created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> the u.s. commission on civil rights holds a hearing today on work mace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. the commission will investigate federal protections for lgbt employees and how much bias impacts hiring, compensation, terms and termination of employment. live coverage begins at nine a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> the washington ideas forum brings together political leaders, administration officials, business entrepreneurs, journalists and science and technology experts. among those interviewed biochemists and geneticist craig venter founder chairman and ceo of the j. craig venter

institute. this is about 20 minutes. [applause] >> we are in kind of an unusual technical situation because craig venter, who is in san diego, he's supposed to be here is ill will something. so i guess -- let's see if i can just -- craig, can you hear me? he's ill with something akin to muteness. he's looking pretty good. [laughter] craig, can you hear me at all? you think he's scary looking? he's not scary looking. [laughter] he's just an ill man. let's see if we can -- we have a number of backup systems which i suppose we should employ. [laughter] if worse comes to worse, i'll just tell you what i think he would have done if i could control him like a puppet. [laughter]

all right. now maybe he's hearing me. craig, can you hear me? >> i can, robert. nice to hear you. >> all right. we lost you for a bit. so what's wrong with you? [laughter] or. >> let's see, i didn't want to leave la jolla sunshine for washington d.c. no, a number of things going op but, you know, it would have made montezuma proud. [laughter] let me quickly ask you because we don't have a whole lot of time, you have a whole list of things that you're doing but the one that intrigues me maybe the most is this notion of a minimal cell. first of all, could you explain what a minimal cell is? >> well, we've been trying to work on this since 1995 when we sequenced the first two genomes in history trying to understand just fundamentally a minimal set of genes that can be responsible

for complete self-replicating life. and so we've been working on this for a long time. we've had our first synthetic version in 2010 as you know. we've been working since then to try and design a cell from scratch that has just the minimal set of genes necessary for living and replication at least in laboratory environment. >> so we humans have about 20-30,000 genes. you started with a little, itty bitty thing, and you tried to make it ittie r&b ittier. >> that's correct. >> how long did you go? >> so that's put in a way only you can put it, robert. but, yes. so the smallest organism set of genes is one we sequenced in

1995 microplasma general tail yum as a little over 500 genes. the goal is and the problem with this whole field is our fundamental knowledge of biology is so limited that we don't know what about 20% of the genes can do. so it's trying to do a design when you don't know what 20% of the parts do, all you know is they're absolutely necessary. i think i told you this story before, i was up in seattle as part of my book tour, and my late uncle who was part of the boeing design team for the 767 i said imagine if designing boeing airplanes they didn't know what 20% of the parts did. he said, what makes you think we knew? [laughter] >> so let me just -- this is a kind of interesting idea. you take the genes that you have chosen as you think these are the ones that are necessary for life, you shoot one of them, and then you look and say, well

it's still alive. you shoot another one, is it still alive? another one, is it still alive? so where are you now in the shooting gallery? >> i think -- so the problem with that method, and that's a pretty good description of what we've done it turns out and it's important for life there's dual pathways and dual systems that haven't yet been totally recognized by modern science. because it's hard to get funding to study these things. but you can knock out a gene that when you knock it out on its own it doesn't kill the cell. but if you knock out its unknown counterpart, you can do that. so if we use the airplane analogy and you're in a 777 aircraft, you can lose one engine, and the airplane keeps flying. and so you could say, well maybe engines aren't really necessary until you lose the second one, and you find out, in fact, they were very important.

so it turns out people thought by knowing the structure of a set of genes that they knew all the functions. so we thought intellectually we could say, well we don't need that particular function, so we can knock it out. but genes have multiple functions, and their counterparts have, it turns out, key functions that we weren't aware of. so it's been more than just trial and error. first we did it totally by design, and that didn't get us a living cell. and so we started adding back components. we had two different teams. one's working on, as you said the shooting them one at a time. we added them back one at a time in sets. we built these in five different sets, and so we could test that one set, but you test it in the environment of all the others, it looks like it works because there's a counterpart, unknown gene in one of the others that counteracted it. so this is just trying to get below 500 or so genes.

you're right, we have over 20,000 right? >> yeah. i'm just so glad that this is hard. you were starting in -- this is a little bit like god. i mean, you know, there's clay god goes whoosh, and then there's adam. so it should at least take you i hope, ten years to figure out the whoosh part. >> exactly. maybe a while longer. you might remember stephen colbert asked me why i thought i could do better than god, and i said well, we have computers. [laughter] >> well, let me ask you this, what would you do -- assuming i assume that be you get a cell -- if you get a cell that you can boot up from store-bought ingredient, it's a very simple lifeline. why did we need one? >> well, we don't need one per se for that. it's a proof of principle. but if we actually want to do design for building new

organisms to make new vaccines new medicines, food sources, etc., we want to get down where we can actually do design on first principle basis. so the other thing we're doing other than trying to make a minimal gee anemia we're trying -- genome we're trying to defrag the genome. things get inserted all over the place, and there's no real logic to it. there's a lot of randomness. but if we're trying to do design where we want to put in a cassette for genes that do sugar metabolism versus methane metabolism, we'd like to do that where you plug in this cassette and you have the energy production for the cell. so we're defragging as well, and that's a lot more complicated than it might seem as well. but the point is to get to where we can start to do design from

known components to start to build new things for the future. so these are the early baby steps that allow us to start accelerating the design and building of new organisms for very specific manufacturing purposes. >> some of those purposes, you were thinking of maybe pollution-eating bugs fuel-producing bugs that urinate diesel or gasoline toxin-eating bugs medicine-producing bugs. you would then put them in the air and the water and the hand. now, the first question comes to my mind is how how hungry are we about to be or how energy needy or how anxious for freshwater that this would be something that politicians would bless? do we need this? >> well you're -- let me correct your earlier statement. our plan is not to add them back to the environment. i think that would be a mistake

to do. as you know, we've sailed around the globe taking samples ever 200 miles in the ocean, sequencing the organisms there. over 40% of our oxygen comes from those algae. we would not want those replaced bilal gee that produce a whole lot of -- by algae that produce a whole lot of oil and instead of oxygen give us an oily goo in the ocean. so these would be organisms that, in fact would not live outside the laboratory or outside a production environment, and that's an important part of our design is building kill switches into these so they can't survive on their own. but we're thinking of industrial manufacturing, industrial applications. so, for example, with sugar as a theme you can convert that sugar into almost anything. we're working on designing new pathways that don't exist in nature from making the chemicals that go into plastic bottles.

right now that comes from oil. it's a by-product of oil production. so it's adding to the pollution of taking oil out of the ground. we burn some of it, others we turn into chemicals in carpets and plastic bottles. if we make those same chemicals from sugar we convert it into a renewable chemical and are able to recycle all the waste and reuse them. we also have algae that grows out here in the desert that use sunlight and carbon dioxide. so they're pulling co2 out of the atmosphere. in fact, we need high doses of co2. we have to concentrate it and pump even more in -- >> let me interrupt you -- >> turn co2 into all these different chemicals including food stuffs. >> let me ask you about scaling, because you're talking about little things but we need a lot

of fuel or we need to remove a lot of co2. is it a simple matter once you've proven the concept to scale up? >> unfortunately none of this is simple. probably the hardest goals are going to be new really high throughput fuel that can compete with the cost of natural gas now and the lowering of oil. every time new biofuel approaches came along in the past, all of a sudden the cost of carbon out of the ground gets cheap again. that's what makes it impossible to compete. the only way it can ever compete is if governments actually create a carbon tax so we tart to realize -- we start to realize it doesn't matter how cheap it is to burn coal or oil or natural gas, in the long run we can't afford to keep doing that. at that stage yes, it can be scaled up very dramatically. it's not cost effective to do so

now. >> let me ask you -- >> food substances, cost effective for specialty chemicals, for vaccines, etc. >> let me ask you a lifestyle question. if you're running out of food and you can create a bug that makes more food or you're running out of water fresh water and you can make a bug that creates more water, or you're running out of energy and you can make more energy there's a kind of a theme here. more, more and more. the alternate approach, it seems to me, would be to do less have fewer babies eat less, buy less, live more gently on the either. it strikes me like you're in the more, you're a more guy. >> well, we're trying, you know, i can only control how many babies people have in my own local environment to some extempt. [laughter] finish -- extent. i don't know how to do that globally. we have a tremendous challenge with all the people that we keep

