we updated our rules so that legally married same-sex couples have the same leaf rates as opposite sex couples. the basic premise is that that they need and taking time off to take care of their loved ones. ensure lgbt families can provide care. the division issued guidance clarifying that a son or daughter -- it is important for lgbt families. and those who may not have a biological relationship. also falling windsor we may change policies in the security act. the compensation act. and several other worker compensation programs. the details in written

testimony. wherever possible we should find a place of celebration rule that recognizes americans to which they were entered into, rather than the state where the couple resides. this rule ensures greater uniformity. at ensures no matter who you love you will receive the same right and protection as everyone else. third, the department has made it a priority to protect the rights of transgender workers. in 2011, they updated -- explicitly provide protection based on gender identity. respectful safe environment for federal employees. provide full protection that we enforce to transgender individuals. the risk -- discrimination based

on gender identity is discrimination based on sex. the department is updating its policies. the ofccp issued a rule to update its regulations. sex dissemination encompasses gender identity discrimination. -- sex discrimination encompasses gender identity discrimination. we are providing training that employees need to put these policies into action. including for staff and operators and contractors. finally, we are making inroads in a challenge -- collecting data on the lgbt community.

questions regarding domestic partnership for the national compensation survey for the first time in 2011. our 2012 survey on fmla included a question about respondent sexual orientation. we have more to do. i am looking forward to our discussion today with you and colleagues. we can learn from each other about what more we can do. thank you. >> i will turn to my fellow commissioners. any opening questions? >> i would like to make a pre-opening statement. first question today is significant day for the united states commission on civil rights. while we have dealt partially

with other issues that pertain to the lgbt community -- this is the first time that we would have dealt directly 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 appreciated. the struggle for lgbt federal protection of rights in general and employment rights in particular have been a lengthy one. marking more than 50 years. in 1974, the congresswoman

introduced the first proposed federal statute to protect gay and lesbian americans, based on their sexual orientation -- the quality act of 1974. and of -- a proposed amendment to the civil rights act of 1964. it would have included protection of the lesbian and gay people and federal housing. and other federally assisted programs. in that era, giving the nascent state of lgbt writes -- lgbt rights and the attitudes pertaining to lgbt people -- it may come to a surprise to you that while that proposed law was introduced, it was probably referred to house committee on

the judiciary and died there. no cosponsors. that was 1974. 20 years later senator edward kennedy proposed the first's -- the first federal standard that would have protected lesbian gay and bisexual americans from employment discrimination -- the first version. it has been a 20 year effort since that introduction to achieve a federal standard for employment protection of the lesbian, gay and bisexual people. in 2013, significantly that proposed protection was amended to include protection on the

basis of gender identity, as well as sexual orientation. that proposal was considered it was adopted by one house. but not taken up by the other. the harm of discrimination remains pervasive and severe. while many things have changed for the good, the fact that there remains no uniform federal protection is troubling. the issue that is under consideration by this body here today. the attitudes of the 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. that is 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 erroneous. it is also the case that many local jurisdictions and some states have adopted jurisdiction wide and statewide detections, although it is less than half. we will hear testimony later today. many large corporations and small employers have voluntarily adopted declarations of

protection for lgbt workers. that is laudable as well. large corporations, even a majority of them, do not employ even a majority of the 8 million lgbt workers in this country. while that level of protection is laudable, it is not sufficient. it is also the case that over 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. states are 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 be easily taken away without a formal national standard. without a federal guarantee -- without a federal legal backstop -- perhaps even a series of federal laws that is now being

opposed by certain members of both houses of the congress -- the quality promise of lgbt americans will not be realized. however, consideration of these protections is a consideration for another day. today, in this commission, we are looking at the narrow proposition of whether or not uniform federal protection of lgbt people in the workplace is an issue of paramount importance. we will be in a position to make recommendations to the president of the united states and the congress about how serious and present -- how serious and pervasive this problem will become.

house is a they should consider the recommendation -- how seriously to consider the recommendation. i am eager to listen to the deliberation of my colleagues as we consider this serious issue. thank you very much for according me your indulgence. 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. talk to us about the nature of the complaints you have received over the last few years since you have been under taking this data collection. >> certainly. the eeoc began tracking the private sector charge data and federal sector appeals of data

in terms of sexual discrimination in january 2013. for the final three quarters of fiscal year 2013, we received 667 dissemination charges related to sexual orientation. 100 6160 grit -- sex discrimination relating to gender status. for the final three quarters of fy 2013 we received 600 627 relating to sexual orientation and 100 621 relating to gender status. in 2014, the numbers were similar. we received 663 related to

sexual orientation and 140 related to sexual identity. where continuing to receive and investigate. the back pattern -- the other piece of your question -- really run the gamut. from a legend -- from alleged not hired of an applicant who is perceived in a certain way. or who is out in the application process. termination at the time someone goes through a transition. or announces to their supervisor their intention to go through a transition. involving hostile work environment's, harassment, graffiti. which was the issue in the mohammed case. they do run the gamut.

some of them involve in addition these more specific transition related issues. such as access to bathrooms conforming employment records and other transforming specific issues that arrive in the workplace. >> the commute -- the commissioners? commissioner harriet. >> i want to talk about and thenda. this is directed to you, ms. goldberg. this is starting to sound like a situation where you've got a bill pending in congress -- it has been controversial.

suddenly, it sounds like title vii covers this anyway. can you tell me what in the wood cover -- any tell me what enda would cover that you believe title vii does not cover? >> the issue, with respect to eenda that i can comment on. the courts have not taken a uniform position. with respect to the interpretation of title vii. >> some cases you did not discuss with us. these theories were not -- were inappropriate and were not covered by title vii. >> there certainly are a number of those cases -- >> >> why did you leave those out?

