-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/6681363dccb36cd6953f47f79cd48253.pdf
9c93be749e709b42d60c530f11648d39
PDF Text
Text
1\
•
I.,
d,)
..
LeadershipConference·~.
"...v
fl' \t,"
,~(j
•.
~.~;.: •.
.~.i·
J-~;~·lig St.. NW. Suite 1010.
~~iiidgtOd. D,C. 20006 ,
.on Civil Rights
%02/ 466-33 ~~, ,
~'
, ' ,
'
, ..l\'-' J ,\
,~O·, ;,;,:'
(,,,'J ~ «;)
e,.' \;¢
,(>-' - '<"\
FOUNDERS
Arnold Aronson
A. Philip Randolph'
Roy Wilkins'
OFFICERS
CHAIRPERSON
Benjamin L Hooks
,
,
'
c: ,
'" -:'(\Q."\
'
" ".
_"., -.\0 '
..,v,t:- \'" ~
EMPLOYME'NT NON-DISCRIMINATION ActQ~{~ND,~;:OF 1994
(Job Discrimination Bill)
,':s.~
I
VICE CHAIRPERSONS
Antonia Hernandez
Judith L Lichtman
William L Taylor
QUES';'ONSAND
ANsweftt
TREASURER
LEGISLATIVE CHAIRPERSON
Jane O'Grady
COUNSEL EMERITUS
Joseph L Rauh, Jr,'
HONORARY CHAIRPERSONS
Marvin Caplan
Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. ~
t.:awy~s'
Commitr&6 For
Civil Rlght!J Under Law
Owen Bieber
Internationsl Union 01
United Automobile Work«S
Kenyon C. Burke
Natlon'l Council 01 Churches
Becky Cain
Leagua 01 Women Votf1f3
Horace Deets
1) What does ENDA d o 1 i · 0 v ;.ls~;''':
'.
'{",
ENCA prohib~s an employer from using an indlvidual~s\'Sexual .
orientation as the basis for adverse or different treatment in emplo~ent or
employment opportunities. . ' . '
.
(' <:t\
:
' .
"
~
2) Who is protected?
.
. \e,'
I'
!
.
..
.
.
Jerome Ernst
National
counciTo~~~~;~(~!I?z~~
Marcia Greenberger
National Women's l..ew CentlJlr
LeSlie Harris
People For Tna AmfJIican
wa~
Patricia Ireland
Naflonal Organization lor'women
John E. Jacob
Nation,t Urban L.eague
Elaine Jones
NAACP Legsl Dalsn.a & Educational Fund, inc,
Laura Murphy Lee
American CI'IiI UtHInlas union
JOSeph Lowery
Southern Christian Leadership .Con/arenctt
Leon Lynch
United Stedlworkers 01 AmettCd
Karen Narasakl
.
",,'
,..e.V:~.'.'" it
."
, " d:..
::....\~-
3) Why Is ENDA nece8.fI.ry?
Keith GelQer
Ndlionef Education Association
'.!) .
, ENDA protects heterosexuals, homosexuals (gay men art9-Ci~.DtanS),
and bisexuals from discrimination in.the workplace based on ~ir sexual
orientation.
' , (
American Associdllon 01 RatJted Persons
Nallon.1 CatholiC Conlflfenca
fOllntlJrracial Ju.tice
,
';,.I(:i"
,I
eXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Barbara Arnwine
\.
','
,,{f1~:')'
,<;,p'§t~ .\~'"
SECRETARY
Dorothy Height
Gerald W. McEntee
,
-.. .\
"~...\0 .
~
, ' .
ENDA is necessary because gay men, 'lesbians, and bisexuals face
serious discrimination in employment. ranging from being fired from a job,.!
being denied a promotion, Or experiencing harassment on the jotr~:. .,,~,~t~,'
·4) What employers ara ~~vera~, by END~?
" I"
\fQ'
.
~~,?:,/
~,,~
ENDA cov~m the same :'entities ~hat the employment section of \titii
Civil Rights Act ,of 1964 ("Title VII") covers. Federal, state and local ' "
governments, labor unions, and employment agencies are aU cover~"
under this bill, as they are under Title VII.
'
"
Jepenese American Citizens UJegue ,
David Saperstein
Union 01 American Hebrew Congregation.
Jackie DeFaziO
5) Is the military covered under ENDA7
American ASSOCflU:on 01 UniVfH'8ity Wonum
•
Richard Womack
AFL<:IO,
Harriett Woodli '
Nat/Offal Woman's Pollt/Cdl CoIucu.
Patrlsha Wrloht
Disablll'~ Rights EclucdtlOn ami Delense ,:'Und
National
No. ENOA does ·not apply to the relationship between the United
States government and members of the Armed Forces. Thus, this bill does
not affect current law on gay men. lesbians. and bisexuals in the military.
Raul Yzaguirre
Cou~1I 01 La
Rua
COMPI-IANCE/ENFORCEMENT
COMMITTEE
'Charles Kamasaki, Chairperson
STAFF
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ralph G, Neas
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
6) Doe. ENDA have
a
small
bU8ine.. exemption?
Yea. ENOA does not cover employers with fewer than 15 employees.
I'
Lisa M. Haywood
POliCY/RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
(o~er)
Karen McGill Arrington
('0<Iceand)
"Equality In a Free, Plural, Democratz'c &ciety"
'.
, I'
I
I
'
�,
,
~
I
I
:\
C'.,',
.
,
'J
'
"
,
THE EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION' ACT OF 1994,
?'
I'
•.
SECTION-BY.;.SECTION SUMMARY
cmplo~ent discrimination
'on the basis of Sexual orientation
An Act to prohlbit
,
j
•
"f
)
,
'
'"
"
Section 1. Short Title. '
,
,
'
"
,
The short title of the ,bill is the "Employment Non·DiScrimination Act of 1994"
(ENDA). ' ENDA is designed to provide protection' ror lesb~ans. gay men., bisexuals. and
heterosexuals against discririUnation in thewotkplaee.
,,
Sectiog
'a. fiAdinls and Purposes.
[SeDate ODIy,1 " '
,
,
I
The, fmaina' set out the basic 'premise nfthebilJ ucit sexual ori~ntation has no
relationship to 'ability to, contribute to; society and that employment discrimination h.a.,ed on
sexual orientation vjolate~ fundamental values of ecjuality
fairness.
. "
and
"
,
The purpose of the bill is to provide a comprehen:siv~ federal prohibition, of '
cmployrnenL disc..-rimination on the ~is of sexual qrientatio,n Bnd to provide meaningful
'remedies 'against such discrimination., ,
.::
e
·,1
Section 3. Dtscrlmlnadnn ProhlbittJt
,
i
:'
. '
'
,
'
' '
(
,i
'
ENDA 'prohibits employers (illcluding 'goveimmcnt ,employers), employnu:nt
agencies, and labor orgonillttions from subjecting ~mployecs to different standards or
treatment, or ntherwise discriminating in employment or employment opportunities. on the
ba.qi~ of "qeXuaJ orientation. ..eml'loyriumt and employment :opportUDities include hirinS.
liring, compcn.ution.and otberterJnS or'conditions ofemplnyment. Like a similar
provision in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ~ection 3 prohibits discrimination '
based on the sexual orientation of so~ne .with 'Yhom an',employee associates.
'
! ,
,Sectiog 4.
1Ie!.rats.
I,
II.
ENDA docs not require ~ployersto provide benefits to their employees' same-sex
partners. Howevct. -=mpluylim'l remain free to proVide these benefits if they 'wish to do 50.
,
,
'I
1
',
I'
i'i'·
�,
I'
, r
,
,
. ".:
i:
:Section !t No Dimarats Impact.,
'"
" I , ' "
,',',
,
END/\. docs not require employers to justify peutral p,mctices that ,may result ina '
disparoite impact aglinst people of a particular sCxuap orien~*,on. As a reSult, the "disparate
'impact" claim.' available' under Title VI:! the 1964 Civil ~ghts Act (Titlc Vll), 'is not
'
available to gay ,~en. .le.~bians, bisexuals.. or hcterose~uals ,~derthis bill.
of
.
'.',
.
",
•
'
Section
.
"',,','
,
""
,-
,
,.
' ! ' o ,
• • • :
,"
I:>,
1
6. QUotaj And Pretereatial Treatment
i ':
<.
PrOhi~,I,ted.:
" " " , ' " l : ' ' . ,.;' ,t'l. '", ", ',,', " , '
~DA prohibits employers ,froJJ?adopdng qUQw or ~virtg preferential treatment to
an individual on the basis of sexual orientation., , ,f i ' , : '
','
' ,
,.1:
,
· ',,' ',' '
'
.
i ' . ' .
I',
Section 7• Religious ,Exemption. '" '
:
,.
'
".
.
:j
.' !
,
"
. : ~:
'
. [ .~;
.,,
.'
.
,
Section 7 exempts, rc1igiu~ orH~ons.in~luding ~ducational institUtions •"'
stibst8nlialJy oWned, managed. controlled. or, suppo~dby religious otg8ni.amuu! mel'
, educational inStitutions whose cunicu)~ is direetcdi)othct~8chinl of ~ligious doctrine. "
The bin covers only a religious orsanization'stbr-prpfit acti~itics S'!lbjecttotuxAUon under
'the Internal Rcvenue Code. ,
'
,
"
.
