The Laconic Law Blog

The ABA Journal has an article on legislation pending in 13 states that would create a cause of action for workplace bullying.  Such legislation, while well-intended, would open the floodgates to lawsuits over every perceived slight in the workplace.

(more…)

A new bill has been introduced in the House and Senate to significantly amend the federal labor and employment laws.  (Hat tip to Workplace Prof Blog.)

UPDATE:  A commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 8, 2008, discusses this and other proposed legislation here.

(more…)

Here are some notes on recent legislative activity.

(more…)

Continuing a thread of comments today and yesterday, we note the passing of legislation in Montgomery County, Maryland, extending protection from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service to transgender people.  In a press release dated November 13, 2007, the Montgomery County Council announced the unanimous approval of a bill that will prohibit discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service.  If approved by the County Executive, the county will join “13 states, the District of Columbia and 91 other local jurisdictions [that] have enacted similar legislation that prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals.”  The Washington Post noted that there was significant opposition to the bill, but that their efforts were directed at the public accommodations portion.

The controversy over the Montgomery County ordinance highlights another side to the evolving definition of “protected classes.”  That is the question of how far we go in defining those who are legally protected from employment discrimination (and those who are not).  If everyone falls within a protected class, then is there simply a universal wrongful discharge claim?  If we go beyond immutable characteristics (such as gender or race) in defining “protected classes” — for example, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on “personal appearance” (including manner and style of dress) – then what is the basis for choosing those who fall with a “protected class”? 

Difficult questions, but ones that may be debated in the U.S. Senate when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is considered.

On November 7, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007.  The Act, if enacted into law, would extend the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to bar discrimination against an individual based on his/her actual or perceived sexual orientation.  The bill defines “sexual orientation” to include homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.  The bill passed 234 to 184 with 14 not voting.  Senator Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) has stated that he will introduce a verison of the bill in the Senate during this session.  The White House has indicated that it will veto ENDA if it passes.

 Various states and local jurisdictions already prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.  A change in the White House in 2008 may be the final piece in the puzzle for those who have advocated such protection on the federal level.