The Library of Congress  >  THOMAS Home  >  Committee Reports  >  Search Results
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GOTO
Next Hit Forward New Search
Prev Hit Back Home Page
Hit List Full Display Help
Contents Display

House Report 110-406 - Part 1 - EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2007

Full Display
Related Information
PDF
Printer Friendly Display
Bill Summary and Status
Full Text of Bill

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

None.

DISSENTING VIEWS

We dissent from H.R. 3685, a narrow version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that excludes protections based on gender identity. We are co-sponsors of H.R. 2015, the original version of ENDA introduced earlier this year, that would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While we agree with H.R. 3685's objective of prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, we do not support the decision to remove gender identity from the bill because it leaves this legislation woefully incomplete. H.R. 3685 fails to expressly protect transgender people, who are among the most at risk for discrimination. The decision to strip gender identity from the bill was not based on substantive concerns about the bill's language but rather on a perception that protecting this vulnerable group might jeopardize the bill's chances for clean passage on the House floor. We cannot support this rationale, which reinforces the very bias and discrimination that ENDA seeks to prohibit.

Transgender individuals and their families aspire to the same basic rights as other Americans, including equal access to gainful employment and fair housing in safe communities. Yet across this country, transgender people face extremely high rates of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. Studies across the country reveal that transgender people suffer a 35% unemployment rate, with 60% earning less than $15,300 a year. As a result of this disparity in income and employment levels, a disproportionate number of transgender people cannot support themselves or their families, and many are literally forced onto the streets. Every American has the right to be free from discrimination in employment and to be judged solely on one's performance in the workplace--not on irrelevant characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity. We are eager to support legislation that addresses such discrimination, and we wish that we would have had an opportunity to do so in Committee.

We believe that Congress should pursue the path that state legislatures have uniformly followed for the past several years, which is to pass measures that include both sexual orientation and gender identity. Such inclusive laws have passed on the local and state level in jurisdictions in every region of the country. Nationally, 37% of the U.S. population lives in jurisdictions that prohibit gender identity discrimination. Currently, there are inclusive laws in twelve states and over 90 local jurisdictions, including Iowa, New Jersey, Colorado, and Oregon, which passed inclusive laws just this year. Congress should be reinforcing these efforts instead of undermining advancement on the state and local level.

We have heard overwhelmingly from constituents and civil rights organizations that passage of this non-inclusive bill will undermine the ultimate attainment of full employment protections for all LGBT individuals. We are not aware of a single gay or LGBT organization that has endorsed this bill. In contrast, over 300 organizations have formally opposed H.R. 3685 because it omits gender identity protections. These include national groups such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality Federation, National Black Justice Coalition, National Association of LGBT Community Centers, Pride At Work (AFL-CIO), PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), and the National Center for Transgender Equality. Also in opposition is nearly every single statewide organization that represents the LGBT community in their state, including Equality Alabama, Equality California, Equality Illinois, Equality Maryland, Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, Garden State Equality, Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality Florida, Equality Maine, Equality Ohio, Equal Rights Washington, and Equality Texas.

For the reasons set forth herein, we respectfully dissent from H.R. 3685.
Rush Holt.
Yvette D. Clarke.
Linda T. Sanchez.
Dennis J. Kucinich.

<<< >>>

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GOTO
Next Hit Forward New Search
Prev Hit Back Home Page
Hit List Full Display Help
Contents Display