-,
I
.
I·
"
.
t"
, .
".
"
\
_
'-~
. i,
_,;:
.' "
I
•
,
' . : '
:Sec:tion 8. NoQ.ApplicatloQ_~qJ~1emhe" Of the Amed- Forces; Veterans', Prefergca,
. ,-.
'
'
-. > :
!,; .
,f;
- . ,-.• - "
.
ENDA docs not apply to the rehltionship be~ the~U.S. 80venunen~andmcmbers" .
of ,the Nmed :Forces.' Thus, the. bill d,*snotaffcct ~rr.ent law on gay men, lesbians. and
bisexuals in the military. In.a provision taken ,rrom Title vn;. ScctioQ ,8 rurther, provides
the bill dqesnot repeal or - , ' ,
modify any~ther 'law ~: gives . '
s~ial prcference~' to veterans.
.
'
Section 9. Enforcement.
It:,
,
, 'I
I
"
,
"
i ,"
"
,
,
,I
' !:,
, I "
i:
! 'i; .
,,
,
,
Section ,9 authori7.estheEqual E~ploymcnt OppurtunityColl111ijssion' (~EOC), lnc
Altorney General, 'andthc federal co~to exercise fbescun~i:powcrto cnf~n:eENDA Is '
thoscbranches of the federal C"J(,vemment have to cilforcc Title VII. IndividUals have the
,same right if.) ~ng, a private acti~ntha, individuals hav~undCr Title VII~C:ortgreS$ is ,',
'covcrcdby lhesame mforeemcntmcdlanisms estahlished hyhhe Civil Rights Actor 1991:
.
.. ,
"
If
..
'-I
I
"
Section 10. St.t.ln~ FederalIlIlmu.rla.
,1:-, "
,Sccti01'l'iO,provides that the States arid the Fcd~ta1 Oovemme1'lt are subject
'same actions and remedies as are qther :employm fOf: vioiaci()n of the law. ',.,' ",
;
, .
!;. ,
'
'Seetiontl.Attomm'
.
"
r....:
•• _
t
;
',':
I
.
.
J","
'
. The biH provides' forauomeys' 'fees and
. ','
,
the·
'
!"j
,_
'I:'
to
"i'
t
) ; :
.
.
"
,..
•
'
I j.
1itiS~~ori exP~n5es.
.
,'-
"
,
:'1
,
1
h'
.!I
,
J
"
j
.~
1
1
:
..... ,1
i.,
"}
'I
I,
I
I
,I
"
,f
1
1
"i'
.
",
,
..
�\
.,.
;
.
.
,
!
!
" fI
Seetion '12~ Retaliation aDd Coercion' Prohibited,:: '
, I
i
Section 12 prohibits retaliation, asainst"individuals ~e, they oppose.an act or
practice prohinited hy the bill, or'part~cipatejn an investig~~ion or other procceciiriguncicr
the bill. This section also prohibits coercion. intimidation, ,thleaU,or interference against
individuals exercising or cnjoyina' rights protected by the b~il., This provision is modelled
after similar provision.~ in Title VII and the Fair Hqusing Act of 1968. . "
. "
I'
•
I
.
:~
! i;
Section ,13. Postinl Notj;U.,
,.
As in Title VtI, the bill requires that e~ploy!ers post "notiCes describing the
,requirements of the law.
" , ' , ,:.
!'
'.
,.
, ,f
Seetion14. Rtlulanon,,'.
'. !
Secti~n 14 authorizes thcE:£O<i: to.
are not mandated under the bill.
issue·re~lAtionsi,tocnfor~cENDA.
'.
!
Regulations·
'
I
. ' Section 15. Relationship to Other Laws.
,
I"
i
l'f
;~j
,.
I,
I;'
~. '
'
This sectionpreserves.provisiori..~,in other fecierl1l,
, provide protection from discriminationJ ' ' . , ' ,
,
~ '.'~ ,
S~~t
.
' ,.
10.ca11aws~t
or
'I,
,..:,
';;".
'
cutrCntIy "
' .
f·.
;
~
Section 16. Se'Verab,ility, .
.'.
:'
.
.
I
The bill includes a general. severability cla~l ThuS~~:if any provision of ~1)A is
declared unconstitutional, this section preserves thc reSl·of t,~e ~i11.
•
,
\
. ,
~;'
•
<
~
j"i .
,
J.
Seeti()n 17, Effective D a t e . ! !
\
. . .'
1-';
,~ .;
, , '..
ENDA·takes effect sixty days ailer itsenactrti~nt.. Itidocs not apply retroactively.
,
'j
. .'S.I~tinn 18. DefinitioDL
,
.
,
\.
"
!I
,
I i.,
11
_.
' "I,
.
"
.:i
~
.
;
'::.
)
"
of
'
.
,Most the: definitions in ENDA com~' directly from.:~xistingdvil rights laws,
.primarily Title VII. The bill adds. a definition: it defll1cs"sexualorientation" as real' or '.
:perceived lesbian. gay, bisexual, or heterosexual oricntatiOrL"IThe definition includes'
orientation stated by i.n.d.ividuals or ma~ifc~sted in th~ir pcrsott.a!relations.
'. .
,
" ,
'.
.
.
I
,
:
'I!""
:
. 11. .
I.
,
..,
<,I
! ,~
'I
,
j
,,'
"i
I'
,
.3
il
,
:\
I,
.
'I'
�'I '.
;.
Leadership Conferenc.e
on Civil Rights
1629 NK" St.. NW. Suite .10.10
WuhiDgtoD. D.C. 20006
202/ 466-33.11
FOUNDElIS
Arnold Aronson
A. Philip Randolph"
Roy Wilkins"
OFFICERS
. CHAIRPERSON .
Benjamin L Hooks
EMPLOYMENT NON-OISCRIMliNATION .ACT (ENDA) OF 1994
.
(Job Discrimination Bill)
VICE CHAIRPERSONS
Antonia Hernandez .
Judith L Uchtman
WIlliam. L Taylor
QUESTU:JNS :AND 'ANSWERS'
SECReTARY
Dorothy Height
TREASURER
Gerald W. McEntee
1) What. does ,ENDA do?
LEGISLAmE CHAIRPERSON
Jane O'Grady
COUNSEL EMERITUS
Joseph L Rauh. Jr."
HONORARY CHAIRPERSONS
. Marvin Caplan
Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr.'
ENOAprohibHs an employer from using an individual's sexual .
Orientation as the basis for adverse ·or different treatment in, employment or
employment opportunities.
.
EXECImVE COMMITTEE
Barbara Arnwine
l.4,.,.,.' Committe. FOI
CI.II RighI. un""r UI_
2) Who is protected?
Owen Bieber
Inl,matlon.1 union ot
Unitcwi AutomObile WOt*MS
Kenyon C. Burke
. N.IIOII4I COuncif 01 Churc_
Becky cain
.
LM_oIW_Vo....
Horace Deets
.ENOA protects heterosexuals, homosexuals (gay men and lesbians),
and bisexuals from diSCrimination In the workplace based on their sexual
orientation. ,
'
.,
,
AlfNH'ilMfI A.,oci_IIon of ,..",., Per.on.
Jerome.Ernst
Natlon.1 C.thollc Con"rettCI/I
tor JnlfW.c/.1 Jullice
N.llo~.1 Educ:a~~.~~?!!
co.ncl~o~!!~~~~I,~~~~
N.IIoMI
Marcia Greenberger
_.n
Nallonal WO"",,," Lt..
~
COn'"
LesUe Harris
FOI TIle
WI,
"3) Why Is "INDA neceaaary?
,
"
,
,i
' .
ENOA is necessary because gay' men,. lesbians. and bisexuals face
'serious discrimination. in ernployment,ranglngfrom being 'fired from a job,
being denied a promotion, or experie~cing harassment on the job.
.
Patricia Ireland
NlIiorY} Olf/lnizl/ion fIX t1om."
John E. Jacob
Nation.1 Urban uagtHt .
. NAACP I.fIgII
Elaine Jones
o.l.n,. & Ed_,/on.1 Fund, Inc.
u;:
A_~~~~' ~~~l
Joseph Lowery
SouIIWn Chri.".n ua-'hlP Conl_
.
Leon Lynch
""11«1 $,. .,--.". 01 A",.,....
Karen Narasakl
,J.".nee. A _ l i t CillDn. """- .
David Saperstein
Union of AIM",c.n HfIINfJw ~rloft.
Jackie DeFazio
Amerlclln A_.,'on 0/
•
""1-.1" _ ,.
,Richart! Womack
,
AFLoClO .
Harriett
'1,,_1 W_', Woods
ca_
PoII/Ioe/
,
Patrlsha Wrlaht
'OI••blll" Rlghtl ii_lion ellfl 0/1,.". . f'j;n4
4) What employers are covered ,by ENDA?
I
. ENOA covers the same entities that the employment section of the
.Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("TItle VII") covers. Federal, state and local
governments, labor unions, and employment agencies are aJl covered
under this bUl, as they are under ntle VII.
&) Is the military covered! unde,:!NDA?
.
.• No. ENDA dbes nOt app~ to the relationship between the United '
"
.,j",
.