adding to the planet. within not too long we could be approaching ten billion people. it's not sustainable with the approaches we're using and consumption of everything now. more is the problem. we can have less babies but unless we're going to roll back populations -- which i don't think anybody is truly advocating, at least not in the political arena -- we have to find solutions to produce more food, more medicine not at the expense of the environment but in a recyclable sustainable fashion. that is doable. we can support the number of people that we do have, but only be we change how we do it. >> my last question to you, because we're p almost out of time -- i hesitate to do this but i am curious about the ebola story right now. rather quickly, when you watch

that story since you have been involved in vie rolling and dealing with bird flu as well what are we doing right at the moment about ebola, and what do you think we're doing wrong? >> well ebola is primarily a public health management problem. it's, there's been numerous outbreaks in the past, and and they've all been managed by really good containment because of the location on borders and in a war area, those containment issues kind of fell apart. and it started spreading around. ebola's not a lethal disease most of the time. i think i understand a group at harvard's been working at treatment in africa, and they're down to around 12% mortality just by using good medical practices. yes, it would be great to have a

vaccine, yes it'd be great to have drugs to treat it, but containment is the most important thing initially with new outbreaks. obviously, in the future as we've done with the flu vaccine, we can synthetically make a vaccine very quickly for flu, we can e-mail it around the world. you can use one of our devices to print it. and if that can be given locally, we should be able to stop future flu pandemics from overspreading. that has to be done disease by disease. >> i would love to tell the audience about this guy is working on a digital biological converter which can make if somebody is sick and pooping and vomiting and stuff, you can scoop up the poop, you can assay what's in the poop, you can figure out what the virus is, you can transfer the genome of the virus to a lab enough in the world, they can come up with a vaccine, and they can send it back to you digitally, and you can make it where you live one

day, one day soon one day never, one day maybe? >> well, one day soon. we can actually do that right now with new, emerging flu vaccines. the u.s. now has a stockpile of the h7n9 vaccine. barta has led this effort in the u.s. government. it's the first synthetic, dna-based vaccine that my team at the venter institute did with novartis. it proves the parado you mean can happen -- paradigm can happen, so we have a stockpile before the first case of this has occurred in the u.s. so for the first time we're ahead of the game instead of always trying to may catch-up. it's a matter of each of these infectious diseases working out the right basis of a vaccine. one size does not fit all. but the future will be rapidly e-mailing these around, downloading them and blocking transmission very early on and we should be able to eliminate

future pandemics. >> well, santa claus has very little on this guy. his presents are huge and fascinating. we're out of time santa -- [laughter] look everybody say good-bye to him applause wise so he can hear you. [applause] >> also at the sixth annual washington ideas forum an interview with david scoredden currently the president of cornell university. he'll become the secretary of the smithsonian institution in july of this year. this is 15 minutes. [applause] >> well, good afternoon. it's a real pleasure to get to know briefly but i hope a longer process david scoredden from cornell. the announcement that you'd be the 13th secretary was made back in march. you won't assume the position until next summer but has your thinking clarified at all since

that announcement was made about the broad objectives that you'd like to realize while you're there? >> not really, but it's a fair question. i'm hugely enthusiastic about it and very excited about being able to to work at the intersection of culture and science. and i'm a doc. i've spent my life in science and medicine, but i think that the humanistic disciplines, art and culture, are unbelievably important, and we're living in a s.t.e.m.-oriented age. and so it's a fabulous opportunity work at this institution. and that's a way of sidestepping your question that i really do not have specific ideas of what's going to happen yet. i'm still going through the learning curve, which is pretty steep more me. >> okay. one of the things you did see which gave some of us in washington a bit of a pause was i think you were asked by one of my colleagues about admission fees to the smithsonian and you said something -- i'll just read, it's too early for me to be pinned down on specific questions, but i'm not aware of any aspect of the nonprofit or

for-profit world that doesn't have to take another look at their business models. now, that sounds like the door may be open. is, in fact, the door open to the charging admission? >> let me say that over again and try to be more clear this time. i think one of the fabulous aspects of smithsonian is the fact that everybody can get in there. and, in fact, these days you don't even have to come to washington to do that thank toss the work on digitizing part of the collections which i think is a fabulous idea to make it more accessible. but in washington one of beauties of it is that you can come, and it's a very populist idea and ideal. what i did say, and it's possible -- maybe my fault -- that two different thoughts got conflated was that business models of everything that depends on government funding are going to have to be more and more creative, and i think we're all dealing with that. at least in universities we are. and private/public partnerships are springing up everywhere because of that reality of revenue. but, no, i have no intention of making those institutions less accessible. >> okay.

fund raising for the smithsonian may be more difficult, perhaps, than for canal. the bbc had a piece today saying cornell is number six when it comes to the number of its alumni who are billionaires. smithsonian doesn't really have billionaire alumni. of under the tenure of lawrence small, there was a lot of debate about where the line should be drawn when it comes to entering into private or commercial relationships with the smithsonian, and one case in particular was an arrangement with showtime that would have given them apparently, exclusive or at least first rights of refusal over the use of archival material smithsonian objects. a lot of people complained about about that, that it seems to be taking a public resource and privatizing it. any idea where the red lines need to be for something like the smithsonian when it comes to those sort of arrangements in the future this. >> yeah, it's a great question. let me talk about the fundraising a little bit. the way fund job raising works

in most -- fundraising works in most organizations is sort of a pa ramal structure where people give modest amounts and fewer give more and fewer give more and as you mentioned sometimes you're able to get these enormous breathtaking gives from people with the capacity to do it. and i think that kind of gift table or gift pyramid is true for every nonprofit that raises money, and i'm hugely impressed, hugely impressed that the smithsonian has already raised -- this was announced ten days ago or so -- a billion dollars toward or a campaign goal of a billion and a half in an organization that doesn't have alumni, billionaires or not. but i think the brand of the smithsonian, if i could use that word, is fabulous. is that you? >> no. [laughter] >> it's not me. i'm trained to turn that baby off. but anyway i think the fundraising will be different, but i think it will be doable and i think a lot of people are

supportive of it. but despite the fundraising and despite the very generous money that comes from the u.s. government, there will be a push to find other what i'll call enterprise type of funding and every nonprofit that i know about thinks about this broad range of revenue streams. i can't comment on the showtime contract. i never looked at it. i will become familiar wit, of course, when i'm in the saddle, but i will say that defining where that line is legally and ethically and in terms of what fits the feeling the ethos of the institution is unbelievably important. that'll be part of my job. and i'll try to be open about it and hope that people will comment on where they think that line should be drawn. i can't say much about the showtime. i do think it's important to think about enterprise functions and public/private partnerships but it's got to be done, obviously, in a way that everyone feels good about. >> the other sort of controversy at the smithsonian seems to be perennially wander oring into, of course cultural issues.

not so long ago there was an exhibition at the national portrait gallery that got the current secretary in a good deal of hot water. this was an exhibition of gay and lesbian themes in portraitture, one item in that exhibition was deemed offensive by a fairly small number of people, but fairly loud protests were raised, and the secretary decided to pull it from the the exhibition. i know you don't want to necessarily second guess your predecessor, but coming out of the university context where you've actually been quite strong about stressing the free speech aspect over the civility question does that -- do those issues -- will it transfer? can you essentially, run the smithsonian with the same emphasis on free speech as you've tried to do at cornell? >> well yes, i think it's very important to do so. and i think in general the smithsonian does that, does that. as you suggested, i'm not going

to second guess what i'm sure was a very hard decision, not going to second guess my predecessor on any decision. i will say that as we talked about a few minutes ago as we were getting ready, i think creative activity of any stripe tends to foster controversy. recently the smithsonian came out with what i view as a bold with statement on climate change saying that based on a lot of data anthropological data other kinds, that it looks as if warming that's going on that you can't really argue about is due in great part to human activity. and it wasn't too long ago that a statement like that would have been wildly controversial, it may still be controversial in some corridors. so i think whether it's science and certainly arts and in my point of view the humanities very frequently foster controversy. so i think we need to be able to embrace that controversy and be part of the, be part of the cultural world and the science world in a way that makes sense, in a way that's done carefully,