>> they are discussed in the cases, such as the mohammed brief. the others that are referenced in my testimony. the commission goes through and discusses why those decisions do not use the correct analysis. there certainly are a wide range of approaches. the case law is not consistent. there are -- particularly on -- >> could you give me a hint as to how the courts are going the other way? >> with respect into -- with respect to sexual orientation claims, the courts that have rejected title vii sex discrimination coverage have ruled applying decades old case

law, that sexual orientation dissemination is excluded under title vii. they have not agreed with the reasoning in some of the cases i discussed in the material that have applied. what enda would add is explicit protections and therefore would provide clarity and consistency across the country. both employees and employers. at this point in time, we do not have that. >> i am curious about the last qualification. employees -- employers are to hire -- bathroom attendant

prostitute even, or even rate counselor. why is there no bona fide occupation in -- >> i cannot speak to a particular version of legislation pending in congress. i know have been a number of versions, including one in the last congress. they are not the same every time. i know that the congressman was scheduled to be on your panel. i think the piece that i can see to is the interaction with title vii and the development of the case law. and what a federal employment nondiscrimination law would add

is clarity and consistency for our stakeholders. we do not know how to enforce the rule as this issue continues to percolate and develop. it is by no means uniform. >> the cases you were talking about since january 2013, i do not quite get the numbers. how many of these have now gone through the process? how many were found to be meritorious? >> many of those charges are still pending. >> do you have the numbers? could you get that for us? a brief description? >> i don't -- i would certainly

-- i was certainly be happy to provide those type of descriptions. >> if they come in groups, that would be fine. these are situations where someone thought they should be up to use the women's room but could not or whatever reason. >> i do not know how to split -- how the data is broken down. i will find out what is available and would be happy to submit that. >> i will turn it over. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i noticed in your written statement that there were cases against the postal service in 2013 that was resolved. the doj in 2012 -- homeland security and 20 14. i found it in sync that this was the government. my question 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 wonder what are we doing inside the government, regarding -- these are fairly recent cases that were not resolved through litigation. >> are you asking about our outreach to our federal government stakeholders? i'm glad you asked that. this calls to a section in my testimony. the commission has from the outset issued instructions that are on our website to the federal government agency, eeoc office about how to accept of the bt related sex -- except the lgbt related claims. he government that the governing

process. the commission has quarterly meetings with directors from the covert agencies. there is a continuing dialogue. support for them. in addition, we have a series of workgroups on private and federal sector sides. employees to call every day about these matters. we have -- we give a lot of assistance to federal agencies that are seeking to develop transition policies, to assist hr departments with the nitty-gritty of how to assist an employee. >> my follow-up question is -- these questions went all the way

to hearings, is that because they -- because there was a fake believe that these agencies were correct? >> federal sector appellate decisions were emaciated appeals that were decided by the eeoc. those would have come on appeal after the agency found that the complaint should have been dismissed. the employee has an opportunity to go to any judge, if there had been any investigation or dismissal, to appeal to the eeoc. in those cases, the agency dismissed the complaint, saying this type of complaint are not actionable -- this type of complaint is not actionable. then it ruled otherwise and remanded it to investigation by the eeoc investigation office. complaints are filed initially with the agency on eeo office.

which then conducts an investigation or otherwise rules on the complaint. >> if i can ask about some of these numbers -- are these complaints to your eeoc office? as opposed to state eeoc officers? >> yes, those were private sector charges. they related to the private sector charges. the eeoc has done the intake on. >> does the state eeoc officers receive -- eeoc offices receive these types of complaints? >> i am referring to the state level officers.

the state and local human rights commissions -- in those instances where we have an agreement, they can take charge. or we can and they are dual filed so the individual's rights are preserved under the federal and local law, even though it may be one agency or the other that is doing the investigation. >> is my understanding that when the -- when a complaint is filed , the eeoc tries to mediated between the parties. if mediation fails e -- either eeoc picks up the case and tries it or a right to sue letter is issued. how long does it take to get after mediation that challenge of taking after a complaint is filed to a right to sue issue is ordered? >> we are provided with a hundred -- we are provided with

a hundred 80 days. longer in some cases. some it is less, and some it is more. >> how long does it take to get to a hearing? >> i was talking to the private sector process. if you are talking about the federal sector process, where there are eeoc judge hearing -- as soon as somebody requests a hearing. they can do following the agencies eeoc investigation. >> the reason i ask it took quite a while to get the right to sue letter. it was 1.5 years to two years. is it still that long? >> depending on the case. i believe it has improved the process of inventory. after the six-month minimum has

passed, any charging party is permitted to request the right to sue letter under the statutes and proceed to take a claim to litigation, if they desire to do that. rather than go through the eeoc administered of process. >> do any of them do that? >> it depends on the case. we make that available to people. if folks want to reference to private attorneys who might specialize in employment discrimination. we try to provide those resources. our process depends on the case. whether it would appear strong for that. what's thank you. >> commissioner. then vice chair. >> thank you to the witnesses for your testimony.

follow-up. i do not mean to give you any extra homework. related to data, could you aggregate those? provision of switch data. how many you found probable cause? how many went to complaint? also of the six is a 67 sexual orientation charges, 100 21 transgender charges, what percentage of those -- what percentage they constitute out of all sexual discrimination charges? also do you know for culpable. of times the race discoloration, nation orientation dissemination.

-- the race discoloration, nation orientation -- nation origination discrimination? >> the breakdown ranges from religion -- 4%. the retaliation charges are the highest often -- 35%. the other claims somewhere in between. i would be happy to provide that breakdown when we provide the other information. >> one other follow-up question. i do not know where stands now, 15 to 20 years ago, eeoc had enemy straight of process that they categorized as they came in. isn't that still the case? >> we still have a priority charge that was adapted in the mid-1990's.

letters and numbers and names have changed. we still do use a system. >> in the provision of that data, is it possible if you could identify which of the charges -- category charges have been prioritized. >> the best guide for that is the strategic enforcement plan that i referenced in my testimony. you have a hyperlink to it. you can view it on our website. it lays out priority issues area -- priority issue areas. >> thank you. >> madame vice chair. >> thank you very much. ms. goldberg, the question is for you. it follows up on what commissioner was asking.

received this briefing in large measure to protect -- in the workplace and the lgbt discrimination in the workplace. we noted in your presentation you indicated that the eeoc strategic enforcement plan of december 2012 includes -- coverage of lgbt individuals of title vii, sex discrimination. i want you to talk about what led to the decision to include that among your strategic enforcement plan? >> certainly. the commission has since the fall of 2011 instructed all of

its officers -- all of its offices to intake lgbt charges as sexual discrimination charges. knowing it was studying the issue, it was found that some of these claims were meritorious. the charges were presenting themselves. the commission had the opportunity to see these thrive. this was prior to the macy's decision. in a couple of other private sector decisions. the commission had an opportunity to see some of the back patterns that were arising. the issues that employers and

employees were seeking guidance on. the strategic enforcement plan focuses on issues where the back patterns that are being presented issues that -- if they presented areas with issues where the law was not always clear and needed development. other times issues included ones that seems to be -- ones that where that seems to be great need. human trafficking. issues relating to statutes like the scope of disability. there are a lot of reasons why.

