|
" Findings of Widespread Discrimination Against LGBT People by State and Local Legislative Bodies, Commissions, and Elected Officials "
Sears, Brad; Mallory, Christy
| Document Type
|
:
|
AL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
920614
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
LA9v35p0s0
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Findings of Widespread Discrimination Against LGBT People by State and Local Legislative Bodies, Commissions, and Elected Officials [Article]\ Sears, Brad; Mallory, Christy
|
| Date
|
:
|
2009
|
| Title of Periodical
|
:
|
UCLA
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
A number of state and local elected officials, legislative bodies, and special commissions have issued findings of widespread discrimination against LGBT people in their jurisdictions, including discrimination in public employment. For example, in May 2007 when the governor of Ohio issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in state employment based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, the order included the finding that the “[i]nformation compiled by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission documents ongoing and past discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity in employment-related decisions by personnel at Ohio agencies, boards and commissions.” Similarly, when the governor of Alaska issued an administrative order in 2002 prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in state employment, the order stated that it was “in recognition of the findings concerning perceived institutional intolerance in state agencies set out in the final report of the Governor‟s Commission on Tolerance.” And when the governor of Oregon issued an executive order in 1998 prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination it was accompanied by a “Questions and Answers” sheet that stated, “Although existing law may require equality in state employment or services, some homosexual employees or applicants for state services areafraid to assert their rights because they fear discrimination if they make their sexual orientation public. This order is intended to reduce that fear by making it clear that the Governor expects state officials and agencies not to discriminate.” Table 8-A summarizes twenty-nine examples of such findings from seventeen different states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawai‟i, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia.
|
| |