News
Carney: ENDA would make executive order ‘redundant’
LGBT advocates pounce on notion that directive unnecessary if law enacted
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he believes an executive order would be redundant with ENDA in place. (Washington Blade file photo by Damien Salas)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday he believes passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make “redundant” an executive order barring LGBT discrimination among federal contractors — an assertion that advocates say is untrue as they continue to press for both legislation and the directive.
Carney made the remarks in response to a question from the Washington Blade on whether passage of ENDA — which has already passed the Senate, but remains pending in the House — would change the thinking of President Obama on the executive order, which he continues to withhold despite continued pressure from LGBT rights supporters.
“I think if the law passed — and I’m not a lawyer — and I haven’t read every sentence of the law, but I think if a law passed that broadly banned this kind of employment discrimination, it would make redundant an executive order,” Carney said.
Carney articulated his belief that an executive order would be “redundant” in the event ENDA became law after emphasizing the broad-based protections under the bill, which applies not just to federal contractors, but to many public and private employers.
“I think the employment non-discrimination legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would broadly apply, and that’s one of the reasons why we support it,” Carney said. “Because it’s a broad solution to the problem, and it ought to be passed by Congress.”
When the Blade pointed out there are possible instances of LGBT discrimination that ENDA wouldn’t cover, but may be covered under the executive order, Carney called such potential acts of anti-LGBT job bias “hypothetical.”
“Well, that could be, hypothetically, but I think we’d like to see the legislation passed,” Carney said. “That would be a good thing.”
LGBT advocates disputed the notion that an executive order barring LGBT discrimination would be redundant if ENDA were law, saying both are necessary to enable greater legal protections for LGBT workers.
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization is directly at odds with Carney’s assertion and blasted the White House spokesperson for being “completely out of step.”
“We couldn’t disagree more,” Sainz said. “Even if ENDA passed tomorrow, we’d still want the EO. His assertion is completely out of step with over 60 years of social change strategy related to enduring legal protections for race and gender and more recently for hate crimes and non-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. What he’s asserting is the equivalent of saying that if ENDA passed tomorrow, we wouldn’t need non-discrimination laws in the majority of states that still don’t have them. That’s absolutely not the case.”
Other categories for individuals — race, color, religion, sex or national origin — are protected under current law by Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and by Executive Order 11246, which is enforced by the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance. Both were put in place under former President Lyndon Johnson.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative of the American Civil Liberties Union, said both ENDA and an executive order are needed to provide “parallel protections” for LGBT people enjoyed by other categories of workers.
“Race discrimination, for example, is prohibited under both Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11246,” Thompson said. “It’s certainly our opinion and our view that the same should apply to LGBT workplace discrimination as well. Even if ENDA were to be passed and signed into law tomorrow, we would still advocate for and want the executive order, and absolutely, definitely do not see it as redundant.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, also insisted that legislation and an executive order are necessary to provide full protections to LGBT workers.
“We need both,” Carey said. “We urge the president to use his power and act immediately with an executive order that protects millions of LGBT employees who work for federal contractors and we urge Congress to follow the lead of the Senate and pass ENDA. Rights delayed are rights denied.”
One difference between the executive order and ENDA would be the enforcement mechanism. If ENDA were law, anti-LGBT discrimination would be still be allowed by small businesses, or companies with fewer than 15 employees, as well as by religious organizations in a broader way than other groups because of ENDA’s religious exemption. But if an executive order were in place — and modeled after the existing executive order barring discrimination among other groups — companies exempt under ENDA could face penalties as long as they do $10,000 a year in business with the U.S. government.
According to Freedom to Work, under ENDA, a victim must first file a complaint with the EEOC before an investigation into anti-LGBT workplace discrimination can take place. But under the executive order, the Labor Department could proactively investigate a company for such discrimination — even if no complaint were filed. In fact, the Labor Department regularly conducts audits of federal contractors to determine if they’ve engaged in discrimination under the current directive.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, took Carney to task, saying he’s incorrect and apparently unfamiliar with the Obama administration’s work against employment discrimination.