certainly like -- certainly unlike some commissions, those are the only charges that get priority and district directors have the discretion to decide if a particular charge is meritorious. it raises important issues for other reasons. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. i am very excited that we are having this hearing. senator kennedy's version was one of the first pieces of legislation i worked on when i came to washington. i'm sad that 20 years later we are having the same conversation. 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's on. demonstration has taken executive action -- the administration has taken executive action. i wonder what you're hearing about concerns that may be arising? since you are interpreting title vii, that means you are implying bona fide application theory under that? i wonder how that is working out? >> i am not familiar with any decisions that have been issued by the commission in this area where they have been called upon ? -- where they have been called upon. the commission might consider that and address it. with respect -- what's it has

not risen as a issue -- >> it is not risen as an issue. >> with respect to title vii's religious organizations exempt and -- organizations exemption. to prefer members of their own religion for employment. it does not permit sex discrimination or race discrimination or any other prohibitive patients. -- prohibitive basis. for decades there have been rulings that religious organizations cannot engage in sex dissemination. -- sex discrimination. for example, cases where a

religious organization -- while they are permitted -- have been found to engage in unlawful sex dissemination. providing a higher salary or benefits for male employees rather than females. based on religious beliefs relating to heads of households. the religious organization statutory exception is very narrow. if an employer were to raise religious defenses, relating to the first amendment, and sense of a charge. arguing title vii should not be applied, the commission would address that. >> has that theory been raised for other agencies? by employers? >> i know of a couple of charges where that has come up.

>> i would add ofccp has a lot of robust engagement with the contractor community. as we prepare for implementation of the new executive order. i do not have the specific answers handy, but we are happy to follow up. that engagement is impacting how we design guidance and how we assist contractors. we would be happy to provide additional information. >> thank you. it seems that perhaps religious groups were not concerned about nedenda. because of accommodation for religion. if i understand the current state of the law correctly.

>> i understand -- i do not know if i can speculate about that. i understand what you're saying. >> it would be helpful to get some follow-up information about the issues that are being raised , as you reach out to the community. and how you are planning to address them. >> with intention, had a robust communication with the religious community. thought it was very important to get their perspective as well. i'm also wondering -- >> there has been reporting about policies around employment dissemination in utah --

employment discrimination in utah. mormon church leaders and applicants on behalf of the lgbt community just very recent reports -- i wonder if your agency has a view? >> there is no official eeoc position on that. it is instinct to note that the utah legislation does not have any religious exemptions for employment related discrimination. it is very -- it is a very limited religious organization -- next line >> the listening

sessions that -- >> the listening sessions that they have arranged. there's a range of best practices across the country. people are figuring out how to make it work. we will see that in the guidance that comes ahead. people are coming up with solutions. >> i have one more question that i forgot to ask. logically who will be testifying in the next panel has raised a specter of a flood of litigation with the passage of former legislation. it is my understanding that since the time of -- since the time the eeoc has been moving down this path. it has not occurred. i wonder if that is the correct reading of the data. >> i think that commissioner is the correct reading of the data.

the figure might've been so staggering, could not even believe it. we have received close to 95,000 charges a year. all the statutes we enforce -- those three quarters in fiscal year 2013 and 2014, we are talking about a fraction. we're talking about a hundred charges altogether, raising these issues. a number of them may not be meritorious. >> he is also arguing that discrimination seems to be applying to be negligent. i do not see that in the data as well. i want to get your reading.

>> could you clarify? >> one of his arguments for not meeting nenda -- it is declining to be negligible so any action is not necessary. >> i think the eeoc takes seriously the enforcement of the statutes. none of us, for example, would think that the religious dissemination protection are so negligible as not to be necessary. yet with all of the attention that we give those, they are at about 4% of our charges. the commission has continued to pay close attention to those issues. they have been responsive to them. issuing technical assistance and

publications in the past year. grooming and the workplace. -- grooming in the workplace. a very important issue even though a very small percentage of our charges and one that our stakeholders want clarity on. they want guidance so they can promote equal climate opportunities in the workplace. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> negligible but significant. >> you mentioned that the bureau of labour's -- the bureau of labor has revised its practices. could you explain again what you now take note of? could you talk -- you made reference to the amendment to

change practices regarding to erisa. could you talk about the nature of the disparate treatment that was the result of o erisa that pertain before it does not pertain now? >> for bls what i would note is one great step forward. adding a question on the mystic partner benefits on the survey. -- adding a question on the domestic partner benefits on the survey. you will hear from experts lives today that is -- you'll hear from experts later today.

i would not characterize this as the early stages looking for places to add. >> it is on the issue of compensation and the fact that lgbt person with a nonmarried partner -- is it that issue? >> in the past, it would not even captured that some people were not getting benefits. it is the reality of the lgbt workforce showing up in our data that we are collecting. under eerisa -- on the meaning of spouse and marriage --

relevant provisions of the irs code. the guidance provides that marriage and spouse including same-sex marriage respectively and follows the place of celebration role. this is less about remedying a wrong and more that the president had instructed all agencies to look at every single authority we have and make sure we are updating it now, so that the intent are fully available to everyone. >> icy. in the event -- i see. in the event that one's marriage is legal in the state, then the federal protection is retained, is that correct? >> our decision is to go to every single place possible --

if you are married legally, you will be covered by those protections regardless of -- regardless of where you reside. >> any other questions? commissioner yoaki? >> >> i am good. >> thank you. i want to thank this panel for your responses and information. it was very useful. we look forward to hearing from you. thank you. i will now ask the next panel to begin to prepare to come up.