,
States govemment and members of ,he Armed Forces. Thus, this bill does
not affect current law on gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military.
Raul Yzaguirre
N.,lonal Council 0/ La Rua
CQMPLIAHCIiRiNFORCEIrlIiHT
COMIrIITTEE
Charlas Kamasakl. Chairperson
EXEcunvE DIRECTOR
6) Do.. ENDA have, a Iman buelne•• exemption?
,
•
J
'
•
Yea. ENCA doas not cover employers with fewer than 15 employees.
Ralph G. Neas
AOMINISTl'lAnve ASSISTANT
(over) .
USa M. Haywood
POUCYIRESEARCH ASSOCIATE
Karen McGill Arrington
"Equality In a F1'ee. Plu1't1I.Deinoc1't1tic ~ciety"
:.
.• ~21
I~
.
.
�,,
Leadership, Conferente,
' o n Civil ~ights
1629 "K" St.• NW. Suite 1010
Washington. D.C. 20006
202/466-3311
FOUHDERS
ArnOld Aronson
A Philip Randolph'
Roy Wilkins'
OFFICERS
.
I
EMBARCdED FOR REI ,EASE UNTIl, A,M"
THURSDAY, JUNE 23,1994
CHAIRPERSON
Benjamin L Hooks
VICE CHAIRPERSONS
Antonia Hernandez
Judith L Lichtman
William L Taylor
·SECRETARY
Dorothy Height
TREASURER
Gerald W. McEntee
LEGIS\.ATlVE CHAIRPERSON
Jane O'Grady
COUNSEL EMERITUS
Joseph L Rauh, Jr,'
HONORARY CHAIRPERSONS
Marvin Caplan
. Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr.'
EXECUTIVE COMMITT££
Barbara Arnwine
L.awyers" Committee For
Ci"a Rights Under L,w .
Owen Bieber
InI,rnSriofUJ/ Union 01
United AuromoOfi' Workers
Kenyon C. Burke
NatfOIUJI CounCil of Cl)urChes
Becky Cain
League of Women Vot,rl
Statement of Ralph G. Neas,
, Executive Director of The
Leadership Conference On Civil Rights,
qn Behalf of the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
June 23, 1994
Today, I am pleased arid proud to announce that the Leadership
Conference on Civil, Rights (LCCR), the legislative ann'of the civil
rights movemen~, strongly supports the Employment Non
Discrimination· Act (ENDA)." This historic :legislation would prQhibit
.discrimination on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation in
,
. hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and other employment
. decisions,
.
Horace Deets
American Associs"rion of Rerired Persons
Jerome Ernst
Natlcnal Catholic Conterence
for interracial Justice
National Eouca~;;;~~s~!%:!
NlJlion~' counclrO~~~j:' ~}r~:~~
, Marcia Greenberger
Nalfonal Women's Law Cent"
Leslie Harris
It is a special honor to pe here today with congressional leaders
and with Coretta Scott King, J~tin Dart, fonner chairman of the
President'sCominittee on ErDployment of People with Disabilities
under President George Bush,:and many other representatives of
minority, women, disability, tabor and .religious groups.
People Fat The American Way
Patricia Ireland
National Orgsnizatiott lOt Women
.
John E, Jacob
National Urban League
Elaine Jones
NAACP Legal Deltlns. & educational Fund, Inc.
, Laura Murphy Lee
Ametican Civil LitHtrftes Union
Joseph Lowery
Souflfettt CIf(istian .Leaa'($lIip ConfafflnCtt
Leon Lynch
UmttHS S'M1~o""fs
0'
Am.nCl
Karen Narasakl
Japan.s. Am.tican Citizens LANgue
David Saperstein
Union 01 American H.bf,W Cong/WlfldtJ0n4
Jackie Defazio
Am,fiCln Association of tJniWl1'ltlty Women
Richard Womack
AFLoClO
Harri'8tt Woods
The Leadership Conference welcomes the bipartisan support for
this measUre in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Currently, there ~re more than two dozen Senate and more than 80
House original cosponsors. We especially applaud 'the leadership of
the bipartisan sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
including Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Chafee (R-RI), Patty
Murray (D-WA), James Jeffords (R-VT), Joseph Liebennan (D-CT), and
Diane Feinstein (D-CA); and Representatives Barney ,Frank (D-MA),
Gerry Studds (D-MA),Connie Morella (R~MD), Christopher Shays (R.
. CT), Don Edwards (D-CA), PatSchroeder (D-CO), Henry Waxman (D
CA), and M~chael Huffington (R-CA).
NatIonal women's PoJitiClI Caucw
.
Patrisha Wrlcht
Disabili'~ RightS Ed1JClItlon and o.,ens"
FUnd
Raul Yzaguirre
National Council of L4 Raza
COMPLIANCEIENFORCEMENT
COMMI1TEE
Charles Kamasaki, Chairperson
STAFF
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ralph G, Neas
AOMINISTP·' ~IVE ASS/STANT
Lisa M, Haywood
POLICY/RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
Karen McGill Arrington
The Leadership Confer~nce on Civil Rights is the nation's oldest,
largest, and most broadly based coalition. Founded in 1950, LCCR has
185 national organizations representing minorities, women, persons
with disabilities, old~r, Americ."ns, labor, gays and lesbians, and major
religious groups. LCCR has coordinated the national campaigns
.
leading to the enactment of every major civil rights law since 1957.
.Recent LCeR legislative priorities enacted into law include the
Americans with Disabilities.Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the
l'Oecea_i
"Equality In ~ Free. P/U1'a/, Democ1'atic Society"
!
�,I
I
Civil Rights'Restoration Act, 'the Fair Housing Act AmendlJients of 1988, the Japanese
American Redress Act, and the 1982 Voting Rights :Act Extension.
,'" '
Earlier this month, the National Board of th~ ,Leadership Confe~~nce, which meets
annually, designated the Employment, Non-Discrimination ACt a top legislative priority for
the 103rd Congress. ,This is the ,first time that the ~adership' Conference has endorsed a
specific legislative measure whiCh prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians. This
decision underscores the' growing bipartisan con~nsus in this country that prohibiting
discrimination against gays and lesb~ is a funda~ental ci~il rights issue.
The Leadership Conference ,believes strongly that every worker should have the right
to be judged solely on his or her ability to do the JOD. People who work hard and perform
, well Should ,not be kept from leading productive and responsible lives,- paying their taxes,
. covering their mortgages and contributing to the economic life of the nation.
Regrettably I job di.scrinlination against lesbiim and gay people is widespread, and
there is no federal anti-discrimination :law that covers them; ,The Employment Non.;.
Discrimination Act takes a modest step toward securing eq\,lal treatment for millions of
Americans who continue to experience discriminatidnin the workplace. '
In addition to the anti-discrimination sections 'of the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act, there are other important provisions in the legislatioJ:'!, that would:.
o
o
o
o
exempt religious orgaitizatio~s, including religious educati~nal institutions;,
, exempt small businesses with fewer ~han 15 employees;
prohibit quotas and preferential treatment based on sexual orientation; and
not require employers to provide benefits to the Same-sex partner of an
employee.
'
:!
'
The Employment Non-Discrim'ination Act wbuld not'apply to uniformed members of,
the armed forces. It would apply to Congress, and it has the' same remedies provided by
the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
,
'
i .
I
'I. ~
The time is right fora federal ~wprotecting gay and lesbian Americans from
employment discrimiha~ion. Indeed, national polls show that 76 percent of all Americans
believe that people should not be fire~ or discriminated against for being gay.
The Leadership Confe~ce on Civil Rights is committed to working at the national,
state, and local levels on ,behalf ofthe:EmploymentNon-Discrimination Act. 'We call ,on the
.House' of Representatives and the Senate to follow the lead 'of a growing number of
businesses that already ban job discrimination against gays and lesbians and to pass this
vital legislation as soon as possible.
A number of organizations in the LeadershipConfe~encf:! have, not taken a position at
this time and do not join in this state,ment.
'
':
If you would like ,a copy of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or need
additional information or materials,.please call us at202-466-:-3311.
,Ii
,
,
�;'"
:l
I
,
Leadership G;tnfirence
on ClViil Rigbts
.6., "K" St.. NW. s..H. 1010
.""agtoll. D.C. 20006
ttl /46603311
EMPLOYMENT NON!-DISCFlJ~I,t'ATION ACT (ENCA) OF 1994
(~ob Discrimination Bill)
I'UI.IIIDIQ
~hnr~d~=...
A.
The ~~lQYmentFN.<?p-P!Scrlcnlrt~tIQJ~.,~ct.;;9;f""'11-~M~(ENDA) prohibits
Roy=:·dlscriF1lna~19r.1:,il1.,~rofill~~J11ebt::or:rtRe::tl'is,is;Qf~s,et,c~~!'iQIjE!Dtlti 9P;>E,NDA
extel"'S"s.-f~\r...ero~!H~~faqliPlJCl!c~~rnlJRJ;~p~gl~tqgPJ§;:;,tQJ@§PJ~!'J.~,,,gay
CHAlAI'IIRN*
RMJ"mln I .HOOIII men bisexuals ano heterosexuals
VlOt' tlHAIRf'fASQHS
~
•
Antonla Hernandez
Judith L. Uchtman . .