thoughtfully but not necessarily back away from controversy. but honestly, i can't comment on -- [inaudible] >> sure. at cornell you've been willing to attract a good deal of controversy with your positions on immigration reform and other issues like that. when it comes to kind of cultural controversies, let's take, for instance, the humanities. as the secretary of the smithsonian, do you think you can say we need robust funding for the neh? can you be a public advocate for the humanities in that sense? >> >> well, i've been pushing very hard, as you're alluding to, for neh funding for years and years and years. i've been very successful. each year i've worked on it the funding has gone down a little bit each year. [laughter] some of my colleagues at the neh said why don't you work on some science funding for a couple years so that we can catch up. [laughter] yeah, i think it's very very important. now, exactly what i advocate

for, i think, is going to be less important than, i think calling attention to the fact that the humanities and the arts as well are very, very, very important. and, again in a s.t.e.m.-oriented age -- which is very understandable in a recession, and even though some parts of the economy have bounced back a lot we all know that the economy has not totally bounced back -- i think it's very, very important that we don't lose track of these disciplines. yes, i think it's important. and i hope to be able to work and learn from the other leaders of the cultural institutions in washington who know, you know many many times more than i know about the washington scene and about what flies and what works. but i think that the bully pulpit, if you will, the platform of the secretary should be used to point out the broad needs of the country in a way that's reasonable. and since i've garnered a chance to comment on it, whatever public positions identify taken in higher education -- i've taken in higher education have been linked to higher education and linked to something that i had some familiarity with. and as i've said again and

again, you won't hear me talking about things in washington that i'm not directly involved in and don't know anything about. but i think arguing that the country should not turn its pack on the social -- its back on the social sciences, how manities and arts is very important. i'm proud to have been one of authors of a report for the american academy of arts and sciences called "heart of the matter" that was released a couple of years ago and that argues that the broad range of disciplines need to be pursued no matter what we're talking about, whether we're talking about economic competitiveness, whether we're talking about placement for our students at whatever level. we have to think broadly and not just about the s.t.e.m. disciplines. and this is a s.t.e.m. guy talking to you. >> right. in several interviews since you announced that you'd be coming to the smithsonian you've said your greatest regret at cornell has been about the cost and affordability of tuition there. you've also been a remarkable fund fundraiser, fiscal year 2014, i think, doctor, 732 million --

$732 million of which only 30 million has been earmarked for student awed s. is that the right balance if the real problem is affordability? >> this is a really terrific question. and don't you like when i grade your questions? [laughter] >> i'll try and ask some bad ones. >> no, this is a real -- you already asked some bad ones. [laughter] but in any case in any case, i'll tell you that the broad broad -- let's see how to put this exactly. tell me the last little phrase you were asking. >> well, look 30 million is about -- >> what you're really asking is the disconnect between the rhetoric -- >> the rhetoric and the factual -- >> okay. i was looking for that. >> could we solve the problem the if we put a lot more than 732 million -- >> let me think about it from two different aspects. first of all, it is true, and i've said it many times in public and glad to say it again now that my biggest single

regret from presidencies at the university of iowa and cornell university is that i was unable to change the balance more effectively between access and affordability. and at cornell, which is an unusual place because the it's a place with a big endowment, very, very few american institutions -- about 100 out of the 4,000 colleges in the u.s. have substantial endowments, so a little tiny piece of american higher education, of course an important piece -- we're able to for half the families in america, half the families in america can go to cornell and have no parental contribution and not borrow any money from the a student loan. ..

did some other things to reduce cost but that wasn't enough. the other in was to increase revenue. a lot of it with the tuition and some with financially. let's talk about the other, how much was raised. if it cost $50,000 into bush and these to go to an institution like cornell let's call it 50, to the first wants to donate a scholarship in an endowment that would last forever and in perpetuity allow a student one at a time to have a free ride through cornell, that's a $1 million contribution will

yield a novel earnings of about 50,000 a year and that's about the cost of going there. $1 million, a huge amount of money. but if another contributor wishes to contribute to a capital project, construction project and we're fortunate to get $50 million or $100 million or $200 million gift that greatly outweighs the balance. bottom line is that i am guilty as charged -- >> taking you live to the civil rights commission talking about discrimination in the lgbt community in the workplace your. >> i'm joined today by commission vice chair patricia goodson, others are here with me. commissioner is an when you do have a question, please speak up since i can't see you and we'll need to know that you have a

question that you want to ask. the purpose of today's briefing is to closely examine the various federal protections that exist against lgbt workplace this commission including the federal government's recent publication and protections in the workplace against lgbt discrimination and title vii protection in the workplace for all lgbt americans. i want to thank your staff for the overwhelming efforts to bring this concept paper to us and to have this be selected as one of the issues that are so bright commission is looking at this year. and also want to thank our staff from our office of civil rights evaluation for putting together an excellent in which you'll all see develop throughout the day. i couldn't help but reflect that when we joined this commission four years ago one she is the first openly gay member of the commission, and i became the first latino chair. that alone made a big difference

i think in the history of this commission. but more importantly it was the first time we ever looked at and an lgbt issue when look at the issue of bullying against children and the students of all protected classes including lgbt students. that was a very important moment for this commission again she was a leader in that effort. and fast-forward to a couple of years ago what was once thought unachievable, marriage equality is now virtually a majority in the nation. today we're looking at an important issue of discrimination in the workplace. and i can't help but think when the constitution says that we all have certain unalienable rights come yet many americans are having deny that unalienable rights in the workplace because of indelible characteristics. and whether those indelible characteristics are raised gender, national origin, or sexual orientation it is the of this commission to examine those

issues and ensure that those protections are there. otherwise we cannot really have true opportunity in this country. today's panelists are going to present us with a number of points of view but each of them is an expert in their area and they will talk to us about the current and proposed legislation that is spending. to also elaborate upon actions being advanced by advocacy groups to alleviate some of the issues in the workplace but we're all going to be able to address these issues may vary thoughtful, perspective, and ultimately repair a report to the president and congress on what we derive derived from today's briefings and from research conducted at our staff. today's panel features 18 distinguished speakers. will provide us with their viewpoints. they're divided into five different able to the first panel is federal agencies. the second it will consist of advocacy groups which share their perspective. the third pair will touch on the economic impact of lgbt workplace discrimination. panel for will look at the

unique challenges of the transgender community. and panel five will conclude with religious exemption issues. during the briefing each panelist will have seven minutes to speak at but after all the bills have made their presentations, the commission is one of opportune to ask questions. we will then be able at the end of the panel move onto the next one. in order have are to maximize the opportunity for discussion i want to make the make sure all the panels do the best they can come you see a series of warning lights, green, going yellow get ready to wrap it up and read, please do. my colleagues and i will be there to try to allocate time to the but we'll want to be fair to enough to make sure it would has opportunity to ask questions. finally, the record is going to remain open for the next 30 days. is panelist or members of the public, those in the audits are those who are tuned in by watching us via live stream, they have come its bigots and induced either by mail at the

u.s. commission on civil rights office of civil rights evaluation, 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest washington, d.c. our suite number is 1150 under zip code is 204 20425. or via e-mail to public comments at u.s. ecr.gov. so with those bits of housekeeping out of the way i would like to present our first panel. our first panelist this morning is this jeanne goldberg, senior attorney advisor in the office of legal counsel of the eeoc. under second panelist is marybeth mikesell principal deputy assistant secretary for policy at the u.s. department of labor. i will not ask each panelist to raise the right hand and swear and from the information that you bow to provide to the commission is true and i could to the best of your knowledge and belief, is that correct lacks great, thank you. ms. goldberg, you're the floor. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. the commission congressional mandated role is to enforce

title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 as well as the other federal employment nondiscrimination laws. collectively these laws enforced by the eeoc prohibit is commission based on race color sex, religion national origin age, this disbelief, genetic information and proposals for protected activity. for eeo charges against private secretary of state and local government employers, the commission investigates and mediates and where appropriate litigates selected claims if we ot obtain a conciliator resolution after a cause fund. or eeo complaints against federal government agencies, eeoc administrative judges may conduct hearings and the commission at that you decades appeal from final agency administrative decisions. despite these two different processes, the commission statutory interpretations under title vii and the other laws it enforces applies to both private