>> the u.s. commission on civil rights heard from opponents today. representatives from the center for equal opportunity, the human rights campaign, in the lgbtq task force were part of the panel. this is under two hours. >> the panel will now proceed. i will introduce the panelists. our first panelist is mr. roger clegg. our second panelist is kate cando. our third panelist is miss seventh ward below. our fourth panelist is miss stacy long simmons. our fifth panelist is ms. winnie

steckel berg. i will ask you all to raise your right hand and to swear and affirm that the information you are about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge. is that correct? mr. clegg? >> thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to testify. my name is roger clegg. i'm president of counsel. a nonprofit, research and -- our chairman is linda chavez. our focus is on public policy issues that deal with race and issues. immigration and assimilation. i should add that ms. chavez -- i was once the heavy assistant attorney general in the justice department of civil rights.

the points i make in the written testimony that you have about the employment donna -- the employment donna nondesc -- there's a strong presumption to let businesses make a decision. it is not immoral to discriminate based on -- legislation would create many problems for employers. the main purpose of this bill is to try and marginalize americans

that believe that gay sex is a sin. this is a bad aim. there is some overlap among these points. that is my written testimony in my oral testimony today. i like to talk more about when discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation might need rational. these situations i discussed in my written testimony are principally where the employer or customers might have objections to working with someone whom they view as engaging in immoral activity. when you think about it, there are at least two other groups of situations where discrimination might make sense. when the person might give them insights useful with others of that sexual orientation.

when the fact that the employee might be sexually attracted to another individual is relevant. on the first case, i am not a great fan of the notion that it's important to be a member of a particular group in order to know how that group might think. diversity proponents will frequently argue that to market a product to this or that group, they need to be sure they have employees who belong. as i said, i don't buy this. some companies do. it's ironic that liberals want to pass this bill under which

those companies would be forebidden from given a preference to hiring gay employees if they wanted insights on how best to target gay customers. here is another example. marriage counselors for straight couples might be more credible if they are straight in married. marriage counselors might be more credible if they too are gay. there is a second category which would include situations where it might be relevant whether an employee would be sexually attracted or perceived to be sexually attracted to some other individual. suppose your company provides caregivers to disabled or elderly individuals. they might not want someone in that position whom they perceive as someone who might become attracted to them sexually.

a woman might be comfortable with a caregiver who is a straight woman or a gay man then with a caregiver who is a straight man or lesbian. if the job requires contact with adolescence, parents might prefer straight men to work with adolescent males. if you think i'm wrong, that no rational employer would ever discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, it does not follow that this be passed. there are other objections that i discuss in my written testimony. if discrimination is irrational, employers that engage in sex discrimination would be added economic disadvantage and the market will punish them. they are not hiring the best qualified people.

indulging their case will make it more likely they will be griffin out of business by their more rational competitors in the marketplace. this point was made years ago by a professor who won the nobel prize in economics. if it's true that no rational employer ever engages in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then you don't need to pass the act. the market will take care of the problem. i'm happy to try to answer any questions you might have. kate: we are a 38 year organization based in san francisco that does legal and policy work all over the country. in that 38 years, it's fair to say that we have seen enormous changes in the place of lgbt

people in this culture and society. as the commissioner points out we expect and hope that we will have a ruling from the supreme court in june that will once and for all give this country finality with regard to the recognition and full dignity and respect for our relationships to the recognition of marriage nationwide. we applaud the gains that we have seen. one of the most intractable deficits remains in employment. almost every day, we hear from lgbt individuals who suffer either some sort of negative employment action or are terminated from their jobs or harassed on the job based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. here today, you will hear from a

former client who was separated from employment at her private christian college when she came out to her soccer players, a very successful soccer coach. celebrating the pregnancy of her wife. to be free from negative job action, to be free to be able to be employed and be judged only based on your ability so that you can provide for yourself 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, particularly transgender employees, even in this moment of great acceleration, suffer in the employment realm. we have heard from the eeoc and the department of labor.

we know the office of personnel management supports title vii covering gender identity and sexual orientation. we also know that the case law is decidedly mixed with a number of cases, particularly on sexual orientation holding that discrimination is not sex discrimination under title vii making it free for employers in 28 states to openly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well. we need a federal protections. we ask that those protections be furthered in whatever is possible by this commission. we also want to ensure that

protections do not include overly broad religious exemptions or a licensed to discriminate, which is why we no longer support the current version -- the previous version of the employment nondiscrimination act which contained overly broad exemptions that would be. in the wake of the positive ruling of marriage and a wave of victories at the district and circuit court levels, we have seen a number of states and act laws to encroach on the recognition of those relationships by claiming that religious liberty is infringed by acknowledging and honoring and respecting these relationships as legally binding and recognized.

this is nonsense. it is offensive to people of faith and it is offensive to lgbt people of faith in addition to the broader community and people committed to principles of equality and fairness. nothing has changed. in regard to the first ammendment protections for religious faith and belief which we support. in the wake of the hobby lobby ruling, there are greater protections for religious belief. no church will ever be forced to recognize or perform a marriage that they disagree with and we would be first defending the minister or pastor if he or she

were compelled to perform a marriage that they disagreed with. what we are talking about our incursions on the ability to participate in all realms of civic life. that is the permission that some of these amendments and bills are seeking. our commitment to nondiscrimination trumps private prejudice. that is the balance that we have engaged in. participation in civic life is free to all individuals and we are concerned that incursions on non discrimination protections, with religious entitlements will carve out not just lgbt people from protections but protections that have been afforded for people who have suffered. the utah example is an important one. utah is my home state. i was raised mormon in utah.

some would say good girl gone bad. what i understand about utah is it is as near to a theocracy as any state we have in this country. it was founded by one religion , the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, and it is dominated by the lds faith. utah contains broad religious exemptions. there was no compromise made. what happened was sexual orientation and gender identity were imported into existing law which already contains broad religious exemptions because it is utah. it is not a federal model. we have a federal model. it is title vii is the law we want to see equally protect. a key.

ms. warbelow: i am the legal tractor for the human rights campaign. on behalf of our 1.5 million members and some orders nationwide, i am honored to be here today. following the recent economic recessions, families across the country have faced unemployment and underemployment every day. lgbt workers and their families are asked or insane financial -- experiencing these financial realities alongside the rest of america. daily discrimination on the job serves as one more barrier keeping them from getting back on their feet. the advances inequality over the last decade cannot be denied employment discrimination is still a persistent barrier. currently, 29 states are offering no protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and 32 states offer no protections on the basis of gender identity.

