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 preopening 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 firsts 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 longstanding 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 recordkeeping 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 environments, 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 youve 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 dont 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 womens 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 . Im 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 nittygritty of how to assist an employee. My followup 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 individuals 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 sixmonth 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. Whats thank you. Commissioner. Then vice chair. Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Followup. 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 followup 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. Isnt that still the case . We still have a priority charge that was adapted in the mid1990s. 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 macys 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 kennedys version was one of the first pieces of legislation i worked on when i came to washington. Im sad that 20 years later we are having the same conversation. Progress is being made. It sounds