and government employment. my statement today along with more detailed written testimony i have submitted summarizes actions the eeoc is taken to enforce title vii sex discrimination prohibition with respect to gender identity and sexual orientation. the commission's 2013-16 strategic enforce the plan adopted by a bipartisan vote in december 2012 includes as one of its enforcement priorities -- [inaudible] >> greenlight? they're all not working. we will stop your time. >> thank you. put some additional seconds back on. does that take care of it? try again. >> the commission's 2013-16 strategic enforcement plan adopted by bipartisan vote in

december of 2012 includes as one of its enforcement priorities the coverage of lgbt individuals under title vii sex this commission provision as they may apply. importantly, this does not recognize any new protected characteristics under title vii. rather, it affirms that existing title vii protections can provide rights to lgbt applicants and employees. discrimination based on lgbt status is typically found to be actionable as sex this commission an either or both of the two ways. first, some cases have held lgbt discrimination involves nonconformance with the gender norms and stereotypes. under the supreme court's 1989 decision in price waterhouse versus hopkins. in which the court explained title vii's prohibition on this commission because of sex strikes at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting in sex stereotype. second, some cases of

additionally found discrimination actionable under title vii based on a plain reading of the statutes because of sex language. for example in billington the d.c. federal district court held that because sex includes gender, discrimination based on transgender status is literally sex discrimination. i analogy the court said, an employer who says he harbors no biased toward either christians or not come but only toward converts, has engaged in a clear case of discrimination because of religion which easily encompasses discrimination because of a change in religion. in its 2011 private sector amicus brief and in this 2012 federal sector of public to see mac versus department of justice, the commission evoked both the price waterhouse stereotyping theory and the plain language rationale to take the position that is commission based on transgender status, gender identity, having

transition in the past currently transitioning or plan to transition in the future is sex discrimination in violation of title vii. mac, the commission held to present to claim a plaintiff need not have specific evidence of gender stereotyping by the employer because consideration of gender stereotype will inherently be part of what drives the discrimination against a transgender individual. following may seek the commission further held that intentionintention al repeated misuse of a transgender employees new name and pronoun they cosseted sex-based harassment. harassment. and then complained aversive department of veterans affairs the go to provide agency records to conform to and employees changed gender identity stated a valid title vii sex discrimination claim to the commission has continued to reach public conciliation initiate lawsuits filed amicus briefs addressing coverage of transgender individuals under title vii including just two

months ago and well-publicized texas case against the sex clothing retail. the commission's position in each of these cases is consistent with a clear judicial trend but after price waterhouse, every court of appeal that address the question has recognize that transgender plaintiff may state a claim for sex discretion under title vii whether defendants action was motivated by the plaintiffs nonconformance with a sex stereotype or norm. the commission has also found that this commission against lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals based on gender norms, expectations assumptions or stereotypes such as the belief that men should only date women or that women should only marry men is discrimination on the basis of sex under title vii. this was recognized in two federal sector decisions in 2011, u.s. postal service allowing a title vii sex this commission claimed to proceed on the theory that a supervisor respite of a gay support who it entered into a same-sex marriage

was motivated by the sexual stereotype that men should only marry women. and allowing a title vii sex discrimination claim by a lesbian alleging supervisor harassment about a same-sex relationship was motivated sexual stereotype that having relationships with men is an essential part of being a woman. similar federal sector decisions followed, and are collected in my written testimony, along with citations to district court decisions that have adopted this rationale. these include billington decided by the d.c. federal district court, as well as hall versus the railway, a case challenging a sex this commission and employer policy of providing health insurance coverage to employees for the legally married opposite sex spouses but not for legally married same-sex spouses. in a brief filed in the fifth circuit in eeoc versus bell brothers a same-sex harassment

case, the commission stated that terms is to use against gay and lesbian persons such as -- are degradingdegrading sex space habitats and constitute evidence evidence of discrimination on the basis of sex. in 2014 the commission also approved an amicus brief in support of rehearing in mohammad versus caterpillar, a seventh circuit case in which the original panel opinion stated categorically that title vii does not private sexual orientation discrimination and employ complaints are not protected activity for purposes of the title vii retaliation claim. on rehearing, the seventh circuit amended its a pain to delete the language that is said these claims are barred. the commission took the position in its mohammad brief that intentional this commission based on an individual sexual orientation can be proved to be grounded in sex-based norm, preferences, expectations or stereotypes and violate title vii prohibition on discrimination because of sex.

as reflected in the mohammad brief such norms and expectations chemically the expectation that men should be sexually attracted to women and that women should be sexually attracted to men. and do not require that the person claiming sex this commission has been viewed as insufficiently masculine or feminine by others based on the persons dress or manners. in light of these president eeoc excepts and investigates charges of discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation as claims of sex this commission under title vii. moreover, we accordingly with our state and local their employment practice agency partners so that they advise charging parties of the rights to file such claims under title vii with eeoc, and similar to our staff assures a duel by the were state or local law brevets this commission based explicitly on sexual orientation or gender identity. eeoc staff continue to address lgbt legal developments in numbers like outreach and training presentations to the

public here in addition of document for our stakeholders combining all of these diplomats as well as charged david entitled what you should know about eeoc and important protections for lgbt workers along with other pamphlets and materials cited in my written testimony are available on our public website. finally the commissiocommissio n is in coordination with our sister agencies in recognizing these legal developments. for example, the u.s. department of justice in both its enforcement and defense of litigation has joined the eeoc in asserting that this commission based on transgender status is sex this commission in violation of title vii in citations to do j. amicus brief is will the attorney general's number in on this topic are clued in my testimony. my fellow panelists will address developed at the u.s. department of labor and i would also note that the u.s. office of personnel management has also issued guidance for federal agencies and employees on this topic. thank you again for the

opportunity to participate in today's briefing and i look forward to answering any questions that you may have. >> do i need to do something different with the microphone? >> you probably need to speak into that one of them. >> good morning, chairman castro, and commissioners. thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. as chairman castro announced my name is marybeth so and i'm the assistant, the principal deputy assistant secretary for policy at the department of labor. the department is making enormous strides to provide legal protections or lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender workers and i'm proud to be here today to share our many accomplishments. a secretary perez said last year our workforce in our entire economy are strongest when we embrace diversity to its fullest and that means opening doors of opportunity to add one and recognizing that the american dream excludes no one. we at the department making sure that these basic values are reflected in the full range of our activities from rulemaking and guidance documents to

program policies in their own internal practices. first, we are hard at work on implementation of executive order 13672 the july 2014 order that prohibited employment discrimination by covered federal contractors based on sexual orientation and gender identity. as president obama said when signing the order, it doesn't make much sense but today in america millions of our fellow citizens wake up and go to work with the awareness that they could lose their job. not because of anything they do or fail to do but since because of who they are. lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender, and that's wrong. we are here to do what we can to make it right. this is a historic development. federal contractors collectively employed about one-fifth of our nation's workforce. while 18 states and more than 200 cities already been workplace this commission against lgbt workers, executive order protects millions more workers from this commission but as president obama said in june

this builds on progress in the private sector. equality in the workplace is not only the right thing to do, ma it turns out to be good business. that's why most fortune 500 companies already have nondiscrimination policies in place. the departments and limitation efforts include publication of a final rule in december of 2014 to limit the executive order. we have held multiple listening sessions with stakeholders. we're continuing to host webinars and other conversations. we've issued frequently asked questions and we will continue to issue guidance as we assist contractors with implementation. second the department has worked to ensure compliance with the supreme court's june 2013 decision in united states v. windsor, not the land where the government for lgbt right. a windsor decision struck down section three of the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. at the presence direction dol immediately instituted the department what process to review and update all rules and

practices in which marital status is irrelevant consideration. so, for example, under the family and medical leave act fml i can we have dated are will do so that legally married same-sex couples have the same leave rights as opposite sex couples. the basic premise of the fln they is that no one should have to choose between the job security they need and taking time off to care for themselves or a loved one. this update to the fln may build on her early work at dol to assure that lgbt comes can provide caregiving under fln may. but wage and hour division issued guidance clarifying that a son or daughter includes a child whom an employee stands in local printers but this is a port for lgbt families and other families who may not have a biological or legal relationship with a partner's child. also following windsor we make changes to policies under the employment retirement income secured at the federal

employees federal compensation act come and several other workers compensation programs and we've issued guidance to the workforce development community. the details of all of those in the written testimony. were ever possible we have followed a place of celebration rule which recognizes marriage is based on the loss of the state in which they were entered into rather than a state with a couple resides. this rule ensures greater uniformity across employment lines and ensures that no matter whom you love you will receive the same rights and protections as everyone else. third, the department has made it a top priority to protect the rights of transgender workers put in 2011 d. will update its own equal employment opportunity policies to explicitly add protection on the basis of gender identity. with updated policies and training to help ensure the department is our respectful save an inclusive environment for federal employees. last year the department clarified we provide the full

protection of the federal nondiscrimination requirements that we enforce to transgender individuals. this is consistent with recent guidance from both the eeoc and doj that discrimination based on gender identity including transgender status is discrimination based on sex. the department is working to update our policies based on these important legal developments. in january the office of federal contract compliance programs issued a proposed rule to update its regulations on sex discrimination to the proposal includes the clarification a sex this commission encompasses gender identity permission to the employment and training administers will issue guidance to its takeover in the workforce investment community and we will seek more opportunities to ensure equality or transgender workers to we are also providing the training that employees and grantees need to put these policies into action including for all staff as well as for our job core operators and contractors and our workforce development system and grantees.