Federal Iaw currently protects
William L. Taylor ..
'
'
erppIoyess from d}scrlmlnatlon on the
basis ,?f race, rel,igion, gender, n~tio.n~1 or~gin, age, ~nd disability. ENDA
... _.~
___ w._FilM remedies a gap In federal non-discrimination protection.
MC&nt"
;
Dotot==
LlQIGIA'IlII1: ClIAlAtltiRSOM
~~~:~ ..
ENDA prohibits emplQyers, empl,oyment agencies, and labor unions
using an individual'ssexueJorientation as the basis for employment
rtONOM~;~ decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation.
Jo•
.,h
L.
Raull,Jr·1rom
ClenlnCfl U. Mitchell, Jr.·
.
:::;'=;.. Under ENDA, employer.~on that Indlvldual'$: $exua!. ori~ntatl(m (real or·
may nQt subjectan IndlvldlJal to ~iffer9nt
:/tlflltII_.... standards or treatment based
1IIIIfIMt.=
sexual
whom
assoolatet';)o
__"u.r-!J=;;;: .. the The IIdisparate impact'\claim~v~H~~'e und~r el't~ploym'flitlt
.. J:::.em'
Civil
Act
(Title VII)ii,
perceived) or discriminate ~galnst an Jnc:j'lvIdual b~~(m th~
~ 0, lSurtce orientation of those with
the , indiv.idual .'
__
.. " ,
Co!ittoII.,~
'#
BOcICy cain
the
section
~
of
Rights
of 19§~
not ~yai!at>le under ENDlt An
-~==j= employer is not required tb i4Siify a rieU(ral praCtice that may have a
"",/~~~,<::l9: statistically disparate impa¢f'bs$ed on J~.xual ofi~rnation.
-~I!~C~=
.
i
NrI~;!:,!r~c-: ..
ENDA exempts small ;busl,nesses with fewfilif' that mtEII!!Jn employees, as
,.....".,.~~:~~ does Title VII.
'
Pattlela Il'IIIand
NtlJuMIOIguIz.,/M I", ..,.,......,
~~J~~= ~
ENDA exempts refi~JouSL9rganizattions, jnclud!f1~ ~~)lucatlon~1 .
NA.AO'~~u~~~~~ Institutions substantially cqntroJled or supportsd by religiOUS organizations.
Lau... MurOhV l.OO
" .
--..~==..
ENDA prohibits preferen1Jat treatment, inol:,5ding quotas, based on
sexual orientation ..
8Of.tI'"*,,CluArIIa~1MdwwII ..eon~
t
IJIIIM'j_ _ oI
KartIn Her• •1d
.
~ ..'-;.~:::,.'"':: ..
ENDA does not 'r'Qqulre an, employ~w to provide benefits for the same
I1I1!1ntolA...........,~k:;;= sex partner of an emplqyee.
~
. ._ItIIJIt"""'" __
RI~::1!'!:"
ENDA does not.pplY1tq the rela!~o~l'j~hlF~ between the U.S. government
and the armed forces and thus does not afftIDd current law on lesbians and'
~AI;fIf'~~~.e gay men In the military. '.
~1_~!'JIR.ue
.
co.w.tJANCIo.tiN"==.. ENDA Incorporates t.~e reme~~i~c of Title VII (injunctive relief and
O,ar188 Kama&akl, Cha,,,,..;:: damages to the extentallovved by Title VII).
NtI'_~"I'vIIIWC_
IlIIIICIl1'I'W!DlIII!CTOR
AOMII'IIST=A~~::'
PaUCYI.!!:!~
::c:
..
ENDA applies to Congress with the same remedies as provided by the
Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Ka18B McGill Amngtan
('n..-t! . .
ENOA is not· retro~ctlve.
''Equality I"
Q
Ff'e~,
Plural, l)cfmcw:Y'tItic: t;oC;t:ty"
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
�t
I
Leadership Confe:rence
on Civil Rights
I'
i .
l629 "K" St•• SW. Suite 1010
Washington. D.C. 20006
202 I 466-3311
, I
FOUNOIIla,
Aronson
A. Philip Randolph'
?O~ Wilkins'
.~r"o'd
EMBARGOED FOR RET EASE UNTIl, AM.
,;
THURSDAY. JUNE 23. 1994
~FF'CERS
C("i.;),·.4P~:(SC~
BenJam'n L.
, ,:e.
HOOKS
::"1.\I~PEPSQNS
A6!cma HernandeZ
';L:l.tn L. L,ctllman
Wliliam L. Taylor
5tat~ent of ~lph G. Neas,
Exetutive ofrector of The
Leadership: Conference On Civil Rights,
:On Behalf of the
Employment Non.'DisaUnination Act
, June 23, 1994
,;E':~ErlRY
Clorot My Heignt
,PEASU~ER
Gerald W. McEntee
-'..cGIS~ riVe: C"AI~PE~SON
~ane O'Grady
E~E~ITlJS
COLNSEI.
JoseOt1 L Raun.Jr."
""O~~CPA;:iIY CW:A!PP:'MSONS
Marvin Caplan
Clarence M. Mitchell. Jr.'
EXECUTIve CO......'TTEI
8aroara Arnwine
:.J ......" ';"~""IIH" ;'0'
::: /I: ,:J,~tI(J
:.;f'ti1et 1..",
Owen Bieber
;":""a!IO".' Union of
1J1'I~.(j
Au/()mdoll. WOrK«'
Kenyon C. Burke
~~tIO"'1 :;",,,,fft;Jt Of C.'!urc""
Becky Cain
~!49u'
01 oNO""'" Vat.,
Today, I: am pleased ~d proud to announce that the Leadership
on Civil Rights (f:.CCR) , tlhe legislative=artn.:.ofIfhe-civil
rights:movement, strongly supports t~e Employment Non
Discrimination Act (ENDA).~ This his~oric .legislation would prohibit
discrimination on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation in
hiring, firing, promotions, compensatipn, and other employment
decisions.
Conf~rence
Horace Deets
"'m.rle." .tUOC/,fton 01
~'l/!ea
'Jdf/Off,1 Cdf"af'C C.::Jr.tflr.l't~
';;, lr.llt'~.CJII J\lstlCII
:~UCIJ~Oe~~~$~~~~~~
",,'00,. co,,,}o~1:~.~(~.'I~~:
'<J4ltOtrlti
.
Marcia.Greenberger
'ia:IOMkl N';)",en's 4. ...
eem.,.
Leslie Harris
,)IO!')'. For ..~. """,,,c.,, NfY
Patricia Ireland
"fa:lon., O:,g.a,."ur1olt 'or -Nom."
..;onn E. Jacob
,.... (lon ..'
',.!c.JCP
:.,":;,)1 J.ftm,• ..
:;'0'" l.Hgu.
Elaine Jonet
E::ucaIIO"4J Fund. IfI¢,
Laura Murphy Lee
~m.rlc'tt
C:vti
l.JOfprrl"
UI1IOft
Josech Lowery
:- ;.:"!'n :.""Ist:an
Uaceo, S"'Q
ConIM."c.
Leon Lynch
;..rt!lf/C
$:e" .. ;Jflff" 0.'
Am."c,t
Karen Narasaki
• .1.: ....... 5 • .sm.-flc.n c.tilMi ~
....~ ')1'1 ; :
l ,...~!
David Saperstein'
4mtlr/C'" HfCUI* ~
~ackj.
';.11'1 ""SloelaitOIt
01
I
P,rs",,,.
Jerome Ernst
oeFUSor
1.1"'VW'IlfJ _ _
RieMard WGrnack' ..
,..'L-OO
Harriett WOoc:fa.
,
,
It is a special honor to be here. today with congressional leaders
and with Coretta Scott King,·Justin· Dart, fonner chainnan of the
President's Committee on Erbploymerit of People with Disabilities
under President George Bush, and many other representatives of
minority, women, disability,~bor and religious groups.
.
.
.
~~.
The Leadership Conf~rence ~~lcomes the bipartisan support for
this measure iri both the Hoo.se of Representatives and the Senate.
Currently, the~ are more th~n two d?zen Senate and more than 80
House originalicosponsors. YVe especially applaud the leadership of
the bipartisan sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
including Sena~ors Ted KelU}edy (D-MA), John Chafee (R-RI), Patty
Murray (D-WA), James Jeffords (R-VT), Joseph Liebennan (D-CT), and
Diane Feinsteu) (D-CA); and: Representatives BameyFrank (D-MA),
Gerry Studds (D-MA), Conn,ie MoreUa (R-MD), Christopher Shays (R
Don Edwards (D-CA), fat Schroeder (D-CO), Henry Waxman (D
CA), and Micl\ael Huffingto~ (R-CA);
en,
'101 f.'0"..1 NOmftff', POlihcal ~.
PatrisMa WriatIt
;·SJD,'·r'l ~191H1 E~"c.t'o"
,;,0
0.,.,,_ r~
Raul Yzaguirre
,~tJtfon.1 COU~CIJ of l.4 Ifa.
COIIPI.!A I.e "'ENFORCE liE N r
.
COM,." rr!!
Ci'arles KamaSaKi. ChalfperSOll
STA,...
