This article needs to be updated.(June 2020) |
Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited in the United States as per the United States Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County on June 15, 2020. A number of cities and counties in the United States have implemented non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation and/or gender identity. As of October 25, 2017, at least 400 cities and counties prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees. [1] Most but not all of these cities and counties are located in states that have a statewide non-discrimination law for sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Localities in bold are jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination in the public and private sector. Localities in italics are jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination in public employment only.
Additionally, the US Supreme Courth held in Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that sexual orientation and gender identity are included under "sex" of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This affirms rulings in the Second, the Sixth, the Seventh, and the Eleventh circuit courts. Sexual orientation has been established as a protected class in Indiana and, similarly, gender identity in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, requiring heightened scrutiny in discrimination disputes. None of these states has enacted specific legislation addressing discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity.
In 2013, Kim Hively filed a lawsuit against the Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana in South Bend, arguing that she was denied promotions and let go from her job because of her sexual orientation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in the case in November 2016 with discussion focusing on the meaning of the word "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace discrimination based on race, religion, national origin or sex. On April 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals ruled in an 8–3 vote that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Ivy Tech subsequently stated they would not appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. This ruling creates a precedent for lower courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin to follow, meaning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is now banned in these states (Illinois and Wisconsin already had laws prohibiting such discrimination). [2] Human Rights Campaign hailed the ruling, saying: "Today's ruling is a monumental victory for fairness in the workplace, and for the dignity of lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans who may live in fear of losing their job based on whom they love." [3]
On February 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont) ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation employment discrimination under the category of sex. [4] [5] Donald Zarda, who worked for Altitude Express as a skydiving instructor in New York, is gay. To avoid any discomfort his female students might feel being strapped to an unfamiliar man, Zarda would often disclose he was gay. Before one particular jump with a female student, Zarda told her that he was gay. After the skydive, the student told her boyfriend that Zarda had inappropriately touched her and disclosed his sexual orientation to excuse his behavior. The woman's boyfriend told Zarda's boss, who fired Zarda shortly thereafter. Zarda denied touching the student inappropriately and believed that he was fired solely because of his reference to his sexual orientation. The Court ruled, 10–3, that: "Logically, because sexual orientation is a function of sex and sex is a protected characteristic under Title VII, it follows that sexual orientation is also protected." [6] Donald Zarda died in 2014 in a base jumping accident [7] and the case was continued by his family. The ruling did not focus on whether the merits of his case specifically, but whether sexual orientation was protected as a function of sex, [8] and in effect protected gay workers under the Civil Rights Act. [9] Prior to the ruling, in July 2017, the Justice Department under President Trump had unexpectedly interceded in the case, arguing in filed a friend of the court brief that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not explicitly cover sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. [9] [10] This stance put the DOJ at odds with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [9]
In December 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia) ruled that Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman living in Georgia, had been unfairly terminated from her job at the Georgia Legislative Assembly due to her transgender status. Relying on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and other Title VII precedent, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was discriminated against based on her sex because she was transitioning from male to female. The Court stated that a person is considered transgender "precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes." As a result, there is "congruence" between discriminating against transgender individuals and discrimination on the basis of "gender-based behavioral norms." "Because everyone is protected against discrimination based on sex stereotypes, such protections cannot be denied to transgender individuals", the Court ruled. [11]
On March 7, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination against transgender people. It also ruled that employers may not use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify discrimination against LGBT people. Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman, began working for a funeral home and presented as male. In 2013, she told her boss that she had a gender identity disorder and planned to transition. She was promptly fired by her boss who said that "gender transition violat[es] God's commands because a person's sex is an immutable God-given fit." [12]
Case law has been established in the following cases.
On February 29, 2000, citing Title VII case law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Guam, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington, ruled that a transgender woman serving a prison sentence appropriately stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Gender Motivated Violence Act when filing a complaint about an assault from a prison guard. [11] [13] [14]
On June 9, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island) ruled that Lucas Rosa, a transgender woman, could claim sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when a bank denied her a loan application because of the way she was dressed. The ruling cited Title VII case law. [11] [14] [15] [16]
On May 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (covering Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) ruled in Tovar v. Essentia Health, the case of a nurse practitioner in Minnesota claiming discrimination based on gender identity because her insurance company would not cover her transgender child under her health insurance. The court ruled that Tovar lacked standing to pursue the claims of discrimination because she could not file suit on behalf of her child. However, in its ruling the 8th Circuit wrote that "because the district court concluded that Tovar is not within the class of plaintiffs for whom Title VII and the MHRA create causes of action, we assume for purposes of this appeal that the prohibition of sex-based discrimination under Title VII and the MHRA encompasses protection for transgender individuals". [16]
In April 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that although a woman hadn't proven she had been discriminated against for being transgender by the company Phillips 66, if that had been proven, then the woman would have "had a case" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [17] [18] The judge, who had been appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, cited other recent cases as shaping the final decision. [17]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for state employees by executive order.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees and contractors by an executive order. [27]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. The Arkansas Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act blocks any local unit of government from barring discrimination on any basis not already covered by state law to private businesses.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. [44]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. Florida cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Tallahassee, etc.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. [2] Indiana cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Bloomington, Lafayette and Evansville. [91] [92]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. [lower-alpha 1]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. [12]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. [122] [123]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for state employees by executive order.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. [142]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. [143]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for public employees only by executive order. [lower-alpha 2]
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity or expression [lower-alpha 3] for state employees by executive order. [146] Ohio cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Cleveland, Lakewood, [147] and East Lansing, among others.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. While the state has not explicitly enacted anti-discrimination legislation, discrimination in employment based on both sexual orientation and gender identity is interpreted by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as being banned under the category of sex of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. [170] Pennsylvania cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Pittsburgh, Mt. Lebanon, and Ross Township, among others. [171] [172]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. [lower-alpha 4] The Tennessee Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act blocks any local unit of government from barring discrimination on any basis not already covered by state law to private businesses.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. Texas cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. This include the city of Dallas.