according to a 2011 survey, 40% of lesbian, gay and bisexual employees who are open about their orientation have experienced discrimination in the workplace during the five years prior to the survey. transgender people have a starker reality. the impact of this discrimination is clear and harsh. discrimination on the job and during the hiring process results in lower earnings across the lifespan. the eeoc in some federal courts of interpreted the provisions of title vii of the civil rights act to include protections for ? sexual orientation and gender identity. in 2012, the eeoc held that the complaint could be covered. most recently, the eeoc determine the walmarts denial of

spousal health benefits to a same-sex spouse was unlawful discrimination under title vii. federal courts have sided the precedent set by the case price waterhouse versus hopkins. this president was applied to extending the prohibition of sex stereotyping to include transgender employees. these court decisions and the eeoc policy send a powerful message. lgb t people are still not covered under the act. in the absence of clear protection, lgbt people may be forced to file a lawsuit, a luxury most cannot afford. the obama administration has

taken meaningful steps toward protecting workers from discrimination. i would like to highlight the executive order from 2014 prohibits discrimination in government actions of contractors and subcontractors. this underscores the recognition of governments compelling interest in ending this harmful discrimination. while the government has a clear discrimination in eradicating this, we recognize the interest that has been balanced with religious rights of employers. given this history, religious employers benefit from apple exemptions from federal nondiscrimination provisions. title vii provides strong protections for religious organizations, including hiring and firing. the ministerial exemption

examined by the supreme court exempts religious employers from discrimination prohibition when making employment decisions involving ministerial staff. this is been extended by the courts to include many other non-ministerial employees whose jobs are a religious function, including professors, teachers. exemptions are not only unnecessary, they could lead to adverse problems. protecting lgbt workers will not infringe on religious beliefs of the employer. employers already have these rejections, both under the first amendment. the courts have not been shy in applying these exemptions. the supreme court has noted that the constitution gives solitude to the rights of religious

organizations. the supreme court recognizes that government has a unique and compelling interest in protecting against employment discrimination. justice alito rejected the possibility that discrimination in hiring might be a religious practice to escape legal

sanction. our decision rights no shield. the government has an interest in providing equal opportunity to participate in the workplace. because they know that to remain competitive, they must recruit and retain the best possible talent, including members of the lgbt community. the civil rights community stands behind workplace protections, including a coalition of 200 civil rights, religious, labor organizations. hrc supports the introduction of non-discrimination legislation that would protect lgbt americans from discrimination not just in employment, but also in housing, education, accommodation, jury service, and credit. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. >> i am the director of public policy for the national lgb t to task force. the testimony will examine the protections to eliminate workplace discrimination against lgbt employees. lgbt americans face high level of discrimination. 5.4 million workers in the united states. discrimination in the workplace persists despite the increasing visibility of these communities and local protections against anti-lgbt prejudice and violence. the data indicates that employment discrimination can

lead to a significant impact on the well-being of lgbt people. over 50 studies of discrimination against lgbt people have been conducted. lgb people have significant barriers to equality for studies of been conducted about transgender people. in a joint effort with the national center for transgender equality, a report was published. this document at discrimination transgender people experience in employment, education, health care, and other areas.

our key finding is this: the state of the workplace for transgender people is abysmal. discrimination is a nearly universal experience. 90% reported mistreatment or discrimination on the job or taking actions like hiding who they are to avoid it. nearly half lost their jobs or denied a job or promotion as a result of being transgender. survey respondents experienced devastating negative outcomes, many of which from the discrimination they face in employment. you will hear more about this later survey and the findings

from that landmark research that we conducted. a point about was made earlier. additional data collection is essential. lgbt people face discrimination in employment, housing and other areas. as policies change, we expect this to decline. in order to measure the change in discrimination and create interventions that more accurately respond to the needs of the community, we need to collect more data on lgbt people. we received complaints. data on employment discrimination will be collected to reflect the levels of discrimination. these are not enough.

more comprehensive data collection is needed. every agency should be charged with collecting the information on sexual orientation and gender identity. this effort can be spearheaded by executive order calling for agencies to determine the best methods for integrating these demographic questions into their data collection. it can be collected through questions like the american community survey. with respect to cases of discrimination, they occur across sectors. stories that highlight discrimination in hiring, firing were included in our written testimony. lgbt workplace protections exist. testimony says changes are needed. we currently have 19 states that have employment nondiscrimination laws that protect employees from discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity.

the eeoc has recognized prohibition on sex discrimination to sexual orientation. this grants protection. the president issued an executive order protecting federal employees from discrimination. however, to ensure that workplace discrimination against lgbt employees is eradicated, we need inclusion in federal legislation prohibiting it. without establishing sexual orientation protection employers are likely to be unaware of the potential liability under federal law. they are likely unaware of their right to be free of discrimination on the job or take recourse. the passage of such legislation will prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the same

way that title vii of the civil rights act prohibits discrimination on race, color, sex, national origin. workplace discrimination is a pervasive issue that prevents employees from meaningfully contributing to the workforce. workers who encounter and tight sentiments are faced with a choice of either a hiding their identity in the workplace are risking discriminatory treatment and harassment by disclosing their identity. it will take time for employers and employees to recognize the legal protections available. we hope that more data will be collected as we await a new legal process or legislation will set this unequivocally in the past.

i would like to thank the commission for this opportunity to provide a statement on workplace discrimination. we are grateful. winnie: we are in independent institution dedicated to improving the lives of all americans through progressive ideas and action. as an institution and as americans, we believe in the right of all people to equal opportunity and protection of the law. today, it remains legal in 29 states to fire an individual because of their sexual

orientation. in 32 states, transgender americans lack basic explicit protections from discrimination in the workplace. despite the historic progress we have seen on marriage equality in 16 states and counting, same-sex couples can be legally married and legally fired for doing so all on the same day. workplace protections lie at the center of america's nondiscrimination laws. for marginalized communities these protections serve as an integral part of the american dream and a gateway to equal opportunity and financial stability. the lack of binding and enumerated federal employment

protections for lesbian, gay bisexual, and transgendered workers remain essential need for our community who combat discrimination in all areas of life including and particularly in employment. in june of 2013, the center for american progress, a collaboration with our partners in the movement progress and the human rights campaign, the least a comprehensive report called the broken bargain for lgbt workers, unable to provide for their families. the report demonstrated what many families know too well -- lgbt workers face serious barriers to both getting and keeping a job due to discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity. among lesbian, gay, bisexual transgendered individuals, up to 11% reported being denied a promotion for their sexual orientation while one in 10 report being fired from a job because of whom they love. the rights of discrimination are even more alarming for transgendered people. 47% of whom have reported being fired, not higher to, or denied a promotion because of their gender identity. of that 47%, roughly half have reported being fired from a job they already had because they were transgendered. for lgbt americans with jobs many report experiencing unequal