:~ec\,;r've
C,RECTOR
RalOI'! G. Neaa
.:..C .,4ISISTF4'. t:vE
ASSIST.,.T, .
• L,sa M. Haywood
.!)CL cy ::IE.Sc..... ~CH·.tSSccIATe
Karen McGill Arrington
I
.
The Leadership Conf~rence on Civil Rights is the nation's oldest,
largest, and m~t broadly b~sed coalition. Founded in 1950, LCCR has
185 national organizations representing minorities, women, persons
with disabiliti~s, older Ame~icans, labor, gays and lesbians, and major
religious groups. LCCR has coordin.ated the national campaigns
leading to the :enactment of every major civil rights law since 1957.
Recent LCCR. legislative priorities enacted into law include the
Americans with Disabilities .Act, the. Civil Rights Act of 1991, the
.
!
'
. ,
i
"Equality In a Free.
"
Pturd,l. Democ1'Otic Society"
•
~
�'I
Civil Rights Restoration Act, the Fair' Housing Act ;Amendments of 1988, the Japanese
American Redress Act, and the 1982 Voting Rights Act Ext~nsion.
,
"
I
:
Earlier this month, the Nation~l Board of th~ Leadership Conference, which meets
annually, designated the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a top legislative priority for
the 103rd Congress. This is the first time that the Leadership Conference has endorsed a
specific legislative measure which prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians. This
decision underscores the growing bipflrtisan consensus in this country that prohibiting
discrimination against gays and lesb4ns is a fundamental civil rights issue.
. The Leadership Conference b~lieves strongly that eV,ery.:w:orker.:should:hay:e:th_e=r:ight
to.:b.e:::judged~solelY'::Q1'I,:his:or.:hei':aDi1ity:to-aO-tHe-jo&;"-peOple-wno-worK=nara.:ana-perfOi-m
"fell.~0\1l~5n9t~l::Ie:-l<eEt.,from-lead,iQg' productive and responsible lives - paying their taxes,
covering their mortgages and contributing to the economic life of the nation.
Regrettably, job discriminatio~ against lesbian and gay people is widespread, and
there is no federal anti-discrimination law that cov~rs them. The Employment Non- .
. Discrimination Act takes a modest step toward securing equal treatment for millions of
Americans who continue to experience discrimination in the workplace.
I
,,
In addition to the anti-discrixriination sections of the Employment Non-Discrimination
Ad, there are other important provisions in the legislation that would:.
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
'
exempt religious organizations, including religious educational instihitions;
exempt small busine~s with fewer: than 15 employees;
prohibit quotas and preferen~l tre~tment based on sexual orientation; and
not require employers to provide benefits to ,the same-sex partner of an
employee.
.
','
The Employment Non:..Discrimination Act ~ould not .apply to uniformed members of
, the armed forces. It would apply to ;Congress, an<;l it has ~e same remedies prOVided by
the Civil Rights Ad of 1991 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
.
.
~
"
!'
The time is right for a federal law protectirig gay and lesbian Americans from
employment discrim,ination. Indeed~ national pollS show ~at 76 percent of all Americans
believe that people should not be fired or discrimfnated against for being gay.
,
'
,
,I
The Leadership Conference 'on Civil RightS is com~itted to working at the nationaL
state, and local levels on behalf of the EmploymeI'l:t Non-D~rimination Act. We call on the
House of Representatives and the senate to follow the leaq of a growing number of
businesses thataJready ban job discrimination against gays and lesbians and to pass this
:, :
'
vital legislation as soon as possible. .
A number of organizations in the Leadership Conference have not taken a position at
this time and do not join in this statement.
'
If you would like a copy of the Employme~t' Non-Discrimination Act or need
.
additional information or materials, 'please call us;at 202~3311.
�Leadership' ~oDference
on Civililights
,
I
16.9 "K" St•• NW. SuIt. 1010
W..hlnpn, D.C. 20006
202 J 466-3311
' . ! .
EMPLOYMENT NON-DIS:CRIMINATION ACT (ENDA)OF 1994
,
(Jo~ Discril"Qination 8i11)
P'CUlllDIR&
;,: ;
~h~r~dR:~~~:;·.
The Employment Non·Discrimi~ationAct of 1994 (ENDA) prohibits
wllklns'discrimInation in employment qn the basis of sexual orientation. ENDA
extends fair employment practipes -- not special rights •• to lesbians, gay
Rl)nJ~ml" I., HoOlcS men bisexuals arid heterosexuals.
"
A,
RO),
CHAI:=
VlQP C:HAlRf'EASONS'
,
: .
AntOl'lla Hemandez
,
i
';
Ju:.\~~a';,~~~~~ ~·Federal law ,currently protects employees from discrimination on the .
Dorot~~;~ basis of race, religion, gender.inational origin, age, and disability. ENDA
"i"RBAIl\IF!8A remedies a gap in federal non~discrimination protection.
G.araJd w. MClint..
' : : .
·r
. ENDA prohipits employers, emplpyment agencies. and labor unions
Jr·irom using an individuB,I's sex~al orientation as the basis for employment
LEGlsu.nvt CIIAIRPERSOH
.
ca!::~~~~: ~
Jonph L Rauh,
,j()NORAfl~1:~=:~ decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, or cgmpensation.
CleranclI M. Mitchell. J r " :
IIXECUTlVI! COIOllTl'III
!
Barbara Arnwine ~
',
.
.I
•
Under ENDA. employers; may not subject an Individual to different
, L.or;w;:::.;:,:::,o:::, standards or treatment based on that individual's sexual orientation (real or
Ilt(f(fl<r,~;~~g~ perceived) 'or discriminate against an individual based on the sexual
UIliIffdAu_. WOIIt....
.
f h
.h h
h 'd' 'd I
Kanyon O. Elurl<e onentatlon 0 t ose Wit w om: t . e In IVI ua associates.
.
OorltiC://OI CI""c/l".
,
"
1
NIIII~
Bock)' cain
1.IM!Iw~~W::tl= ~
.
_
I.
'.
.
.
The "dispar~te impact" claim available under the employment section _
~~=::/E::; of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not available under ENDA, An
1r....)A$_r......
--If;:~~':~'::= employer is not required to justify
a neutral practice that may have
,£duc.~~~~~~~~ statistically disparate impactb~sed on: sexual orientation.
a
N"I....
Euaene GIU'lIII'
, . , . _ . (''')11l1li/1 oI~fmot
Citl.....
'
HI!:r;!.,all!~:e~:..
ENDA exempts small bu~inesses:with fewer that fifteen employees, as
~FQI'TI;ea~.:::~~ does Title VII.:
.: : '
.
_
Patricia It8ISlId
Nt/i<JMI~.11on
1M N _
.
.
"
N.~~Z!nJ.~~" . ENDA exempts religious iorganizations, including educational
,
N-Uet>:..u.u 0.1"".. 6 1i""'.,..7!~~:"~,n,: institutions substantially controUed or s~pported by religious organizations.
Laura MurPhv Leo
.4meI1/MI~
(llVIllIbIrlt.. UnIon
.
1I0!1I11ft4Cllt~lhJ"Lj.o:rCd= ~
.
Leon Lynch
unltttl BI~_~"'" .1..f1illlrlA
. "
=1
., .
-j
•
-.
.
N~AtPtr?hiblts preferential treatment, including quotas, based on
sexua onen a Ion.'
'.
'
Karan Naruakl
.
,
.
.
;'I
.
.
~
ENDA does ; , employ' er to provide b.enefits for the samenot require an
,
sex partner of an employee
'
Jackie OeFAzia
. '
,{QP._A_k'.1InCIlIliIIIIILNfI/JIf
David Saperstein
Un"'nOlA"'"rl'1U!~~.1IGtNI
.
.Ftl~:~~~.
AttIGtttlII,. AfJOCl/IIIM 1)/
f/>fl~
II'IMMI
ENDA does not-apply to "the relationship between the U.S, government
and the armed forces and thus does not affect current law on lesbians and .
- Petriaha Wl1ahl
• th'
' ; .
.
11/.lb/1l1y 1I!g/ltOC_lot .MI 0 0 _ 1"- gay men In
.
e ml'lit'ary.
I -1
fW/MIl1 WomfII', f'..tltlGalC_
RaUl naaulrre
IUrlwu#l (""..tVUtr.'J!, ,,1 fit
'
tlitH
'
.. '. COMPUAHCMlNI'== ~
ENDA incorporates the remedies of Title VII (injunctive relief and
Charll'l8 Kamaliakl, ChalfPB:::: damages to the extent allowed ~y Title VII).
.
' .
1IXF.C1mvP. OIfl1!CTOI'I
AtlMIKI$T~~~\:~~:~~' ~
ENDA applie's to Congress with t.t',e same remedies as provided by the
Civil Rights Act of. 1991.
;'
POLlCYIREIIIAlll1H "-St.OCIATE·
,
Usa M. HaVWDOCI
I
.
, Karen McGill Arrington
(''''''-~~
ENOA is'not: retroactive ..
"Equulity fn
(IF,,,,·~,
Plural.
!)~/'''C'lC'l''(ltic' .~)c:i.~ty"
!