“When he calls the executive order ‘redundant,’ Mr. Carney is wrong on the law, and surprisingly, he’s even wrong on the facts about the Obama administration’s own successful record enforcing the existing executive order banning racial and sex discrimination at federal contractors,” Almeida said. “In order to have full equality under the law, LGBT Americans need both the statute and the executive order because they have distinct enforcement procedures, and more discrimination can be prevented when both policies work in tandem.”
Almeida added that Carney should consult with “dedicated public servants” at the Labor Department, which, among other victories, under Executive Order 11246 recently won a $2.2 million settlement with federal contractor Cargill in a set of hiring discrimination cases on behalf of nearly 3,000 African-American, Latino and female job applicants — even with a law barring this discrimination in place.
“LGBT Americans deserve these same workplace protections that the Obama Labor Department has been enforcing for other hardworking Americans,” Almeida said. “There’s no good reason to leave only the LGBT community out of the workplace protections that have been applied by the Labor Department to everyone else.”
Also during the briefing, Carney responded to an email from Democratic National Committee Treasurer Andrew Tobias in which he told LGBT donors on an off-the-record listserv the executive order should be signed and its absence is “frustrating and perplexing.”
“I think that there are lot of strongly held views on these matters,” Carney replied. “The president believes very strongly in employment non-discrimination. That’s why he has urged Congress to act on the ENDA legislation. We’ve seen some progress on that. It needs to be completed. Those who oppose it are standing in the way of history and they’ll look foolish in the future as future generations look back at that stance and recognize it for what it is. I just don’t have any updates for you on the EO that you mentioned.”
Congress
Padilla forcibly removed from federal building for questioning DHS secretary
Prominent Democrats rushed to defend senator
Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed from a federal building in Los Angeles after attempting to ask questions of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference on immigration Thursday
The city has been rattled in recent days as protestors objecting to the Trump-Vance administration’s immigration crackdowns clashed with law enforcement and then the president deployed National Guard troops and U.S. Marines, which was seen as a dramatic escalation.
According to a video shared by his office, the senator, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, introduced himself and said, I have questions for the secretary.” After he was pushed out of the room, officers with FBI-identifying vests told Padilla to put his hands behind his back and handcuffed him.
“Senator Padilla is currently in Los Angeles exercising his duty to perform Congressional oversight of the federal government’s operations in Los Angeles and across California,” reads a statement from his office.
“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” the statement continued. “He tried to ask the secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”
Democrats were furious, with many releasing strong statements online condemning the actions of law enforcement officers, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), and the state’s other U.S. senator, Adam Schiff (D).
Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown also issued a statement: “A sitting U.S. senator should be allowed to ask a Cabinet secretary a question at a press conference — in his own state, on an issue affecting his constituents — without being violently thrown to the floor and handcuffed. Everyone who cares about our country must condemn this undemocratic act. Full stop.”
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
Congratulations to Chrys Kefalas and Salah Czapary on their new venture, the Yala Greek Ice Cream Shop, which will open in Georgetown, at 3143 N St. N.W., around July 4.
Kefalas is the CEO and founder, Czapary is the co-founder/director of experience and operations. The third co-founder is Steve Shyn, COO. From what I hear Chrys and Salah will at times both be doing the scooping to the lucky people who stop by their shop. The word “Yala” is a play on the Greek word for “milk,” and fittingly, Yala Greek Ice Cream is made using hand-crafted techniques passed down through three generations of Greek ice cream makers.
Kefalas told the Blade, “This is not frozen yogurt, just inspired by Greek flavors or a trendy twist on gelato. This is true Greek ice cream, finally making its American debut. It is crafted with farm-fresh milk from Maryland, Greek yogurt and honey, fruit preserves from the Mediterranean, and ingredients sourced directly from Greece, Italy, and the Middle East, including premium pistachios and sustainably harvested vanilla.”