pay due to their identity. they and bisexual men make 10 percent to 32% less than straight men in comparable jobs. transgender men face a significant lower pay. while employment laws remain at the heart of our posts for nondiscrimination protections, any discussion cannot be limited to protections in the workplace. the ability to find work does not begin and end with the application process. it also includes the ability to gain in quality education, secure stable housing, and have people access goods and services

that every americans need to live and thrive. this past december, my colleagues released a report entitled "we the people," which outlined the discrimination based by lgbt people in employment, housing, education credit, and public accommodations. the report called on congress to join a growing number of states in passing a copperheads of lgbt nondiscrimination act which would provide protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in vital aspects of life. lgbt americans are routinely denied shelter. what an half of lgbt students feel unsafe in their schools and

lgbt customers are too often receives -- refused equal access or treatment in our nation's marketplaces. without protections to combat these instances of discrimination, along with protections in employment, too many lgbt americans will be denied the basic tools to gain employment. despite the alarming instances of discrimination both in and outside the workplace, considerable progress has been made on the federal level to utilize existing civil rights protections to combat discrimination against lgbt americans. two years ago, the eeoc rightly determined that discrimination based on gender identity and orientation was dissemination under title vii. today, the department of justice is using that same rationale to combat dissemination by public employees. in the single largest expansion of lgbt workplace protections in our nations history, president obama added that her identity to the order of discrimination banned life federal contractors bid in the ends, whether week i see protections than the courts of the legislature, or most likely through some common nation of the fact remains that the force of these laws rely on adequate resources and tools for those past with their enforcement.

while many believe that discrimination is a relative the past, the number of overall discrimination charges filed by the eeoc has reached historic levels. despite this increase in complaints, a eeoc has nearly a quarter fewer full-time employees that it did 20 years ago. the same trend is occurring in many other offices charged with enforcing our nation's civil rights laws. many of these offices like the eeoc are already proactively

protecting many in the lgbt community. the fact that they are doing so with diminishing staff is unacceptable and, as we continue to push congress to expand protections to all americans, we

also post for the necessary appropriations needed to ensure that all current and future nondiscrimination protections are fully enforced. in conclusion, as a a recent report notes, the american dream rests on the promise of a level playing field. a society where all people have equal access to the central pillars of opportunity. with a significant rates of discrimination faced by lgbt americans, it is abundantly clear to ensure that level playing field, lgbt americans both need and deserve protections currently afforded to all others. the time has come to ensure fairness and to fully fund that fairness for all americans regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. they convey much. -- thank you very much. >> matter vice-chairman, you have the floor. >> my question is for miss simmons. as we look at existing workplace protections, which one day could include them, we heard from an earlier panel some of the numbers on the complaints. regarding employment discrimination. some might describe those complaint numbers as rational, others might call it miniscule. in your testimony, you said that discrimination in employment is universal. you said that workplace discrimination is a pervasive

issue. address for me please the argument some might make that the figures that we have available do not support the rather strong description that you have given regarding the pervasiveness of discrimination. stacy: thank you so much for that question. two key points. the data that i was offering in terms of near universal discrimination are from our national transgendered dissemination survey, and that was a survey that was limited to over 6500 transgendered individuals that were surveyed across the nation and across the u.s. territories. and so, that was particular to transgendered and gender nonconforming individuals. the second point, with respect to the filings that were referenced from the department of labor, i think that it is critical that we continue to examine the levels of the filings and examine what types

of discrimination are happening because the two aspects are happening simultaneously, in terms of the public becoming aware of their rights and their ability to file such claims in the ability for government agencies to be responsive, such as the department of labor to be responsive to the types of claims that are being filed. in addition, i think that a point that was made earlier with respect to the marketplace is another clear indicator that the trend is moving in the direction of affording protections and providing a safe workplace for lgbt employees. all we are simply lurking for -- looking for is having the numbers going to opposite direction for a workplace that is more supportive and affirming for lgbt individuals. >> commissioner hackenberg followed by commissioner yaqui. roberta: the conclusion of discrimination is significant and pervasive.

in 2007, i made a analysis was done by the williams institute which drew the same conclusion. it is my understanding that for more than 40 years your organization has made available to lgbt people a nationwide counseling lines. i'm imagining that you have gathered statistics over that. of time as well. could you discuss how the conclusions of the 50 studies and the williams institute meta-analysis compared to the

statistics that you have gathered over this period? and could you also identify the kinds of discrimination that your callers identify as pertinent to this particular inquiry? crocs what we see -- kate: many of the calls that we get are from individuals where there are no protections. if they live in a state where there are protections, it it is an easy answer for them. we encourage them to file a complaint. we refer them to attorneys who do discrimination cases. there is recourse that they can

taste -- take and hook them up with knowledge-based and was someone who can be the advocate. most of the calls that we get our in states where there is no protection and it is only been recently in light of the eeoc ruling that we have seen an expansion of title vii perhaps being available as a vehicle. many times the most difficult answer that we give to people that when a call saying that there suffered some adverse employment action is -- i am sorry there's nothing we can do. there's no protection and your state. it does not mean that it is not happening. i want to point out that the numbers are very significant. the nature is the whole gamut. most of the calls that we get are probably along two tracks. either an employee is going along fine in their job, doing a good job, getting the performance reviews, doing well, being promoted, and then something happens where they are

discovered to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. somebody sees a facebook post. actually do get married at a couple of people in the office at 10 the wedding and then the rest of the office realizes, weights, we did not know that we had a gay, lesbian, bisexual person working for us. or in some other manner, they come out to someone and it is told to other people. then, things go straight downhill. either they are fired outright or their performance evaluations documenting two minutes late documenting bringing in coffee when you're not to suppose that coffee at your desk. all things start to have and very soon it lose their jobs. or the second track that we see the most of his harassment on the job. the irony here is that many employers will go through a very long period of open harassment or death by a million cuts negative adverse job actions thinking that they cannot fire

the individual simply based on their sexual orientation when they would be perfectly free to do so. many times the employee is tortured over a period of time, harassed either gender identity or it could be anti-gay harassment or sexual harassment. either they quit or are terminated from their jobs. we get about 7000 calls a year -- 30% of those are employment related and the bulk of those are in either one of those two bronson areas. >> commissioner yaqui. >> i want to thank the previous panelists for appearing today and i want to apologize for my absence today.