Note that Arlington, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, Lubbock, [211] Mesquite, and Waco have protections for sexual orientation and gender identity offered only for city employment, which may include city contractors. [26]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. [216] [217] An additional law within Virginia, also allows cities and counties to make their own ordinances on this topic as well listed below.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute.
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for both public and private employees by state statute. Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity for state employees by executive order. [236] Wisconsin cities banning discrimination on account of gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Milwaukee, Madison and Cudahy.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by statute.
There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level.
Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by statute. [246]
Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for state employees by state statute. [247]
Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by statute.
Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by statute. [248]
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Michigan enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT people. Michigan in June 2024 was ranked "the most welcoming U.S. state for LGBT individuals". Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Michigan under the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage was legalised in accordance with 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity is unlawful since July 2022, was re-affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court - under and by a 1976 statewide law, that explicitly bans discrimination "on the basis of sex". The Michigan Civil Rights Commission have also ensured that members of the LGBT community are not discriminated against and are protected in the eyes of the law since 2018 and also legally upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2022. In March 2023, a bill passed the Michigan Legislature by a majority vote - to formally codify both "sexual orientation and gender identity" anti-discrimination protections embedded within Michigan legislation. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed the bill on March 16, 2023. In 2024, Michigan repealed “the last ban on commercial surrogacy within the US” - for individuals and couples and reformed the parentage laws, that acknowledges same sex couples and their families with children.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of West Virginia face legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT persons. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1976, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since October 2014. West Virginia statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Georgia enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT people. LGBT rights in the state have been a recent occurrence, with most improvements occurring from the 2010s onward. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1998, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since 2015, in accordance with Obergefell v. Hodges. In addition, the state's largest city Atlanta, has a vibrant LGBT community and holds the biggest Pride parade in the Southeast. The state's hate crime laws, effective since June 26, 2020, explicitly include sexual orientation.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Wisconsin enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT people. However, the transgender community may face some legal issues not experienced by cisgender residents, due in part to discrimination based on gender identity not being included in Wisconsin's anti-discrimination laws, nor is it covered in the state's hate crime law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Wisconsin since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Wolf v. Walker. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned statewide in Wisconsin, and sexual orientation is a protected class in the state's hate crime laws. It approved such protections in 1982, making it the first state in the United States to do so.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Pennsylvania. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. Pennsylvania was the final Mid-Atlantic state without same-sex marriage, indeed lacking any form of same-sex recognition law until its statutory ban was overturned on May 20, 2014.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of North Carolina may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents, or LGBT residents of other states with more liberal laws.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Texas have some protections in state law but may face legal and social challenges not faced by others. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Texas in 2003 by the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBT people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT people. LGBT rights in the state are a recent occurrence with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective July 1, 2020, there is a state-wide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws also now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of South Carolina may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Carolina as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. However, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is not banned statewide.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Nebraska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Nebraska, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. The state prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and a subsequent decision of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. In addition, the state's largest city, Omaha, has enacted protections in public accommodations.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Montana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Montana since 1997. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples, as same-sex marriage has been recognized since November 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities also provide protections in housing and public accommodations.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBT people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the U.S. state of Alaska have evolved significantly over the years. Since 1980, same-sex sexual conduct has been allowed, and same-sex couples can marry since October 2014. The state offers few legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, leaving LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination in housing and public accommodations; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. In addition, four Alaskan cities, Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan, representing about 46% of the state population, have passed discrimination protections for housing and public accommodations.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.
The Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act is a 2015 Arkansas act that prohibits, with exception to employees of a local government, any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state from adopting or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.
Fairness West Virginia is the statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization for the U.S. state of West Virginia. Founded in 2009 by Stephen Skinner, the organization is currently headed by Andrew Schneider and is headquartered in downtown Charleston.
All recruitment, hiring, training, and promotion of persons employed by Sarasota County, in all positions, are accomplished without regard to [...] gender identification or sexual orientation
Chapter 66: Human Relations
New Albany's new law bans discrimination in employment, education, housing and public accommodations based on an individual's actual or perceived [...] sexual orientation, gender identity
CHAPTER 32: EMPLOYMENT POLICIES; § 1.2 CIVIL RIGHTS
The amendment, which was passed 7-0, prohibits any discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in such matters as housing, employment and use of public spaces.
Missoula County will not refuse employment or discriminate in compensation, benefits, or the other terms, conditions and privileges of employment based upon: [...] sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression
It is an unlawful practice for an employer, wholly or partially because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability
The City of Fargo provides Equal Employment Opportunity for all individuals without regard to [...] sexual orientation
"Sexual orientation" means a person's actual or perceived homosexuality; bisexuality; or heterosexuality or transgender, by orientation or practice, by and between consenting adults.
The measure bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment and public accommodations.
Minnehaha County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of [...] sexual orientation
The Memphis City Council has included sexual orientation and gender identity in an ordinance that bans discrimination in city hiring.
Walker County provides equal employment and advancement opportunities for all persons regardless of race, creed, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or any other classification protected by law.
"Sexual orientation" means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's assigned sex at birth.