finally, we are making inroads in our many challenge, that is collecting data on the lgbt community. the bureau of labor statistics added questions guarding domestic partnership benefits to the national compensation survey for the first time in 2011. our 2012 survey on the fmla included for the first time a question about respond to sexual orientation. we have more to do and this is the space with plenty focus on in the future. i am looking for to our discussion today with you and with colleagues from across the government so that we can learn from each other about what more we can do to ensure equal employment opportunity for all lgbt workers. thank you. >> finca, ms. maxwell. i will now turn to my fellow commissioners and who would like to have the opening question? >> i would like to make a brief opening statement and then also offer the first question. today is a significant day for

the united states commission on civil rights as the chairman mentioned. while we have dealt at least partially with other issues that pertain to the lgbt committee, this is the first time that we will have dealt directly and forthrightly with the question of lgbt protection in the workplace. i want to thank my colleagues on the commission for agreeing to undertake this investigation by unanimous vote. it is much appreciated. the struggles for lgbt federal protections, of lgbt rights in general, and employment rights in particular has been a lengthy one, marking more than 50 years.

in 1974 the legendary congresswoman introduced the first proposed federal statute to protect gay and lesbian american space on their sexual orientation, equality act of 1974. which was a proposed amendment to the sub rights act of 1964 and it would have included reductions of lesbian and gave people and federally assisted programs in housing. and other federally assisted programs, i beg your pardon. in that era however given the nascent state of lgbt rights movement and the negative public attitudes that pertain to lgbt people it won't come to a surprise to you that while the

outlaw, propose a law was introduced, it was probably refer to house committee on the judiciary and died there with no cosponsors. that was 1974. 20 years later senator edward kennedy proposed the first federal standard that would have protected lesbian gay and bisexual americans from employment discrimination, the first version of enda. it has been a 20 year effort since that introduction to achieve a federal standard for employment protection of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. in 2013 significantly that

proposed protection bundle of protections, was amended to include protection on the basis of gender identity as well as sexual orientation. and that proposal was considered and adopted by one house, not taken up by the other. the harm of employment discrimination remains pervasive and severe. while many things have changed for the good the fact that the remains no uniform federal protection is troubling, and issue that is under consideration by this body here today.

the attitudes of a majority of americans are such that they believe that equality in the workplace, even as it pertains to lgbt americans, should be the rule of law. and that's true for a majority of members of both political parties. in fact, many believe that it is already the rule of law that pertains in the united states today, although that belief is a really is. -- around his. it is also the case that many local jurisdictions and some states have adopted jurisdiction wide and statewide protections although it is less than half. we will hear testimony later today that many large corporations and smaller

employers have voluntarily adopted declarations of protection for lgbt workers and that is laudable as well but large corporations, even a majority of them do not employ even a majority of the 8 million lgbt workers in this country. and while that level of protection come as i say is laudable, again it is certainly not sufficient. it is also the case that over the course of the last few weeks and months we have seen that governors are in a position to

retract long-standing executive orders that had generated support for state workers. in the state of kansas, for example. and states are still in a position to retract protections afforded by local jurisdictions. so these guarantees afforded by states and locales are important protections, but what has been given can also easily be taken away without a formal national standard. my own view is that without a federal guarantee, without a federal legal backstop perhaps even a series of federal laws

and employment housing credit, accommodations, education, et cetera, that is now being boldly proposed by certain members of both houses of the congress, the equality promise for lgbt americans will not be realized. however, consideration of such a series of bold protections is a consideration for another day. today, in this commission, we are looking at a narrow proposition of whether or not uniform federal protection of lgbt people in the workplace is an issue of paramount importance importance. we will be in a position to make recommendations to the president of united states and to the congress of the united states, about how serious and pervasive

this problem is or is not and whether or not they should consider seriously on the basis of the recommendation of this united states commission on civil rights the adoption of uniform federal standard. and i am eager to listen to the deliberations of my colleagues as we consider this a very, very serious issue of public policy. so thank you very much for according your indulgence, and i would like to ask the representative of the eeoc if you would talk to us about the record-keeping that the eeoc is doing a talk to us as well about the nature of, the number and the nature of the complaints that you have received over the last few years since you've been undertaking this data collection.

>> certainly. the eeoc began tracking the private sector charge data and the federal sector appeal of data in terms of sex this commission claims relating to gender identity and sexual orientation in january of 2013. for the final three quarters of fiscal year 2013, we received 667 sex discrimination charges relating to sexual orientation and 161 sex discrimination charges relating to gender identity, transgender status. [inaudible] >> for the first, the final three quarters of fy 2013, so january 2013 through september 30, 2013, we've received 667 related to sexual orientation, and 161 relating to transgender status.

in the first three quarters of fiscal year 2014, the numbers were similar. we received 663 relating to sexual orientation and 140 relating to gender identity. so we are receiving these charges and continuing to investigate and adjudicate and obtain relief. the fact that is, the other piece of your question, really run the gamut from alleged non-higher of an applicant who is either proceed in a certain way or is out in the application process, denial of promotion, termination at the time that someone goes through a transition or announces to their supervisor their intentions to go through a transition. a number of these are harassment cases relating to involving hostile work environment harassment, verbal harassment

as was the issue in the mohammed case in the seventh circuit. we're seeing some of those harassment fact patterns as well. so that they run the gamut and some of them involve in addition these more specific transition related issues that i mentioned in my statement such as access to bathrooms, conforming employment records and other transition specific issue issues that might arise in the workplace. >> other commissioners? >> i want to talk about enda. and this i guess is directed to you, ms. goldberg. listening to your testimony this is starting to sound like one of those situations where you've got a bill pending in

congress. i think commissioner achtenberg set for 20 years. it's been controversial but it hasn't passed yet, and i think suddenly it sounds like well you know, title vii really covers all this anyway. could you tell me what enda would cover that you believe is not covered by title vii? >> i think the main issue with respect to enda that i could comment on is that the courts have not taken a uniform position by any means with respect to the interpretations of title vii sex this commission speeded against what you were saying earlier then, were there some cases you didn't discuss that found that these were inappropriate and not covered by title vii? >> oh, there certainly are a

number of those cases. >> why did you leave them out of your statement? >> i didn't. they are discussed in the cases such as the mohammad, in the brief such as the mohammad briefs, the sachs and the others that are referenced my commission. the commission goes through its analysis and discusses why those decisions in its view don't use of the correct analysis. but there certainly are a wide range of approaches. the case law is not is not consistent. there are particularly on a sexual intention issue, the case long is developing and courts are finding speeded excuse me. the intent to what the courts are going the other way, what they are saying? >> sure. with respect to sexual orientation related sex this commission claims, the court to

have rejected title vii sex discrimination coverage have ruled applying really decades old case law reflectively that sexual orientation discrimination is excluded under title vii. and they have not agreed with the reasoning in hall, some of the cases that i discussed in the materials, that have applied a price waterhouse sex stereotyping theory. what enda would add as a general proposition is explicit protections, and would therefore provide clarity and consistency across the country for our stakeholders, both employees and employers. and at this point in time we don't have that. >> i'm curious about the lack of a bona fide qualification acceptance in enda. under title vii employers are

permitted to hire on the basis of sex the sex is a bona fide occupational qualification jobs like bathroom attendant, topless dancer prostituting and possibly rape counselor. why is there no bona fide occupational qualification in the -- >> i cannot stay to a particular version of the legislation pending in congress. i know that obviously as commissioner achtenberg said there have been a number of versions introduced, including one in the last congress, and they are not the same every time. and i know that congressman polis head over to been scheduled to be on this panel. perhaps to address -- [inaudible] >> specific question about the legislation. the piece i can speak of is the

interaction with title vii and the development of the caseload under title vii. and what a federal employment nondiscrimination law prohibiting discrimination explicitly based on transgender status, gender identity and sexual orientation would add is clarity and consistency for our stakeholders. we don't know how the courts will rule as this issue continues to percolate and development and the case law at this time is by no means uniform uniform. >> on the cases you're talking about since january 2013, i didn't quite get the numbers, and how many of these have now gone through the process at the eeoc? and of those how many of those were found to be meritorious, if they were? >> many of those charges are still pending. >> do you have the numbers on that? >> of how many of those are still pending? i do not.