,
,I'
,
�Leadership Conferen~e
,
on Civil Rights
,
,
,
1629 "K" St., NW. Suite 1010
1
Washington. D.C. 20006
202/466-3311
!
i
Arnold Aronson
A, Philip Randolph'
Roy Wilkins'
~:
I
FOUNDERS
THE EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 1994
OFFICERS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CHAIRPERSON
Benjamin L. Hooks
'I'
I
VICE CHAIRPERSONS
':1
SOURCE DOCUMENT
Anlonia Hernandez
Judith L Lichtman
William L Taylor
SECRETARY
Dorothy Height
TREASURER
Gerald W, McEntee
GENERAL QUESTIONS
LEGISLATIVE CHAIRPERSON
Jane O'Grady
COUNSEL EMERITUS
Joseph L Rauh, Jr.'
HONORARY CHAIRPERSONS
Marvin Caplan
Clarence M, Mitchell. Jr.'
I
1.
Who will be protected under the Employment
Discrimination Act of: 1994 ("END A")?
!
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
i
Lawyers' Committee For
Cillil Rlgnts Under Law
ENDA protects heterosexuals,' homosexuals (gay men and
lesbians), ;and bisexuals from discrimination in the workplace
based on their sexual orientation.
,
Owen Bieber
International Union 01
United Automobile Workers
Kenyon C, Burke
National Councij of ChUfcnes
,
Becky Cain
Horace Deets
Jerome Ernst
I
I
I
!
League of 'Nomen Voters
National Catholic Conference'
for Interrsclai JusNce
.
I
Barbara Arnwine
American Association 01 Retired Persons
Non-
2.
What do~s ENDA do?
Keith Geiger
National EducarlOn AssocIation
National
ENDA prohibits an employer from using an individual's sexual
orientatiort as the basi's for adverse or different treatment in
employmept or employment opportunities.
councJo~~~~i~r~Jt?z~~~
Marcia Greenberger
Nationa} Women's Law Center
LeSlie Harris
!
People For The American Way
Patricia Ireland
'
,National Organization lor Women
John E. Jacob
National Urban League
Elaine Jones
3.
NAACP Legal Detense & edUcational Fund. Inc.
Why is END A necessary?
,
.:
,
,
,
Laura Murphy Lee
American Cill;1 Liberfies union
ENDA is necessary because gay men, lesbians, and btsexuals face
I
:
serious discrimination in employment, ranging from being fired
from a job, to denied a promotion, to experiencing harassment on'
the job. '
I ''
Joseph Lowery
Southem Chrfslian Leadership Conference
Leon Lynch
United Steelworkefs of America
Karen Narasakl '
Japanese American Citizens League .
DaVid Saperstein
Union of American Hebrew Congregetions
Jackie DeFazio
Amefican Association of University Women
Richard Womack
AFL·CIO
'Harriett Woods
National Women's Political Caucus
Disability Rights EdUC.ti:'~~~1r.r"Y.":lPu~!
Raul Yzaguirre
National Council of La Raza
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
COMMITTEE
Charles Kamasaki, Chairperson
STAFF
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ralph G. Neas
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Lisa M. Haywood
POLICY/RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
Karen McGill Arrington
4.
Why does ENDA. focus on em(lIovment discrimination?
,.
~,
ENDA focuses on employment discrimination because such
discrimination is a critical problem for gay men, lesbians, and
bisexuals. : A June 1994, Newsweek poll indicated that 91 % of gay
people' believe securing equal t~ghts in the workplace is a "very
important" goal for the gay con1munity. The general public also
supports this goaL A February 1"994 Newsweek poll showed that
"74% of ~ll Americans, favor protecting gays from job
I
1
.
i
•
,
[. Deceased)
::'
"Equality In a Pree. Plural. Dem OCf'G tic Society ..
•
�,I,
I
discrimination. n A Mellman, Lazarus, Lake poll taken during the same period showed
that 76% of those polled nbeli~ve that peogle shoul;d not be fired or discriminated
I
I '
against for being gay."
1
5.
Do gay rights and civil rights :groups plan to support legislation that goes beyond
'
employment discrimination? i
I
I
•
Gay rights and other civil rights groups bdieve that discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation should also be prohibited in housing, public accommodations, and
governmental services. Howev~r, in the long traditiqn of other civil rights struggles,
this bill addresses one issue: first -- in !this case, employment discrimination.
Employment discrimination striJ:<:es at the co~e of an individual's ability to participate
in society. Thus, it is appropriate for Congr~ss to act to remedy this evil.
, i
.
1
6.
I
Who supports the principle of combatting :anti-gay job bias?
I
Numerous civil rights and religious organizations have issued statements, or adopted
policies, against anti-gay job bias. The Executive Committee of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, an organization of over 160 civil rights groups, has
endorsed ENDA.
I
'
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAGER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.)
,
.
i
7.
I
I
Is it true there is no effective: recourse for sexual orientation job discrimination
under existing laws?
I
There is no truly effective recourse for sexual iorientatibn job discrimination in 42 states
across this country. Eight states have laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in employme~t, as well as in other areas. Various municipalities have
similar ordinances. But the vast majority of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals across this
country have no protection.
"
!
:
Individuals have tried to challenge sexual ori~ntation' discrimination under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a~ a form of ge:nder dis2rimination. All such challenges
have failed. Courts have ruledithat Title VI~ does n9t cover sexual orientation.
Individuals have also tried to ,challenge se~ual oriehtation discrimination under the
federal Constitution. An ongoing review of reported cases shows that at least twenty
nine cases have been decided uAder various constitutional claims since 1970. Seven of
these cases have been successful. Even if: a constitutional challenge is successful,
however, the Federal Constitution provides prbtection only against a governmental body
2
�j
.
i
!
I
.
I
-- e.g. the federal government br state or l~cal governments. The vast majority of
citizens who work for private c6mpanies are not protected by the Constitution.
I
.
,
Finally, individuals have tried ito challenge: sexual orientation discrimination under
contract or tort theories, Five reported cases have been decided under such claims since
1991. Only two of these claims: have been successful. . One of these was successful on
a contract claim, and another on' a claim of iI1tentional infliction of emotional distress.
,
I
As a general matter, the emploYiment-at-will doctrine means an employer may fire an
individual for any reason unless ithe employer ihas voluntarily bound itself otherwise by
contract. The only exception, accepted in a number <;>f states, is if a court determines
such an action would be contrary to public policy. The' public policy exception has
never been successfully used to i challenge a firing based on sexual orientation.
:
I;:
'
EMPLOYERS/COVERED ENTITIES
8.
What emplovers are covered under ENDA?
I
ENDA covers the same entities that the employment section of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 ("Title VII") covers. Federal, state and local governments, labor unions, and
employment agencies are all co~ered under t~is bill, as they are under Title VII.
9.
Does ENDA have a small busi~ess exempti~n?
I
Yes. ENDA does not cover employers with fe:Wer than; 15 employees. This is the same
exemption that exists in Title Vp and in the ~mericans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
,
I
'
l ',;
1
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAGER FOR FURTHER~ INFORMATION.)
i
10.
Is the federai government covered under ENDA?
I
i
Yes. The federal government,; and other state and 'local governmental entities, are
covered in their capacity as employers.
I
,
11.
Is the military covered under ENDA?
I
No. ENDA does 'not apply to the relationship between the United States government
and members of the Armed Forces. Thus, this bill does not affect current law on gay
3
'il
�i'
men, lesbians, and bisexuals in 'the military.
I
,
12..
Is Congress covered under END A?
I
Yes. The Senate and the House of Representatives are covered under this bill, in the
same manner in which Congress is covered unde~ Title VII. This means the
requirements of the law apply equally to Congr~ss, with special enforcement
Representatives and the Senate.
mechanisms established separately for the House of.
,
' I
,
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAG.ER FOR FURTHER; INFORMATION.)
I
13.
'
Are religious entities covered rinder the ENDA?
,
No. ENDA exempts all religiou~ corporations, associations, and societies. ENDA also
exempts educational institutions ,substantially <;>wned, managed, controlled, or supported
by religious organizations, or educational institutions whose curriculum is directed to
the teaching of religious doctrine. Thus, any employment decisions made by these
types of organizations are not covered under ENDA ..•
I
•
I
i
'
ENDA covers only employment decisions rela~ed to a *ligious organization's for-profit
activities subject to taxation (because they iare sub~tantially unrelated to religious
. purposes).
" i
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAGER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.)
I
,
EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION:
I
I
14.
Is there really a problem with discrimination in ·employment based on sexual
orientation? Can't gay people'do well in th:eir jobs if they do not make a big deal
of their sexuaJitv?
i
I
I)
~llk
No. Even when gay men, lesbians, or bisexuall never
about their sexual orientation
at work, they are subject to possible harassrrtent or firing based on the suspicion or
rumor that they are gay. Moreover, although' many gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals
try strenuously to keep their sexual orientation a secret, such information may be
divulged inadvertently through a co-wor~er overhearing a private telephone
conversation or through a co-worker disclosing to others information initially told in
confidence. Gay people are nev'er safe in the .workplace. Trying to keep one's sexual
,
4
�I
, i
):
;'\
orientation a secret in the workrllace is not areal prot~ction against discrimination.
,
1
' , :
'f'I'
15.
i, I
.,:
'
.'
.
,
"
.
