signing the letter on Friday in anticipation of publication next week. An informed source told the Washington Blade the letter has attracted about 50 signatures as of Thursday.
Others on the panel presented different cases for why Obama should have no problem issuing the executive order and the extent to which it would facilitate non-discrimination in the workplace.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said companies that lack LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies can institute them easily and that most companies that haven’t done so have yet to make the change out of “laziness.”
“With President Obama’s order, I predict 100 percent compliance; I don’t think a single company is going to put at risk its livelihood in order to keep discriminating,” Almeida said.
Citing instances of workplace discrimination in which having the executive order already in place would be helpful, Almeida said the directive would allow the Obama administration to search actively for workplace discrimination without having to wait for individuals to file complaints.
“In a certain limited sense, the executive order is better than a civil rights act,” Almeida said. “Under the Civil Rights Act, an investigation can only start if the affected person files a complaint. Under the executive order, the Department of Labor can be proactive, go out and do investigations, find discrimination without the person filing — and that happens a lot.”
Almeida also articulated a sense of urgency in issuing the executive order, saying it would take at least six months for implementation of the policy. That process could be disrupted if a Republican defeats Obama in the upcoming election.
“There will after that be a process of no less than six months — six months is really optimistic — in which the Department of Labor will research and draft those rules implementing the executive order, and those rules will include all the minutiae with a host of different issues that we often hear as excuses not to do ENDA,” Almeida said.
The process involves a 90-day comment period where concerned parties — such as businesses and LGBT groups — can weigh in, followed by revisions based on the comments and the final rule being published in the Federal Register, Almeida said.
Deborah Vagins, American Civil Liberties Union’s senior legislative counsel for civil rights, talked about the history of other non-discrimination orders issued by earlier presidents — noting that President Franklin Roosevelt issued the first such directive based on race, creed, color or national origin for defense contractors.
“In 1941, some of our earlier civil rights leaders were preparing for a march on Washington to integrate the armed forces,” Vagins said. “Unfortunately, while full integration of the armed forces was not achieved at that time, during meetings between the administration and leaders of the march, Roosevelt agreed to sign this landmark EO prohibiting discrimination in federal defense contracting.”
The directive has been expanded by later presidents — most recently President Lyndon Johnson — to include all federal contractors and more categories of workers.
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University and legal scholarship director at the Williams Institute of the University of California, Los Angles, said the authority for Obama to issue the executive order is sound under the Federal Property & Administrative Services Act, or the Procurement Act.
“There has never been a court decision that has struck down any of the anti-discrimination provisions in a federal executive order on the grounds that they did not advance the economy and efficiency of government operations,” Hunter said.
Jeff Krehely of the Center for American Progress (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Jeff Krehely, vice president for LGBT programs at the Center for American Progress, presented findings from the institute published in November on the impact that ENDA would have on small businesses.
According to the findings, most small businesses already have non-discrimination protections. Seven out of 10 small businesses already prohibit discrimination against gay employees, and six out of 10 prohibit discrimination against transgender employees.
“It’s really a good news story out of the small business community because it shows that they are of a fair mindset when it comes to workplace equality,” Krehely said. “They recognize the fact that in today’s economy and today’s world the more inclusive and open you are, the better it is for your business, and this really translates into better recruitment and retention practices, less turnover — all the things that can disrupt a business of any size really.”
For small business that didn’t have the protections, Krehely said the response was that these companies didn’t think to institute them or didn’t think they had LGBT employees.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