>> can you get give that to us and brief descriptions of each one of those? >> i don't -- [inaudible] >> i would certainly be happy to try to provide description of the types of issues that are raised in the cases. >> if they come in groups that were defined by to say these are situations where someone thought that they should be able to use the women's room and were not able to, or whatever groups i don't my but yes, i would like to know what each one of those is about. >> okay. i don't know how, the data is broken down by charts but i will sorely find out what is available and be happy to submit that. >> think you. on a turned over to -- >> i noticed in a written statement that there were cases against the postal service in 2013 that was resolved doj 2012, homeland security in 2014. i found it interesting that this

was a government. and so my question really is, is in your outreach and training how pervasive is it through the government? i know you talked about 350 events in your written testimony, public events i think they were. so i'm wondering what are we doing inside the government regarding, i mean these are fairly recent cases and that were not resolved through mediation obviously went to a hearing. >> are you asking about our outreach to our federal government agency stakeholder? >> that's correct. >> i'm glad you asked about that. and this is also a section in my written testimony, although i did not include due to the time in the oral statement. commission has from the outset issued instructions which are on our website to the federal government agency eeo office about how to accept lgbt related

discrimination claims, sextus commission claims under the governing process which is in 29 cfr part 1614, the eeo process for federal government agency. and the commission has through its office of federal operations quarterly meetings with all the eeo directors from the covert agencies. and so there's a continuing dialogue with them and support for them. in addition we have a series of workgroups on both the private and federal sector sydor giving technical assistance to employers and employees every day who call with questions about these matters. we also have given a lot of technical assistance to federal government agencies that are seeking to develop specific transition policies to assist supervisors and h.r. departments with the nitty-gritty of how to

assist and employ with any changes that might be necessary. >> my follow-up question then is, these cases what all the way to hearing. was that because it was a good faith belief that the agency was correct? >> the cases that what you're referring to the 2011 federal sector appellate decisions our administrative appeals that were decided by the eeoc. and so those would of come on appeal after the agency found that the complaint should be dismissed, and the employee has an opportunity to either go through an eeoc administered a judge if there had been investigation or if there's a dismissal out right either way to appeal to the eeoc. so in those cases the agency dismissed the complaint, said this type of claim is not actionable under title vii of sextus commission. taken on appeal to the commission which then ruled

otherwise and remanded for investigation by the agency eeo office because in the federal sector process complaints are filed initially with the agency's own, the respondent agencies on eeo office which conducts an investigation or rules otherwise on the complaint before comes to eeoc. >> and if i can ask about some of these numbers from 2013 and 2014. are these complaints directly to your eeoc office as opposed to state eeoc office is? >> yes. those were private sector charges. so those numbers i gave you relate specific to the private sector charges that eeoc has done the intake on. >> and to state eeoc offices also receive these types of complaints? >> i am referring to our 50 field offices of the eeoc. we also have in many work

sharing agreements with many state and local governments, fair employment practice agencies and so the state and local human rights commission after often called and so in those instances where we have an agreement they can take the charge that we can and is usually dual filed so that individuals rights are preserved under both the federal and local law, even though it may be one agency or the other that is doing the investigation. >> is my understanding when a complaint is filed the eeoc or these other agencies tried to mediate it between the parties. and then if mediation fails either eeoc picks up the case and tries it or a right to sue letter is issued. how long is it taking after mediation, how long is it taking from the time a complaint is filed until a right to sue letter issues or eeoc takes the

case of? >> we are provided with 180 days, six months at a minimum. it does take longer in some cases. so some is less and some it is more. >> how long does it take to get to a hearing in front of an administrative law judge? >> i was just begin by the private sector process. if you would like but they federal sector process where there are eeoc administrative judge hearings available that is made available in the eeoc as soon as somebody requests a hearing, which they can do following the agencies he i'll investigation. >> the reason i ask if i remember years, this is a long time ago, i had her and everything, but it took quite a while to get the right to sue letter but it was like a year and have for two years but it is still that long? >> depending on the case. i think the commission has

improved its processing of the inventory of brought those numbers down quite a bit. however, after that six-month a minimum has passed, the 180 days any charging party is permitted to request a right to sue letter under the statute and proceed to take a claim to litigation if they decide to do that rather than go through the eeoc administrative process. >> and too many do that or is a recommend but eeoc to do that? you have a position on that? >> it really does depend on the case but we certainly make that available to people. if folks want to reference private attorneys who my specialist in employment discrimination, all our district offices maintain this list and try to provide those resources but our process really depends on the case, whether it would appear strong for the.

>> okay. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you to the witnesses for testimony. this is a follow-up on commissioner kladney and i don't mean to give you any speed speak up a little bit. bit. >> i don't mitigate you homework to do but in terms of the daily related to the charges filed could you disaggregate those for us? i know you can do it right now but in the provision of such a data by how many you found probable cause or issue a suitor right letter, how many issued a public was also a six or 67 such orientation charges and the 161 transgender charges, you know what percentage of those -- strike that. what percentage do they constitute out of all sexual discrimination charges? and also do you know for a comparable period of time the cumulative number of race discrimination national origin

discretion, religious us commission, all the protected classes under title vii what the total number of those charges are? >> sure. you know, we get about 95,000 charges a year at this point on the private sector side and the breakdown ranges from the religion, religious discrimination charges are about 4%. the retaliation charges are the highest often, about 35%. and the other claims somewhere in between. and i would be happy to provide that break-in with respect to sextus commission charges when we provide the other three she requested. >> just one of the follow-up question. i don't know where it stands now but about 15, 20 years ago the eeoc had an administered process where it would categorize certain charges as they came in by a charges can be charged, in

terms of prioritization. is that still the case of? >> we disallow a priority charge handling system that was adopted in the mid '90s. the letters and numbers and names have changed a bit in terms of that but we do still use a system. >> is in the provision of the data if it's at all possible if you could identify which of the charges or category charges have been prioritized, that would be helpful, if able to do so. >> certainly. the best for that in part in terms of the current commission is a strategic enforcement plan that i referenced in my testimony, and had the hyperlink to it so you can view it on our website in my written testimony that lays out a priority issue areas that the commission has designated for this three-year period. >> thank you. >> madam vice chair. >> thank you. thank you very much mr. chair, and i think both witnesses for

appearing. ms. goldberg, the question is for you and it follows up on what commissioner kirsanow was asking. the commission -- [inaudible] to investigate federal protection in the workplace of lgbt discrimination in the workplace. and we noted that in your presentation on the mentors you provide you indicated that the eeoc strategic enforcement plan december 2012, clute as one of its enforcement priorities for fiscal year 2013-2016 quote coverage of lgbt individuals under title vii's sex discrimination. at a wanted you to talk about with us please what led to the decision to include that among your strategic enforcement plan.

