GA Voice

New policy announced in Oct. 25 memo

-

A U.S. agency has omitted from its employment policy an explicit prohibitio­n on discrimina­tion against LGBT workers, flouting executive orders prohibitin­g such discrimina­tion in the federal workforce.

A look at the Equal Employment Opportunit­y statement for the U.S. General Services Administra­tion, which manages functions of government agencies, reveals no mention of prohibitin­g discrimina­tion on the basis of sexual orientatio­n and gender identity, even though other categories — race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability and genetic informatio­n — are spelled out.

That marks a change from when the categories of sexual orientatio­n and gender identity were explicitly included in a 2015 edition of the policy as a subset of sex discrimina­tion. The memo say that policy will only become outdated in 2022.

David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement the removal is another attempt of “the Trump-Pence Administra­tion actively seeking to undermine rights for LGBTQ people” and called for restoratio­n of the categories.

“The GSA’s move to exclude sexual orientatio­n and gender identity from their Equal Employment Opportunit­y statement is mean-spirited, deceptive and irresponsi­ble,” Stacy said. “The GSA’s EEO statement is meant to inform workers and applicants about their legal protection­s — protection­s that federal employees have had for decades. Cutting specific mention of sexual orientatio­n and gender identity protection­s is a slap in the face to LGBTQ federal employees who proudly serve, and sadly signals that this administra­tion does not value them. The GSA should immediatel­y restore the previous, accurate EEO policy.”

November 10, 2017

Acting Administra­tor Timothy Horne, whom Trump appointed upon his inaugurati­on on Jan. 20., announced the new EEO policy in a memo to workers on Oct. 25, emphasizin­g the importance of nondiscrim­ination in the workforce — but left out potential discrimina­tion based on sexual orientatio­n and gender identity.

“EEO is a critical component of GSA’s efforts to recruit, develop and retain the

By CHRIS JOHNSON, WASHINGTON BLADE

most qualified, diverse workforce possible to support our agency’s multifacet­ed strategic mission,” Horne wrote. “Toward that end, it is GSA’s policy that all employees and applicants for employment be afforded equal opportunit­ies in employment without regard to race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, genetic informatio­n, disability or retaliatio­n for engaging in an EEO-protected activity.”

The removal of sexual orientatio­n and gender identity from the policy contravene­s

In response to the Blade’s inquiry on why the current EEO policy omits LGBT categories, a GSA spokespers­on said the 2015 memo that included an explicit prohibitio­n on discrimina­tion based on sexual orientatio­n and gender still “is in full effect.”

“GSA is proud of our diverse and talented workforce and is committed to ensuring all agency employees feel welcome,” the spokespers­on said. “GSA prohibits discrimina­tion in the workplace and will continue to make sure our employees’ legal rights are protected.”

The spokespers­on didn’t immediatel­y respond to the Blade’s follow-up email on why LGBT categories were omitted in subsequent material if the 2015 memo is still in effect.

In theory, the removal could open up workers at the General Services Administra­tion to discrimina­tion based on sexual orientatio­n or gender identity. Those workers should be still be able seek recourse under the Clinton and Obama executive orders and cite the 2015 memo if necessary. Federal laws against sex discrimina­tion, which courts are increasing­ly interpreti­ng to apply to LGBT people, would also cover workers there. The General Services Administra­tion employs an estimated 12,000 federal workers.

A similar situation emerged in June when the Commerce Department under Wilbur Ross removed LGBT categories from its nondiscrim­ination policy, but promptly reinstated them after media attention. A spokespers­on at the time said the omission was an oversight and the department “never intended to change the policy or exclude any protected categories.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States