i do not down by the flu and my doctor really do not want me to travel. this is an extremely important subject for me personally. is something that i wanted to -- when i was initially appointed to the commission years ago, we talked about trying to bring these issues to the commission and it has taken a long road to get there. we finally are here and i like to thank all my colleagues for that. the question i have is directed to something mr. clay said. thank you for being here and being at these hearings. there is something that you said that i would like for you to respond to a go-ahead. i was going for the legal bases of the nondiscrimination act and

the impact on employees. i like to hear from the advocates on the panel today if you believe that this does have a potential impact in commerce and justifying the use in pushing forward for these pages of the law? >> more so than ever, our economy is interconnected. we live in a world where goods or services are produced in one particular area and stay that area. mom-and-pop shops are virtually a thing of the past when you are talking about production that is sold within a given area. instead, even small businesses

purchase the goods that they are then selling to their customers from all over the world. not just from within the united states. congresses have ample opportunity and has many laws that ensure nondiscrimination, not only on the basis of race and sex, but also on the basis of religion. and disability. the supreme court has weighed in on these issues time and time again. and never has the court reached the conclusion that congress did not have a right to pass laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. as i mentioned in my testimony just very recently, one of the most conservative members of our supreme court, justice alito found that there was a cappelli -- a compelling government interest in having nondiscrimination laws in place in the appointment arena. if you felt i was not true or that congress did not have a right to pass these laws to

begin with, he had ample opportunity to do so. instead what we see is a need for these laws. >> anyone else? roger: i will refer to my testimony. the supreme court said that there has to be a substantial affect on interstate commerce in order for congress to pass law under these circumstances. as i read the united states versus borgerson and the united states versus lopez, i think that congress is going to have a hard time meeting those standards. robert: the kind of chain of events that miss warble pointed

-- miss warbelow pointed to a something that the supreme court explicitly warned about in his decision in morrison. and i would add also with respect to the other enumerated power that congress sites in the fifth amendment, or section five of the 14th amendment, i think that kimball versus florida board of regents is a substantial hurdle for the congress to clear. >> let me make a comment as a nonlawyer. let me go that to someone who is involved in 1996 during the senate debate around the employment nondiscrimination act. winnie: it was on september 10 10, 1996. some of my colleagues were involved in the debate around this time and other debates. i think it is interesting to note that democrats and republicans in particular did not bring up the issues that mr. clegg is mentioning in terms of

the constitutionality of the non-dubbed termination act. there might have been disagreements on the law and sexual orientation and gender identity and whether that should be protected. if you look back at the record i am also familiar with and we do not have a lot of the books now, it was not part of the discussion in terms of because it is now the of employment protections in civil rights laws for congress. robert: i do not doubt that and i think that, unfortunately congress, and this is true on both sides of the aisle, frequently thinks they can do whatever it wants. i think the incentive is asian -- sensitization of congress

that no, you actually need enumerated powers before you can act is something that has only recently taken hold, unfortunately. i remember just about the time that you are talking about. i was talking with a senate staffer about this problem. he said, i think that we would have to be absolutely convinced that no court would uphold this before we would hesitate to pass a statute like this. i thought that was appalling. and appalling mindset for someone to have. and this was a congressional staffer. i think the mindset should be that, unless a congressman believes himself that there will be a substantial affect on interstate commerce, he or she should not vote for the statute. i do not think that the mindset of, it is up to the courts to keep it honest, and therefore,

we are not going to worry if we have enumerated power or not while widespread, it is not the right attitude. it is the kind of attitude that i would warn against in this context. >> i would just like to say that i strongly disagree with the supreme court's opinions. first of all, the common clause has been widely used and has been recognized as widely used by congress and to make the common cause of find in the states. it can have this kind of impact.

here later on, this not a very to survey the population. -- this is not a small population. they are part of a lifeblood and to say to that to any section of that population that you are not a welcome member or a citizen or because of the way that someone perceives who you are or who you are with ken negatively impact your economic earnings, your ability to move between jobs. i think it is clearly within the purview of congress and it is a serious and great threshold to get it justifying the use of this in this cause.

i'm not -- i do not believe that there is this imaginary high bar here, when in fact, the high bar is easily cleared by the facts presented by the people here today and by the people who have done this over the years. certainly the history of the cause will have people believe that this is certainly nowhere near an insurmountable hurdle. or we do see a hurdle is more of the point of some of the points that you didn't mention which is something that you cannot just do. we cannot just integrate from the way people think, but what you can do is in passing the language that it is nonnegative toward individuals no matter what they want to do our trying to change the current law.

>> next we have commissionor kurzno. peter: i would like to thank the testimony and you have outstanding points here. we haven't doing that for just a dozen years now and i'm chagrined that we have a dramatic imbalance in terms of those who would support a broader statute and those being skeptical about the use of congressional power on a nationwide basis. i think that deregates whatever reporter briefing we have and i think that affects the legitimacy of that.

my question to mr. clegg -- from a practical per square effective -- perspective, we have employees dealing with new statutes, we are dealing with these exceptions. given that a versions over the course of time to at will employment, two questions. to what extent do you see the iteration of this right now having the impact in capital employment? and second, how would this differ, if at all, from protections against racist termination? -- race discrimination? robert: one of the points that i make in my written testimony is that i'm afraid -- and i think i've repeated in my oral testimony, i'm afraid that we are moving away from the general presumption that we ought to have, that people should be able

to use their private property the way that they want to use their private property. and that employers should be able to make personnel decisions without interference from the government. this is something that goes along with at will employment. and there should be a presumption against the government at any level stepping in and saying that, well, we know better than you. we know who you should hire and who you should promote.

there should be an especially a strong presumption against the federal government passing a law that second guesses employ verse -- employers in this regard. and one reason for that -- and i think you alluded to this in your question is that, the laws, once they become reality in this area through litigation and regulation. those are very extensive and distorted media. you do not just passed law and magically have a principle that you think is embodied in that law, become reality. and has to become reality through a lot of pure kratz. -- bureaucrats.