Are the only people who would benefit fro~ this hill, then, those who happe~ to
have their sexual orientation disclosed inadvertently at the workplace?
"
.
II
fro~
No. Many people will ultimatelt benefit
this la4. Even if a gay man or lesbian
is able'to keep ,his or her sexuali orientation a! secret iri: the workplace, this comes at a
very heavy cost. "Passing" as stl'aight in the ~orkplacl requires significant energy and
,
:
I
I
self-censorship on the part of a gay persqn. It ;also puts gay employees at a
disadvantage because they cannot interact socially with, their co-workers and supervisors
in an equal manner. Studies show that passing inc~eases stress and even reduces
productivity for gay workers. I "Passing" ak straight is not a good substitute for
assurances of nondiscrimination.
''j
: I
•
16.
rf
Don't lesbians and gay men ~ave higher Jer capit~ incomes when compared to
other minority groups?
i
!::I'
::'j
No. This is a myth. This false a~sumption corhes from:ithe misuse of surveys that were
never intended to describe the ~conomic status of alf'ilesbians and gay men. Rather,
,
I " ,
these surveys were designed to ~how the usefulness qf targeted marketing to the gay
community aild were therefore biased toward! gay individuals with high incomes. In
reality, gay men, lesbians, and Ibi'sexuals crdss all l~*es equally: income, age, race,
ethnicity, and disability. Gay m;en and lesbi~s, as a,~lass, area portrait of America.
,
' I '
I
"I
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAGER FOR FURTHER; INFORMATION.)
,
"I
I
1
;
<
i
,r;
BASES FOR CLAIMSIRELIEF
',I
1,1
,
17.
I
I
,,t
il
.
'
",
What actions of an employer are covered under ENDA?
.
•
:
i
END A covers an employer's: decisions regarding ,jemployment and employment
opportunities, such as hiring, firing, promoti~m, trainfng or compensation. The bill
requires that such decisions n$t be made 9n the ~asis of an individual's sexual
I
I,
orientation.
I
l
j
!
I
18.
!
:1
'I
'I
j~ ,
What' would an individual halve to show to prove:: a discrimination case under
ENDA?'
,
ENDA adopts the same standards for proving intenti~nal discrimination that are used
5
I
J
�I
under :Title VII and other
J
I
'.'
"j
I
'~"
feder~l civil rights :laws. . ::
,'
'
a
,
First, a person must prove he or she is a member of protected class. Under ENDA,
this means a person must establish he or sheiis a gaY::man, ' a lesbian, a bisexual, or a
, I
I
heterosexual, or is perceived ~o be in one! of those categories, or associates with
'I
:i
someone in one of those categories.
I
.
I
I
+
Second, the person must show He or she was 4ualified:lfor a particular job or promotion
(or whatever employment opportunity is at issue)andj that the employer's adverse
employment action raises an in~erence the en-{ployer apted on the basis of the person's
sexual orientation. This establishes the plaintiffs "pril;na facie" case of discrimination.
,
'
'
:
I
I,
',:
,
The employer then presents. evi~ence to pro~e that t~e adverse employment. decision'
was not taken on the basis of the person's ~exual o;ientation, but rather, was taken
because of some legitimate, nori-discrim~natoty reasofl:.
, '
, ,,
,
1.1
I
"I
The person then has the opport*nity torebutj that cla(~, by proving the stated reason
was really a pretext, and that the adverse action was actually taken on the basis of
1
!
i,
sexual orientation. The plaintif~ bears the ultimate burden of proof at this, stage of the
case.
II',
I
';
I
,~ , ,I
I
,.
!
j
d
I
19.
,'J;
i
' I
Mav an individual bring a "disparate impact" claim under ENDA?
';
:1
' I
20.
,
(!
No. ENDA does not allow an individual to br,ing a tra~itional "disparate impact" claim
-- that ,is, a claim that a facially neutral practice of th~';employer has a disproportionate
adverse effect on persons of a particular sexual orientation. Thus, the standards for
proving a "disparate impact" claim, which exist under title VII, do not apply to ENDA.
i
'I'
"
i
'I,
I
,;:
I
What is a "disparate impact" 'claim?
I
,
I,:
!
I:::
A disparate impact claim isa cli:lim that a fac'ially ne~tral practice of an employer has
a disproportionately adverse eff~ct on personS of a pahicular protected group.
I
:i
,Ii
,I
A disparate impact claim relies heavily on statistics. 'In a traditional disparate impact
claim,' a plaintiff compares the percentage of; individuals of a particular gender, race,
or ethnicity in an employer's workforce with ~he perc~ntage of such individuals in the
pool of qualified applicants. If there is a signi,ficant disparity between the percentages, '
the plaintiff may argue that oneqr more of the :employer's neutral employment practices
causes the adverse effect on the' hiring of such individuals. If the plaintiff makes out
this case, the employer must 'then show the !challeng~d employment practice is jobrelated and consistent with business necessity~
;!
,
I
I '~;
I
'
I
I
I
I
6
�In the Civil Rights Act of 1991,1 Congress co¥fied this "disparate impad ' claim under
!
'
Title VII.
21.
Why are traditional disparate'impact claims not allowed under ENDA?
I
The exclusion of a disparate impact claim from ENDA results primarily from the fact
that it'is difficult to perform anI accurate statistical analysis in the context of sexual
orientation. Privacy concerns wquld ordinarily foreclose an accurate statistical count of
all gay men, lesbians, bisexuals,; and heterosexuals in an employer's workforce and in
the qualified applicant pool. Wh'ile one could (jevelop a count of the number of openly
gay people in a particular workforce, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to' assess
the number of openly-gay peopl¢ in the relevant applicant pool.
I
: '.
The exclusion of disparate impact claims sho~ld not iInpact significantly on the ability
. of plaintiffs to challenge the type of discrimination gay people traditionally face. Such
discrimination usually takes the form of either overt, intentional discrimination or
seemingly neutral actions that are clearly 'pretexts fo~ discrimination. Both of these
;
types of actions are outlawed by ENDA.
!
!
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAG~R FOR FU~THER INFORMATION.)
!
22.
i
i
What kind of relief is available under ENDA?
i
;
I
t
'I,
ENDA incorporates the enforcement mechanisms and remedies of Title VII. This
means a plaintiff must first go; through the ~dministrative mechanism of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Cornniission (EEOC). A plaintiff may then file a lawsuit in
federal court and, if the plaintiff prevails, ,may receive injunctive relief, such. as
reinstatement in ajob and/or back pay. Attorney's fees are available, as they are under
Title VII.
!
A plaintiff may also receive corrlpensatory and punitive money damages, to the extent
such damages are allowed under Title VII. In the bipartisan compromise which resulted
I
'
in the passage of the Civil Righ~s Act of 1991, damages under Title VII were capped
.: I i !
as 101 ows:
I
i
* $50,000,
'"
:
when suing an employer with 15 - ,.} 00 employees;
when suing
employer v,vith 100 - 200 employees;
when suing an employer v,vith 200- 500 employees; and
$300,000, when suing an employer with more. than 500 employees.
,
* $100,000,
'* $200,000,
*
.•
an
I
These same caps on damages aPl?ly to ENDA. : If these Icaps are modified for Title VII,
such modifications would apply;to ENDA as :well. '
i
i
1 1
I
I
7
�;
I,
il
-I
I'
ll.
..
:
I
.
I
•
"i·
I·:i·
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAGER FOR FURTHER, INF.oRMATION.)
i
l
"J; .
,-,i'
I
i : ~ •.'
NO QUOTAS/NO SPECIAL RIGHTS
I:
i
•
.
23.
·1
I
'
I
I
i:1
Does END A require quotas? iDoes ENDA tallow uhotas?
,
I : "
. I
1'1
No. ENDA explicitly states that: employers may not adopt quotas on the basis of sexual
•
:.
',!:d
OrIentatIOn.
':.
.:
.
'·
I
24.
'I:
,
:1;
,
Will ENDA give gay people special rights ~ver hetkrosexuals?
pr~ferential trea~menttorany
No. ENDA prohibits giving
individual based on sexual
orientation. Thus, employers m'ay not providb speciaL treatment to gay men, lesbians,
:
I '
bisexuals, or heterosexuals. The bill providesj solely t~at an employer may not use the
fact of an individual's sexual orientation as ithe basis, for discrimination against that
.
.
individual in employment or employment opportuniti~s.
,
25.
I
' ;
I'
I ! : J .
Would efforts to increase the diversity of an applicant pool bv advertising at gay
community events and in gav ipublications iconstittite preferential treatment?
,
I '
i
I
.
No. .An employer may take affirmative m;easures .!to inform the gay' and lesbian
community of job opportunitiesl This is not preferential treatment. Rather, it is an
effort on the part of the employer to expand! its applicant pool. Such efforts do not
constitute preferential treatment Iin an employrr's seleftion decisions.
!
I
26.
"
Mayan employer expand its I definition of "minofity" to include gay men and
lesbians under its affirmative action staterrlent? .;
!
Y
No. If defining gay men and lesbians as 'a minority under an affirmative action
statement means the employer I will give gay men:bd lesbians preference in the
selection process, or will establish goals and titnetables!based on sexual orientation, that
policy would violate ENDA's prohibition agqinst pre~erential treatment.
i
:,
By contrast, simply adding "sexual orientation" to an e~ployer's non-discrimination or
.