The two come from different backgrounds. Kefalas has a family in the restaurant business but is currently the head of the brand division at the National Association of Manufacturers. He is a former Justice Department attorney; worked as Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech writer; Gov. Bob Erlich’s counsel in Maryland; and ran for U.S. Senate in Maryland (endorsed by the Baltimore Sun). Born and raised in Baltimore, he’s a Washingtonian of nine years. He told the Blade, “Yala Ice Cream is a tribute, a legacy, and a love letter across generations.” He spent his early years working in his grandfather’s restaurant in Baltimore, Illona’s. Kefalas hopes, “Just like Greek yogurt changed everything, Greek ice cream is going to set the new standard for ice cream. But, for us, it isn’t just about ice cream; it’s about making my Papou, my grandfather, proud.”
Many people in D.C. know Czapary. He is the son of a Palestinian refugee, and Hungarian immigrant, and a longtime Washington, D.C. resident. Czapary served as a police officer and community engagement leader with the MPD. He then ran for D.C. Council, and although didn’t win, was endorsed by the Washington Post. After that race, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser realized how accomplished he is and asked him to join her administration, where he served as director of the Mayor’s Office of Nightlife and Culture.
Czapary told the Blade, “We’re bringing the first authentic Greek ice cream shop to the U.S., and we’re doing it with heart. We’re building a space where kindness, community, and a scoop of something extraordinary come together. Our Georgetown scoop shop is designed to be a welcoming haven where every guest feels a sense of belonging.”
Delaware
Delaware Senate passes bill to codify same-sex marriage
Measure assigned to House Administration Committee
The bill that would enshrine same-sex marriage into Delaware’s Constitution passed the State Senate Tuesday afternoon.
Senate Substitute Two for Senate Bill 100 passed with a 16 to 5 vote, garnering the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. The bill has been assigned to the House Administration Committee.
SB 100 was introduced in April by Democratic Sen. Russ Huxtable of the sixth district of Delaware. It is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution. The act would “establish the right to marry as a fundamental right and that Delaware and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriages and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender.”
Senate Substitute One was adopted in lieu of the original bill on May 16. SB 100 originally focused exclusively on marriage equality relating to gender and the bill was tweaked to include protection for all classes that fall under Delaware’s Equal Rights Amendment, including race, color, national origin, and sex. Senate Substitute Two was then adopted in lieu of SB 100 on June 5 after being heard by the Senate Executive Committee on May 21.
SS 2 differs from SB 100 by clarifying that the right to marry applies to marriages that are legally valid under the laws of Delaware and that all state laws that are applicable to marriage, married spouses, or the children of married spouses apply equally to marriages that are legally valid. It also removed the need for gender-specific provisions by including gender in the first sentence and revised the language clarifying that the right to marry does not infringe on the right to freedom of religion under Article One of the Delaware Constitution.
“We’re not here to re-litigate the morality of same-sex marriage. That debate has been settled in the hearts and minds of most Americans, and certainly here in Delaware,” Sen. Huxtable said at Tuesday’s hearing. “We are here because the fundamental rights should never be left vulnerable to political whims or the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Other states such as California, Colorado, and Hawaii have introduced and passed similar bills to protect the right of all people of all genders to marry under state law.
“This bill sends a strong message that Delaware protects its people, that we will not wait for rights to be taken away before we act,” Sen. Huxtable said at the hearing. “Voting in favor of this amendment is not just the legal mechanism of marriage, it’s about affirming the equal humanity of every Delawarean.”
Padilla forcibly removed from federal building for questioning DHS secretary
Pride and Progress: Supporting LGBTQ+ Communities in Quitting
Comings & Goings
Indigo Girls coming to Capital One Hall
Calendar: June 13-19
WorldPride recap: Festival, parade, fireworks, and Doechii
Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups
PHOTOS: WorldPride Parade
PHOTOS: WorldPride Street Festival and Closing Concert