>> certainly. the commission has since the fall of 2011 under our former chair instructed all of its district and field offices doing take claims of lgbt relator discrimination as sex discrimination charges. knowing that it was studying the issue that it had found, that some of these types of claims were meritorious, and so the charges were presenting themselves and the commission had that opportunity to see these rise. so that was prior to the macy decision at a number of other private sector department that i noted. so by the time of the adoption of the strategic enforcement plan by the bipartisan vote in december 2012, the commission

had an opportunity to see some of the fact patterns that were a rising, the kinds of issues that employers and employees were seeking guidance on that raised often the strategic enforcement plan focuses on issues where the fact patterns that are being presented to the commission present novel issues that require development of the law application of the law consideration of how the law reinforcement is applied. so the presented areas and issues where the law was not always clear and needed development. other times issues included, as you will see when you see the enforcement plan, are ones with the seems to be great need. and there are issues on their about vulnerable workers relating to immigrant employees human trafficking. there are also issues relating

to statutes that are novel like the disability under the amended act. those certainly, unlike some commissions, however those are not the only charges that get priority, and the district directors have the discretion to decide that a particular charge is meritorious or raises important issues for other reasons, and can get priority as they see fit. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm very excited that we are having this hearing today. the employment nondiscrimination act version was one of the first piece of legislation that i worked on when i came to washington and it's a little sad that 20 years later we are still having this conversation.

but it's great to see that actually progress is being made. it sounds like both the eeoc and the department of labor have been engaging employers as this legal interpretation of title vii moves on and as the administration has taken executive action. i'm wondering what you are hearing from employers in terms of concerns that may be a rising from them and how you are dressing them. since you're interpreting title vii, i assume that means that you're applying the bona fide occupational qualification theory and religious exemptions that exist under that as you move forward in some wondering how that is working out as well? >> i'm not familiar with any decision that a been issued by the commission in this area where they been called upon to address the exception, in other words, with that has been raised

at an employer as applying to one of these fact patterns that might arise in the commission presumably will consider that in due course and address it. with respect -- >> so is for you know it has only arisen as a huge issue? >> no, i have not encountered that in the discussion of these cases. with respect to title vii's religious organization exemption in the statute, that is limited by its terms to allowing religious organizations churches and certain religious nonprofits, to prefer members of their own religion for employment. it does not permit sextus commission or race dissemination or any other, employment actions on any of the prohibited basis. so for many decades there has been a wealth of title vii case the ruling is a growing that

religion or decisions can't engaging very fond of sextus commission even if employment action they seek to take is motivated by their religious beliefs. so, for example, cases where a religious organization while they are permitted of course understand choose to prefer coreligionists for hire is found to have engaged in unlawful sextus commission under title vii by providing, for example, a higher salary or different benefits for male employers rather than e-mail based on a religious belief about, religion heads of household and some other issue intersecting with sex. so the religious organization statutory exception is very narrow. if an employer were to raise religious defenses relating to the first amendment in defense of a charge arguing that title vii should not be applied to a particular fact pattern presumably the commission would address that in the case. ..

so it seems that perhaps the religious groups who are concerned about and might actually prefer a version that has accommodation for religion

van that title vii application if i understand the current state of the law correctly. i'm not asking you to speak on behalf of -- >> i don't know if i can speculate about that, but i do understand what you're saying. >> it would be very helpful to get some follow-up information about the issues raised as you reach out to the contractor community and how you are planning to address them. >> if you could address that more clearly we also had a robust engagement of folks from the community to be involved in the listening session and implementation session as we prepare for implementation of the executive order it is important to get that perspective as well. >> i am also wondering one last

question, mr. chair. there is been a lot of reporting about policies around employment discrimination, and you talk and some potential compromises that have been worked out between the church leaders and it may be early because this is very recent report by wondering if you are agencies have that view of what has been discussed. >> there is no formal position on that. it's interesting to note that legislation from what we read we've read about it and taking a look at the bill that it does not have any religious exemptions for an appointment discrimination and it attracts title vii.

>> i would speak again that the listening sessions and implementation sessions that they have convened, which is an important listening process to come up with solutions there is a range of best practices and plenty of places all over the country that people are figuring out how to make things work. so we will see that in the guidance to implement the situations. >> one more question roger will be testifying in the next panel and has raised a flood of litigation with the passage of the legislation. it's my understanding since the time eeoc has been moving down

the path and i wonder if that is the correct reading of the data. >> that is absolutely the correct reading as i mentioned. you couldn't even believe it but we have received close to 90,000 charges a year on all the statutes that we enforced and as i said in those three quarters in the fiscal year 2013 and in 2014 we were talking about a fraction of 800 charges altogether raising these issues so it may be the unrelated reasons. >> is also arguing that it seems

to be declining to be almost negligent. i'm not sure what that's based on but i don't see that in the data and i just want to get your reading of that. >> one of his arguments for not meeting the view is that discrimination in employment against lgbt people is declining to be almost negligible so any action is not actually necessary >> i think the commission take so seriously the statutes and none of us for example would think that religious discrimination protections that we enforce under title seven are negligible and wouldn't be necessary yet with all the attention that we gave those as i mentioned are at about 4% of the charges and a 20 years ago they were 1.5% amid yet the commission has continued to pay close attention to those issues

to be responsive to the concerns raised by the religious stakeholders and employers for guidance in the area is sheathing technical assistance on the religious grooming in the workplace and the compliance manual in 2008, yet very important issues even though a small percentage of the charges and ones that the stakeholders want clarity on and when this guidance. employee is as well as in lee -- employees so they can comply with the law. >> i guess it won't lead to the case. >> commissioner a-qwex? >> ms. maxwell you mentioned that the bureau of labor statistics has revised its practices. can you explain again what you

take note of that you didn't before and also could you talk a little bit about the record it to the amendment to change the practices with regards to erisa and what the nature of the disparate treatment that was the result of erisa that pertained before and it does not pertain now. >> what i would note -- for speed by then i would note a step forward adding a question on the benefits to the national compensation survey. i wouldn't characterize it as a provision of the practices. it's a question that has been added to the survey that is

significant and you will hear from experts later today on the need for data that's similar to us adding to the commission in 2012. so i would characterize this at the early stages of looking for places to add appropriate questions about the lgbt community in the data collection efforts and the department of labor. >> on the issue of compensation and the fact that lgbt person with a nonmarried partner, is it that issue -- >> you wouldn't have captured some people were that some people were getting benefits for the domestic partner benefit. so it is the reality of the experience in the work force showing up in the data that we are collecting and the same for

the fmla. under erisa and the guidance on the spells and marriage as the terms appear in erisa and the relevant provisions of the code of the internal revenue code and the department interprets the guidance provides marriage and spells include same-sex marriages and individuals respectively and follows the celebration rule. so this is less than it would remedy the wrong and more that the president had instructed all the agencies to look at every single authority that we have and make sure that we are updating it now so that the intent of those protections are fully available to everyone in the division. >> so in the event that was marriages legal in the state where the marriage took place then the federal protections are

pertained is that correct? >> our decision is to go every single place possible with the aid of celebration standard. so if you are married legally wherever you are married legally you would be recovered by the protections regardless of where you reside in the same. >> any other questions, commissioner? >> okay then i want to thank -- >> i'm good. [laughter] >> the mute button, right. i want to thank the panel for your responses and information. it's very useful and we look forward to hearing from you in terms of the date of that has been requested. thank you. i will now ask the next panel to begin to prepare to come up with

[inaudible conversations] with okay we are going to go

back. we were first introduced the panelists. the first is mr. roger clay for the center of equal employment opportunity. the second panelist is the director for the national center for lesbian writes. the fourth panelist is a season in the director state he summons the director of public policy and government affairs at the national lgbt task force and the fifth and final panelist for the second panel is ms. winney executive vice president for external affairs for the center for american progress. i will ask you all to raise your right hand and swear and affirm that the information you are about to provide for us is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief; is that correct? good to see you again. you have the floor.

