Skip to comments.Legislation would protect employees from sexual orientation discrimination
Posted on 07/06/2005 9:44:01 AM PDT by Calpernia
Legislation that would guard federal employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was introduced last week with the support of 11 lawmakers.
The bill, known as the Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act (H.R. 3128), is in response to Senate testimony by Special Counsel Scott Bloch when he stated that the Office of Special Counsel is limited by law in its ability to protect gay employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The legislation, proposed by House Government Reform Committee ranking member Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., would amend the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act affirming "that federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the contrary."
"At a time when our federal employees are working tirelessly on behalf of the nation, we should be doing our utmost to ensure that all are protected against discrimination," Waxman said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to have abandoned a long-standing bipartisan interpretation of the law that protects federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation."
The proposed law, if passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, would add to the list of prohibited forms of discrimination against employees or potential employees that include race, gender, national origin, age, handicaps, marital status and political affiliation.
As chief of the Office of Special Counsel, Bloch is charged with heading up independent investigations and prosecutions of merit system violations in the federal workplace. He maintained before a panel of senators on May 24 that federal law does not give him the authority to prosecute discrimination against federal employees for their sexual orientation status.
"We do not see sexual orientation as a term for class status anywhere in statute or in the legislative history or case law, in fact, quite contrary to it," Bloch said at the hearing. "We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them ... The courts have specifically rejected sexual orientation as a status protection under our statutes."
In response to an inquiryon the proposed legislation, OSC officials referred a reporter to Bloch's Senate testimony and an April 2004 agency release that announced after a two-month review that OSC had concluded it has the authority to prosecute cases of discrimination on "actual conduct."
While the Bush administration has maintained a position banning discrimination against federal employees on the basis of sexual orientation, Bloch ordered the review to determine the legality of the agency's policy in prosecuting cases of sexual discrimination in agencies and had the information on filing sexual-orientation discrimination complaints removed from the agency's Web site and brochures.
Not included in the announcement was Bloch's viewpoint on case law supporting sexual orientation discrimination cases, which he believes blocks the agency from prosecuting cases involving a federal manager firing or disciplining an employee merely for being a homosexual, according to his testimony. If the manager took action against the employee for actions, in private or public, the agency would have the authority to prosecute.
The information on filing sexual-orientation discrimination complaints has not been returned to the agency Web site.
OSC spokeswomen Cathy Deeds said that Congress has twice tried to pass legislation that would give homosexuals "protected class status," allowing OSC to enforce Bush's policy forbidding sexual orientation discrimination, but both attempts failed.
"[I]t is now in the hands of Congress," Deeds wrote in an e-mail to Government Executive.
Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Danny K. Davis, D-Ill.; Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y.: Mark Foley, R-Fla.; Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.; Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz.; Christopher Shays, R-Conn.; and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
"Current Communist Goals '
Do you have a link to that, and could you post it please? It would be interesting to see all the goals.
I can believe, that they are all exactly true.
I WILL NOT be forced to hire queers. There are ways around this.
Here you go:
Current Communist Goals (1958)
The EEOC process is an effin' joke. Ask me how I know. (On second thought, I don't want to say. But I'm a retired federal employee and I've seen the failure of the EEOC over many years.)
Calling someone the "ranking member" is a polite way of saying "has no power".
Here is also a Marxist search that has archives of the Communist Manifesto:
great next they'll be demanding quotas for gays.
Being gay is not who you are, it's WHAT YOU DO. A particular behavior should not entitle you to be in a protected class.
Should we grant nudists these same rights? Think about it.
That has been mentioned in David Mixner's agenda.
David Mixner is a Democratic Political Consultant that has been a strong influence on the Gay Agenda. Especially in political offices.
David Mixner was also a key member in the Antiwar Movement, The Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC) along with Ramsey Clark, John Kerry, Bill Clinton and the US Communist movement.
>>>Should we grant nudists these same rights? Think about it.
They are trying that in Florida. Some type of topless movement.
I wouldn't fire someone just for being gay just as I wouldn't fire someone just for being an adulterer. Now, if they start talking about their perversion on the job, or causing problems in any other way, then it becomes an issue and out they go.
How are you supposed to know that the employee is gay? Isn't that some sort of violation of the "right to privacy"?
When my wife was interviewing for a promotion, she was REQUIRED to not disclose the fact that she was pregnant. If the interview panel knew she was pregnant and she didn't get the promotion, it could have set them up for a lawsuit.
Maybe they will put in a new check box next to race?
I don't know any of the logic to this.
If so, a good strategy would be to always check "yes" in the "are you gay" box. You will have a much higher chance of getting hired, and it will be virtually impossible to fire or demote you.
That could lead to uncomfortable bedfellows :P
Don't worry. If they hold you to your assertion that you are gay, you can always file a sexual harrassment lawsuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.