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

the kind of chain of events that miss warbelow pointed to is something that the supreme court warned about in its decision in morrison, and i would add also that with respect to the other enumerated power the congress c.i.t.e.s. in enda, the fifth amendment or section 5 of the fifth amy, i think the florida case is a substantial hurdle for congress to clear. >> may i make a comment here as a nonlawyer on a panel of august lawyers and smart people. to go back and someone who was involved in 1996 during the senate debate around the employment nondiscrimination act, the vote was on september 10, 1996. someone along with my colleagues involved in the debate around enda the last time it was brought to senate 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 employment nondiscrimination act. there may have been disagreements about the law and sexual orientation and gender identity and whether that's something that should be protected. when you go

my name is sarah warbelow i'm the human director for the human rights campaign. the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender campaign. on behalf of our millions of members nationwide i'm honored to be here today. following the recent economic section, families across the country have faced unemployment every day. lbgt families are facing these reality as long side the rest of america but for many of the families daily discrimination on the job sevens as one more -- serves as one more barrier from keeping them from getting back on their feet. although the services for lbgt over the last decade have not -- cannot be denied but it is hard for hard working americans. currently many states offer no protection and 32 states offer no protections on the basis of gender identity. according to a 2011 survey nearly 40% of lesbian gay and by sexual employees open about their sexual orientation had experienced exploitation in the workplace five years prior to the survey. transgender people face an even starker reality, with transgender people reporting discrimination in

the kind of chain of events that miss warbelow pointed to is something that the supreme court warned about in its decision in morrison and i would add also that with respect to the other e enumr. enumerated cites, the florida case is a substantial hurdle for congress to clear. >> may i make a comment here as a nonlawyer on a panel of august lawyers and smart people. to go back and someone who was involved in 1996 during the senate debate around the employment nondiscrimination act, the vote was on september 10, 1996. someone along with my colleagues involved in the debate around the end the last time it was brought to the senate and other debates, i think it's 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 employment nondiscrimination act. there may have been disagreements about the law and sexual orientation and gender identity and whether that's something that should be protect. when you go back and look at the record and the debate it's something i'm all too should b

warbelow, and others who care to comment it's been asserted by some who oppose uniform federal standards that the adoption of same will lead to sexual harassment in the workplace as opposed to redress sexual harassment in the workplace. is it your interpretation of this proposed federal standard that this would be the case? and if you would comment as well on the issue of whether or not the existence of a uniform federal standard would prevent persons with a particular religious point of view from expressing that point of view in the workplace because such a thing within become defined ipso facto as creating a hostile work environment, as some of others have argued. >> so there's actually no evidence despite the fact that we have 21 states and the district of columbia that have not this commission laws on the books that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex orientation. but has led to any rise in sexual harassment. sexual harassment is a very real and pervasive problem. it is something that disproportionately affects women in the workplace. i did that come prepared with those stati