>> i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. my name is roger &-and-sign president and general counsel of the center for equal opportunity which is a nonprofit research educational organization that is based in virginia. our chairman is linda chavez and the possible focus is on public policy issues that involve race and ethnicity such as civil rights education and immigration i should add that she was once the staff director on the commission of civil rights and i was once the deputy assistant attorney general in the justice department's civil rights division. the points i make in the written testimony that you all have about the employment nondiscrimination act are six and i'm going to list them. number one congress lacks the constitutional authority to pass the bill. number two, there is no call for a federal role in this area anyway. number three the bill is

inconsistent with free market federalism free-market federalism and personal freedom principles. we shouldn't forget that there is a strong presumption in letting businesses make their own personal decisions. number four, it is not necessarily immoral or irrational to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. number five, legislation would create many practical problems for employers. number six, the main purpose of the bill is to try to marginalize the view of americans who believe that gay sex is a sin. there is overlap between these points so that is the written testimony. on the basis of sexual orientation.

they're diesels in the written testimony are principally where the employer and employees and his customers might have objections to working with someone who they view as engaging in immoral activity. when you think about it there are at least two other group situations on the basis on sexual orientation might make sense. number one, when the orientation might give them an insight that's useful with others about sexual orientation. number two when the fact that the employee might be sexually attracted to another individual is relevant, either positively or negatively to the job. on the first class of cases i myself am not a great fan of the notion that it's important to be a member with a particular group

in order to know how members of the group might think. for example, diversity proponents will frequently argue that to market a product to this or that group a company needs to be sure they have employees who belong to this or that group. as i said i generally don't buy this but some companies do or at least they say they do and if so it is ironic that liberals now want to pass this bill under which those companies would be forbidden from getting the preference to hiring gay employees if they wanted an insight on how best to target customers for this or that product. here's another example i like better. marriage counselors for straight couples might be more credible if they are straight and married and marriage counselors for gay couples might be more credible if they also are gay and married. as i said there is a second

category which would include situations where it might be relevant whether an employee will be attracted or might be perceived to be sexually attracted to some other individual. they provide caregivers to disabled or elderly individuals. those individuals might not want someone in a position they perceive as someone who might be attracted to them thus a woman might be more comfortable with a caregiver that is a straight woman or even a gay man then than a caregiver that is a straight man or a lesbian. similarly if it requires close contact with adolescence parents might prefer straight men to be working without a will send mails into straight woman to work with adolescent females. if you think i'm wrong and that no rational employee or whatever

discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation it doesn't follow that it should be passed. there are all of the other objections that i discuss in my written testimony plus another one. if discrimination on the basis of orientation is always irrational, then the employers that engage in discrimination will be at an economic disadvantage and the market will punish them. they are not tearing not clearing the desk tearing the best quote by the people and that is bad for business. indulgent taste for discrimination will make it more likely they will be driven out of business by their rational competitors in the marketplace. this is a point made years ago by a professor that won the nobel prize in economics. so if it is true that no rational employee or engages in discrimination on the basis you don't need to pass the employment nondiscrimination act because the market will take

care of the problem. thank you mr. chairman and i am happy to try to answer any questions the commission may have. >> good morning. >> mr. commissioner, vice commissioner it is a pleasure for me to be her. i am executive director of the national center for lesbian writes. we are a 30 year organization based in san francisco that does national, legal legal and policy work all over the country. in a 38 years it is fair to say that we have seen enormous changes in the place of lgbt people in this culture and in society -- that commissioner pointed out this year alone, we expect and hope knock on wood that we will have a ruling from the supreme court in june that will once and for all if the country finality with regards to that recognition in the dignity

and respect for the relationships in the recognition of marriage nationwide. we applauded the gains that we have seen that one of the most intractable deficits remain in the place of employment. almost every day we hear from individuals who suffer either some sort of negative employment action or are they are terminated from their jobs or harassed on the job based on their orientation or gender identity. even here today you will hear from a former client lisa howell who is separated from employment at her private christian college when she came out to the soccer players and coach celebrating the pregnancy of her life. to be free from negative job action, to be free to be able to

be employed employed and only judged on one's ability so that one can provide for one's self and family is at the heart of one's quality of life and being able to live fully in civil society. both methodological and anecdotal information reinforces that lgbt and in particular transgender employees even in this moment of great acceleration for lgbt writes suffer in the employment realm. now we have heard from from us be eight and the department of labor and the department of justice we know -- [no audio]

having some problems here with the transmission of the discussion about lgbt writes in the workplace. we are going to try to fix those problems and get you back to the discussion expected to last another hour or so. in the meantime let's look at the weekend congress. >> thank you for joining us this morning. as this continues in washington about iran how did you seeyou e thin things taking shape in town this week as the negotiations continue in europe?

>> it started a firestorm that hasn't gone away and everybody is still talking about it.e they seem to be regretting it ornators w signed at least walking back some of their support for a signing the letter to the iranian leaders. how is this going to affect legislation on the floor? of course this goes back -- >> we are going to leave the discussion and take you back to the conversation about lgbt rights in the workplace. it's the portion we did this because the technical problems you will be able to find those later on on c-span.org. >> -- it is offensive to lgbt people of faith in addition to the broader lgbt community and people committed to the principles of the quality and fairness. nothing has changed in regards to the first amendment

protections for religious faith and belief, which we support 100% and unreservedly. "-end-double-quote you can be argued that we are even greater and to some degree some questionable protections for the religious belief. no church will be forced to recognize or perform a marriage they disagree with and we will be first frontline defending a minister or pastor if he were she were compelled to perform a marriage that he or she disagreed with. what we are talking about our incursions on the ability to participate in all realms of civic life. that is the permission of some that some of these amendments and bills are seeking. our commitment to nondiscrimination trumps private prejudice. that is the history and the violence that we balance that we have engaged in in this country. the participation in civic life

is free to all individuals. and we are concerned that incursions on the nondiscrimination protections with religious entitlements will carve out not just lgbt people from protection that protections that have historically been afforded to individuals who have suffered or are made vulnerable based on who they are or how they identify. the utah example is important to note. utah is my home state and i was raised mormon in utah. some would say good girl gone bad. that's what i understand about utah is that it is as near to a theocracy as any state in the country. utah was founded by one religion, the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints and it is dominated by the faith. and utah law already contains the broad exemptions. there was no compromise made

into protections for lgbt people and i applauded the law that was passed and what happened is sexual orientation and gender identity were imported into existing nondiscrimination law that already contains the exemptions because it's utah. we have a federal model. its title vii and that is the mall that we want to be equally protected based on the sexual orientation or gender identity. thank you. >> ester chairman, members of the commission, thank you for having me today. i am the legal director for the human rights campaign, the nation's largest lesbian gay transgender and transsexual organization. on behalf of the 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide i am honored to be here before you today. following the recent economic recession, families across the country faced unemployment and underemployment underemployment every day.

lgbt workers and their families are experiencing their tough financial challenges across the rest of america but to ground the rest of the families that discrimination on the job served as one more barrier keeping them from getting back on their feet. although the advances in quality for lgbt people over the last decade cannot be denied employment discrimination is still a persistent barrier to economic success for too many hard-working americans. currently 29 states offer no explicit protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. in 32 states they offer no explicit protection on the basis of gender identity. according to the 2,011th surveyed nearly 40% of lesbian gay and bisexual employees open about their orientation had experienced discrimination in the workplace during the five years prior to the survey. transgender people face a stark reality with 47% of transgender people reporting discrimination

in the employment context. the impact of the discrimination is clear and harsh. discrimination on the job and during the hiring process results in lower earning across the lifespan. in recent years the eeoc and some federal courts have interpreted this of title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity specifically 2012 they held up that an employment company to discrimination in the basis of gender identity could be covered under the prohibition of sex discrimination. most recently in january of this year they determined that the denial of the spousal health benefits to a same-sex spouse of employee was unlawful discrimination under title vii. federal courts cited the precedent set by the case price waterhouse.

in the sixth circuit and 11th circuits they apply this precedent and extend the price waterhouse prohibition of sex stereotyping to apply to transgender employees that a ledge they are on fire because their gender identity. although these decisions and the into the policy send a powerful message to employers regarding the reach of title seven lgbt people are still not explicitly protected as a cover to class of employees under the act. in the absence of protection, lgbt people may be forced to file lawsuits in order to enforce these protections. a luxury that most in the community cannot afford. obama administration has taken steps to protect workers from discrimination. in particular i would like to highlight the order signed by the orders signed by the president in july of 2014 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the contractors and subcontractors. this is one of many examples that underscores the administration recognition of

the compelling interest in ending this harmful discrimination. while the government had the compelling interest in eradicating discrimination and employment we also recognize the interest that has been balanced with religious rights of employers. given its history religious employers already benefit from ample exemption from federal nondiscrimination provisions. specifically, title vii provides strong protection for religious organizations including exemptions for religious employers in the context of hiring and firing rate for the example code of ministerial exemption examined by the supreme court versus eeoc exempts employers from discrimination when making employment decisions involving ministerial staff. this exemption has been extended by the court to include many other non- ministerial employees whose job is t