making a lot of decisions and bossing a lot of people around and through a lot of lawyers and a lot of lawsuits and a lot of judges bossing a lot of people around. this is very unsatisfactory way to do business in an economy that is supposed to be based on freedom and free markets. i do not doubt that many times employees do things that a majority of americans might find to be unfair or wrongheaded, but it does not fall from that that therefore there should be a federal law passed. saying that no employee shall ever do anything that is unfair or unwise. that law will have cost that are far higher than any benefits that it would have. it is the same situation here in

this specific instance. i think the problems that you will inevitably raise by passing a law that says that you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity and "gender identity means the gender related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender related characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individuals designated sex at birth." well, you know, you just know, the lawyers and bureaucrats are going to have a great time interpreting language like that

here is another part. >> as a lawyer and former bureaucrat. >> i do. you'll all know about the fair housing act and we were interviewing and it is what i just described, mr. chairman. it was a bunch of us bureaucrats sitting around and we were writing regulations for -- i don't remember if it was the fair housing act or the housing part of the american disabilities act. anyway, we were there and we were deciding what the rules should be for employers when it came to ramps and doorknobs and sunken living rooms and all stuff like that. it was appalling. none of us at that table knew anything about the business of how to build an apartment complex. why were we sitting around making up all these rules? it was very scary. there's another part -- >> you did not have to have a familiarity with something in order to do the job?

>> i didn't say that. i said i didn't think you had to be -- to put it bluntly, i don't think you to be a black person in order to be able to sell pepsis to a black person. this notion that only members of a particular group can effectively market to members of that group is something that i have a problem with. >> a non-disabled person trying to figure out how it nondisabled person would interact with their surroundings. >> it wasn't that we weren't disabled. although, that is also i think a fair point. the problem is, we didn't know anything about building. that is the point i am making here. and likewise, we are not people -- we're not in the caregiving business. the hypothetical i gave about a caregiver, whether people might have preferences about who is going to bathe them, you know, i think those kinds of decisions

should be made by people who are in the caregiving business. not by a bunch of bureaucrats. here's another part. you tell me whether this belongs in the u.s. code. nothing in this act shall prohibit employer from requiring an employee during the employees hours of work to it here to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of federal, state, or local law. provided the employer permits an employee was undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment and any employee who is notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment to a dear to the same address or grooming standards as applied for the gender to whom the employee has transition or is transitioning.

i don't think that that is the kind of micromanagement that congress should be putting into the u.s. code to govern the grooming standards and dress standards that hundreds and thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands of different work places have to implement every day. i think that is a decision that ought to be left to individual employers and businesses. >> just like you said earlier, people should be allowed to figure out what they do with their own private property let's let the market decide if we adhere to that, there would still be people today could be considered property and we would

not have fought a civil war to change what the market was. so i think there is an important role the government has to play in the regulation of how we interact with one another and the rights that are afforded individuals in the workplace. >> i agree. i talk in my written testimony about that. i think the commissioner alluded to this in his question, i think the situation that was presented and is presented by race discrimination in this country is special and different. and i think it makes all the sense in the world to draw distinctions between what was going on in this country with respect to racial discrimination and things like sexual

orientation and gender identity. racial discrimination presented an extraordinary situation justifying departure from the usual free-market presumptions. it was widespread, blatant, and often governmentally -- >> [indiscernible] >> i'm sorry. racial discrimination presented an extraordinary situation justifying usual practice. it was often governmentally codified in mandated. it was irrational and dictated since the 20 century by no non-trans, religious or moral conviction. it was historic, national in scope. clearly not susceptible to state, local or private

resolution. discrimination against homosexuals is simply not in this league. >> i was wondering if anybody else on the panel would like to respond to his partial reading and the dress code and things like that. >> i have one or two quick responses. the first is, even as a lawyer i would love nothing more than if we could just pass a bill that says, don't be mean. and that would be sufficient to treat people fairly and with a sense of dignity and a recognition of their humanity. but obviously, we don't have that in our history with race discrimination is a perfect example of that. but i also think we're not dealing with a blank slate. we have a number of states that have passed laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity using something like the definition that he read. there hasn't been -- there hasn't been a huge flood of litigation, nor has the been inane interpretations. these laws set a tone for how we think people should be treated on the job. and by existing, they stop the

very discrimination that they're meant to redress. in extreme cases, people are then free and have the ability to bring cases. the ability to answer the question, what kind of country do we want to live in? with the statute that says, we want to live in a country where people come all sorts of people, based on sexual orientation or gender, live free, honored for who they are, and able to do their jobs to the highest of their ability, and their ability is what matters, not who they are. that seems to be a good thing for this country. >> anybody else? >> there is a dramatic difference between regulating bad business decision that impact only the employer. an employer who is foolish enough to require all their employees to wear chartreuse uniforms. the government should not be engaged in that decision. it is radically different when we are talking about bad employment decisions that have negative, lifelong consequences for the individuals that they

are choosing to fire them or refuse to hire, or fail to promote. there should be in our laws, and do not harm principle. that's what these laws attempt to do, to create a level playing field that insurer employment decisions are made on the basis of an employee's merit, talent, >> i know this is a different context, not commerce passing a law, but companies implementing your own on discrimination policies as they relate to sexual orientation and gender identity. i am often frustrated not when people disagree with me, because that happens all the time, i have twin boys who are 12 and a have to disagree with me all the time. but it is when there are these

spurious arguments about why someone was should -- we disagree with me. that is what i find somewhat unnerving. to go back not again the legislative language that he referenced, but the business practices that large, medium and small businesses today have adopted for good business reasons because it makes sound sense to have an observation policy based on sexual orientation and gender identity. those business policies often mirror the language that mr. clegg referenced. it is used to describe and define gender identity in that case. what we see is not businesses falling all over themselves and not being able to figure out what the policy means, but rather providing a level plain field for all employees that those gay, lesbian

transgender's -- it doesn't just benefit them, but it benefits the entire culture of the large, medium, and small business because it says to any employee that you are here to work and we are going to judge you on your skills and that's it. nothing irrelevant, but your job performance. again, the employment practices in the employment policies nondiscrimination -- and they are by private companies -- that they have to set their own playing field for their own companies often mirror the language and what we don't see in this -- these companies for major fortune 100 companies to small businesses around this country, is we don't see the kind of interpretations that mr. clegg says will happen. >> the problem is that to the extent that is true, you have