Connect with us

Politics

1 year later, White House still withholding workplace protections

Advocates call for Obama to act now, fulfill campaign promise

Published

on

The White House
The White House told LGBT advocates a year ago President Obama won't issue "at this time" an ENDA executive order (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The White House told LGBT advocates a year ago President Obama won’t issue ‘at this time’ an ENDA executive order. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Last week marked one year since a high-profile White House meeting in which senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told LGBT advocates that President Obama would not take administrative action to protect LGBT workers from discrimination.

During that meeting, which took place on April 11, 2012, the advocates were informed Obama wouldn’t issue “at this time” a much-sought executive order that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers.

The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney fielded questions from reporters for eight minutes on the decision and explained the administration prefers a legislative approach to the issue of LGBT workplace discrimination — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. One year after that meeting, some advocates are wondering how long Obama is willing to wait.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, was among those at the meeting. He said it is long past time for Obama to issue the executive order, which he considered a campaign promise.

“One year ago, the White House staff gave exactly zero persuasive reasons for delaying the executive order, and it’s time for the president to build on his impressive record and fulfill this campaign promise right away,” Almeida said. “There were no valid reasons for delaying a year ago, and there are no valid reasons for delaying today.”

Almeida has considered the executive order a campaign promise based on an affirmative response on a questionnaire to the Houston GLBT Political Caucus in 2008 from Obama indicating that he supports a non-discrimination policy for all federal contractors based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Action to prohibit workplace discrimination is seen as the only major LGBT issue on which President Obama has yet to make any substantive progress since the start of his presidency. No state laws prohibit discriminating against or firing someone for being gay in 29 states or for being transgender in 34 states.

Still, the White House hasn’t changed its tune on the executive order. Asked Monday for an update on the directive, Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, replied, “Regarding a hypothetical Executive Order on LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors, I have no updates for you on that issue.”

Almeida said he doesn’t know when the White House might change course and issue the order, nor would he comment on recent conversations Freedom to Work has had with the White House on the directive.

Still, Almeida said he remains optimistic that Obama “will do the right thing and fulfill this campaign promise and create strong and enforceable workplace protections in nearly one-fourth of the jobs in the United States.”

A report from the Williams Institute last year estimated that 16 million workers would receive non-discrimination protections if Obama were to issue the executive order. However, that estimate applies to all workers at federal contractors — gay or straight. 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.

On the day of that meeting one year ago, LGBT advocates ranging from the Human Rights Campaign to the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force issued statements expressing their disappointment.

One little-noticed quote in ThinkProgress from Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, stated the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors “will launch a study to better understand workplace discrimination.”

Stachelberg didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment about the quote for more information on the study. A source familiar with the meeting, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said White House officials didn’t say CEA would conduct a study, but noted there are multiple options for how to study the issue and gave CEA as an example.

Meanwhile, LGBT advocates have been building support for the executive order among allies in Congress and other advocacy organizations. Since February, Obama has received a letter from 37 U.S. senators, another from 54 LGBT organizations and yet another from 110 U.S. House Democrats. The response to each letter was the same: no executive order at this time.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization is still pushing for the executive order, but also sees opportunity for the advancement of legislation to address the issue of anti-LGBT workplace bias.

“HRC believes the president should issue a federal contractor EO as soon as possible,” Cole-Schwartz said. “The need for such an order, and the authority to issue one, is clear. While the LGBT community waits for the president to act, Congress must move forward with ENDA, including a Senate committee markup and floor consideration.”

As calls for the executive order continue, renewed focus has been on the advancement of ENDA in Congress — in particular a Senate floor vote on the bill. Although the legislation has yet to be introduced in the 113th Congress, that introduction — along with changes to ENDA — is expected later this month.

With movement doubtful in the Republican-controlled House, the Senate is the chamber most likely to advance the bill because it expanded Democratic numbers since the 2012 election and because Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has jurisdiction over ENDA, has already pledged to move the legislation out of committee this year. The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said Democratic leadership “looks forward to working with” Harkin to set up a floor vote on the bill.

Stacey Long, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force director of Public Policy & Government Affairs, said her organization is among those that want a Senate floor vote on ENDA after Harkin’s markup of the legislation is complete.

“Economic security and employment protections are major priorities for The Task Force and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is critically important,” Long said. “LGBT people are still suffering at work and the situation has been compounded by the downturn in our nation’s economy. We have been pressing for a Senate committee markup followed by a vote on the Senate floor. Of course, the legislation first has to be reintroduced and we expect that will happen sometime this month.”

In response to a question on whether Obama wants an ENDA floor vote in the Senate, Inouye responded, “The president has long supported an inclusive ENDA, and we would welcome action in either chamber on this legislation.”

A Reuters article published on Sunday quotes Jarrett as saying ENDA “is a priority,” but also reports that congressional aides see little evidence the White House is pushing to win support for the bill while it’s busy with gun control, immigration reform and the budget.

Almeida said he wants Obama to make clear that he wants a Senate floor vote on ENDA by using the bully pulpit to call on the full chamber to take action during an upcoming speech “well before the Senate ENDA vote that many advocates are pushing for this year.”

“I think a signing ceremony this spring for the executive order would be the perfect opportunity for the president to explain how America’s businesses and LGBT employees all benefit from workplace fairness,” Almeida said. “He can publicly challenge both chambers of Congress to pass ENDA while signing the executive order that will cover nearly 1 in 4 jobs throughout the United States.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage

Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.

To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.

Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.

Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.

A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.

A provision that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation — reportedly after the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.

Continue Reading

Congress

Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor

One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”

Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.

Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.

To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.

A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”

Continue Reading

Congress

House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms

Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.

Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).

The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”

“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.

They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”

“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.

Continue Reading

Popular