I
"
anti-bias policy does not violate pNDA's proh~bition against preferential treatment. An
employer does not give prefere~ce to an ind~vidual
class of persons by practicing
I
.::
non-discrimination.
or
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAGER FOR FURTHER;: INFORMATION.)
:
I
"
1
'I'
I
I
1
,I
,.1
,I
·1
,,!
I
,
"
8
,
:;
'd;
H:,
I
,.
:\,.
:
,
,
;,;..
�27.
Will this bill adversely affeh the employment opportunities of other racial,
religious, ethnic, or gender minorities?
.
.
;
i"
No. ENDA does not affect any, other existing civil rights law. The bill ensures simply
that a person of any race, religion, ethnicity, gender., age, or disability status is not
discriminated against on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. ENDA does not take
away any rights granted to indiyiduals on the basis of such characteristics under other
I
'
,
federal or state laws.
MILITARY'
28.
Does this bill change the military's policy towards lesbians, gav men, and
bisexuals?
No. ENDA exempts the relationship bet~een the United States government and
members of the Armed Forces from the bilL thus, the military's ban on the service of
.
,
gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals' would remain unaffected by passage of this legislation.
I
BENEFITS
29.
'
\
'I
I
.
Does this bill mandate the provision of health benefits to same-sex partners?
I
No. The denial of health and other benefits to the life partners of lesbians and gay men
is a significant form of emphhment discritnination against gay people. Because
benefits constitute almost a third of the cost of an' employee, a gay person who is
denied benefits for his or her life-partner I is essentially being paid less than a
heterosexual person who receiv~s benefits foij his or h~r spouse. This is a classic form
of employment discrimination. i
: ':
,
"l
Nevertheless, ENDA does not take on the struggle regarding prOVISIOn of benefits.
Rather, the bill explicitly does ~ot apply to the provision of benefits to an individual's
partner.
I
Of course, employers remain free to provide benefits to their employees' same-sex
partners if they wish to do so. More and Imore companies across the country are
discovering it makes good business sense t? extend i such benefits to their gay and
lesbian employees. This trend twill be encoqraged ai;ld nurtured by those opposed to
employment discrimination on the basis of s~xual orientation.
.
.
,
9
.,
"
�MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS
!
.
30.
: :lr
Why does the bill need to protect people Jho
.
.,
'
areperceiv~d to be gay?
1'1,
t~
Individuals who are perceived
be gay, butf who arelnot 'actually gay, face the same
discrimination experienced by i gay men, le~bians ;pd bisexuals. Therefore, it is
necessary for ENDA to cover t~ese individuals. Thi~ is identical to the ADA, which
protec1speople who are perceivfd to have di~abilitie~j
31.'
i
I ' l
1
Does ENDA protect people :who associate withi:gay men and lesbians from
discrimination in the workplace?
.1
I,:,
,
Yes. ' Like the Fair Housing Amendmen~s Act !:~d the ADA, which prohibit
discrimination against those who associate ~ with p¢ople with disabilities, ENDA
prohibits employers from discri~inating agaipst people who associate with gay men,
lesbiarts" and bisexuals. Straight people, inciuding parents and siblings of gay men,
lesbians, and bisexuals, are often subject to harassment and other job discrimination
because of their association ~ith their' gay: familyi'member or gay friend. Such
individuals are not perceived to be gay themselves (anq.)herefore, would not be covered
on that basis), but rather, are di~criminated against sol~ly because of their association.
,
,
.
I
I
I"!'
l
i
i
(SEE ATTACHED ONE~PAGER.)
!
i'
,
32.
I
'.
.1;
:I
'1
'i'
:I
I
'If this legislation becomes hi,"" will emplbyers still be able to require gender
appropriate clothing on the job?
!
'i
;,t
,
;
L
I
Yes. ,Under ENDA, an employ~r may requirb genderl,appropriate clothing on the job
-- as long as all individuals (gay men, lesbians, bi~exuals, and heterosexuals) are
required to wear. gender appropriate clothing.i
j,
'
Of course, requiring men alld ~Jmen to confob stric~iy to stereotypical views of male
and female roles may violate Title VII as a f~rm of s~x discrimination. It would not,
however, be a violation of END~.
1
i:
.
' I
I "
I
!
I'
I
33.
';
If this legislation becomes laJ,would an ~mploye~ be able to fire an employee
I
1"
.
because customers or co~workers are uncomfortable with a gay .person?
,
,
~.
,
, .
.'
,
No. "Customer preference" has never been 'tllowed~o justify discrimination under a
federal or state civil rights law. For exampl¢, the faCt that co-workers or customers
might be uncomfortable with ~frican Ameri9ans has,lnever been permitted to justify
discrimination against African Americans. i The fact that men might prefer flight
attendants to be women ~- perhaps even increflsing bU?iness for airlines thereby -- has
,
'I
"~I'
10
I
'I
�not been allowed to justify discrimination on the basis of sex. Similarly, customer
preference would not be allo~ed to justify; discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation under ENDA.
34.
Would this be the first law in the country to: outlaw employment discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation? Are we breaking new ground with this law?
,
No. Eight states currently have, laws that pr~hibit employment discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation. Wis¢onsin, the firSt state to pass such a law, did so in 1982.
The other states that have anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation are:·
.
I ,
.
Massachusetts -- 1989; Connecti,cut -- 1991; Hawaii !..., 1991; California -- 1992;
New Jersey -- 1992; Vermont --I 1992; and ~innesota -- 1993.
.
There are also at least 110 cities: that have laws, ordinances, or regulations prohibiting
employment discrimination on the basis of se?cual orientation. In addition, at least 31
counties in the United States have councilor mayoral resolutions banning discrimination
based on sexual orientation in p~blic employrhent.
!
(SEE ATTACHED
ONE-PAG~RS.)
,
35.
If there are so many laws prohibiting employment 'discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation, whv do we Ineed this laW?
We need a federal law in orde~ to ensure cpmprehensive and consistent protection
against discrimination on the ba~is of sexual 6rientation in employment. Most states
and localities do not provide any protection ~gainst '~uch discrimination. Indeed, in
some states, the ability even to ~ass such law~ is being threatened by ballot initiatives
that would make it illegal to prohibit discrimifation o~ the basis of sexual orientation.
:
I
,
36.
,
j
i
What has been the experience lin those states that have anti-discrimination laws?
Have there been a flood of lawsuits?
The eight states forbidding sexuaL orientation discrimination in employment have had
relatively low numbers of complaints filed. For instance, in 1993, the peak year for
such complaints, only 90 people, filed employ.ment discrimination complaints alleging
sexual orientation discrimination with the sta,te of Massachusetts. . This category
accounted for only 2% of all complaints fil~d with, the Massachusetts Commission
Against Discrimination.
In Hawaii, 18 complaints' have .been filed smce 1991,
approximately 2% of their total ;employment discrimination complaints.
i
(SEE ATTACHED ONE-PAG~R FOR FURTHER· INFORMATION.)
:
I
11
�37.
.
.
Would END A make existing state and local laws irrelevant?
,
!
No. Just like every other federal civil rights jlaw, ENDA maintains in place state and
local laws that provide protection on the basi~ of sexual orientation. Thus, the federal
law will operate together with ~tate and local:, laws.
.
.
I
1
I
38.
If we· keep adding categories: of groups covered under federal civil rights laws,
where will it stop?
!
I
;
I
This is not a slippery slope. The basic prinCiple cu:rrently governing employment in
,
America is that private employers may fire, hire, and make other employment decisions
as they wish. (The "employment-at-will" do~trine.) This freedom is constricted only
if private employers choose to bind themselv~s otherwise by contract or if the state or
federal government chooses to intervene.
Historically, state or federal governments have~ constricted employers' prerogatives only
where ,there is a demonstrated problem of discrimination against a recognized group of
people. Race, gender, national origin, religion, disability, age, and sexual orientation
all fit this pattern. The additioI,l of sexual o~ientation to the current list of protected
characteristics does not mean e~ery other characteristic held by a group of people will
automatically receive protection :as well, in a "slippery slope" fashion. Rather, the same
demonstration of discrimination against a recognized class must be made by that group.
,
;
'
,
q&a.g14
;.
"
,
;
,
! .
I
12
,
;1'
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Stephen Warnath - Civil Rights Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Stephen Warnath
Civil Rights Series
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1997
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36406" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/641686" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Description
An account of the resource
Stephen Warnath served as Senior Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Council. The Civil Rights Series includes material pertaining to the Civil Rights Working Group and topics such as affirmative action, English only, age discrimination, religious freedom, and voting rights. The records also include confirmation briefing materials for Department of Justice (DOJ) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) nominees. The records include briefing papers, correspondence, schedules, testimony, reports, clippings, articles, legislative referral memoranda, and memos. The majority of the memos are internal between the Domestic Policy Council staff and the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and between the Domestic Policy Council staff and Congress.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
134 folders in 13 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Steven Warnath
Civil Rights Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 5
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/Warnath-DPC-Civil-Rights.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/641686" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
2/8/2012
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
641686-employment-non-discrimination-act-1994
641686