Evan Leuenberger

11-17-14
320

HST

Current
Event:
LGBTs and
the ElliotLarsen Civil
Rights Act

[Type text]

Page 0

Evan Leuenberger

11-17-14

IntroductionWhen passed in 1976, the Elliot-Larson Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) was
progressive for its time, guaranteeing protections against discrimination based on
race, sex, religion, age, height, weight, marital or family status, and national origin.
In the nearly forty years since it was passed however, many agree that the time has
come to update the act. As of present, 29 states in the US lack protections for
sexual identity and gender expression. On Wednesday, November 12 a bill was
introduced which would move Michigan into a more progressive and equal state.
This paper seeks to identify the arguments for and against the new bills passage,
and provides background on the Elliot-Larson Civil Rights Act.

Explanation of issueOn Wednesday, November 12 a landmark amendment was introduced with

the attempt of updating the ELCRA guaranteeing the protection of rights to tens of
thousands of Michiganians whom were previously unprotect ted by the ELCRA. The
proposed bill, called for an extension of protections regardless of sexual orientation.
Yet upon hearing news of the proposed bill, many state based LGBT groups
condemned the bill, arguing that it doesnt do nearly enough for Michigans GBT
community. Why? As The Advocate writes, House Speaker Jase Bolger and Rep.
Frank Foster, both Republicans, introduced legislation that would amend the state's
civil rights law to protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
without mentioning gender identity or expression (Brydum). It is in this final piece,
the lack of protections for gender identity or expression, that has angered such
groups as Equality Michigan and Human Rights Campaign.

1 | Page

The amendment is also opposed by state Democrats, who agree that the bill
doesnt extend to those most vulnerable to discrimination. In fact, the newly
introduced bill stands in sharp contrast to a comprehensive bill introduced earlier
this year by Democratic representative Sam Singh, which sought to add the words
sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's civil rights laws (Brydum).
Thus Singhs more comprehensive bill has been nicknamed the five-word bill as
opposed to Fosters two-word bill with the former being much more widely
appreciated by the states LGBT population because of its inclusivity.
In a recent interview regarding his bill, Foster reported that he expected
opposition, even from within his own party. Careful to reaffirm his own
heterosexuality, Foster told the reporters I had a good conversation with my
girlfriend this morning that perhaps were going down the right road, said Foster, RPetoskey. Not everyone is going to be happy, but I still believe were moving an
issue forward thats been a long time in the making. (Oosting). The bill however, is
not without its supporters. One of the most influential proponents for this underinclusive solution has apparently been AT&T Michigan President Jim Murray who
told BuzzFeed that he prefers the five-word bill (sexual orientation and gender
identity), but activists on the ground say hes been actively lobbying for the twoword bill instead. Murray conceded to Between The Lines News that hes heard
from lawmakers of both political parties that they are just not comfortable with
transgender protections. (Ford).
Perhaps the bills most outspoken critic is Emily Dievendorf, executive director
of Equality Michigan. Dievendorf calls the legislation a huge gift for those wishing
to continue discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Dievendorf charges that the bill seeks to divide Michigans transgender residents
2 | Page

from the greater queer community, and that it accomplishes none of its stated
goals. In a recent press conference, Dievendorf told reporters today's bill is an
unnecessary and wasteful effort to steal attention and credit away from a far more
effective bill introduced earlier this year in both the Michigan House and Senate.
Equality Michigan, our membership, and our coalition partners will not accept or
ignore legislation which not only splits our community up and leaves transgender
people behind, but does not even deliver on its promises (Brydum).
Following the bills announcement, Equality Michigan began a campaign
against AT&T called Drop the Call. The action, supported by many LGBT groups in
Michigan including Equality Michigan, urged citizens to contact AT&T and hold the
company to its promise to support a fully-inclusive update to Elliot-Larsen. AT&Ts
own Equal Opportunity Policy protects against discrimination based on gender
identity (Think Progress). In the days following the campaign has since ended, and
on the Drop the Call website, the organizers have written about the successful of
the campaign. They write that the good news is that AT&T Michigan committed to
supporting a bill that is inclusive of sexual orientation AND gender identity and
expression (Drop the Call).
Those who oppose both amendments to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act do
so mostly on religious groups. They say any gay rights update to Elliott-Larsen
could jeopardize religious freedom for business owners who may not want to offer or
participate in a service that runs counter to their beliefs (Oosting). While not a
novel arguments, it is one which has proved successful in a number of red states.
With a Republican governor and a majority in Michigans Congress, the argument
might just win out.

3 | Page

BackgroundAccording to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, the state of Michigan

has enjoyed a long history of being on the forefront of guaranteeing employment
protections to its workers. The precursor to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act was the
Fair Employment Practices Act which guaranteed an equal opportunity to gain
employment regardless of religion, race, or national origin. As the years passed and
the FEPA needed to be updated, so the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act was passed in
1976 and took effect on March 31, 1977. At its inception, the original Act prohibited
employment, public accommodations, public service, education, and housing
discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin. Later amendments
added sex, age, marital status, height, weight, and arrest record (MDCR). Two
areas it didnt extend to however, was sexual orientation or gender identity. As it
stands today, Michiganders can be fired from their jobs, refused employment,
denied housing, and/or refused service based on their actual or perceived sexual
orientation or gender identity/expression and they would have no means of legal
redress (MDCR).
As recently as the late seventies, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights has
pushed for the inclusion of protections for LGBT people in the state. In 1977 the
organization published Sexual Orientation Report and Recommendations which
sought to sift through the facts and myths of LGBT workplace discrimination. At the
conclusion of their report, the commission wrote that the Department would be
unable to hear sexual orientation discrimination cases because of a lack of
jurisdiction until the State legislature specifically authorized such an addition to its
powers under ELCRA (MDCR). Three years later Representative David Evans, a
Democrat from Macomb County pushed for a statewide taskforce regarding what

4 | Page

was called at the time, sexual preference protection. In 1983 the Commission
published a report calling for the inclusion of sexual orientation into the Elliot-Larsen
Civil Rights Act, though their recommendation would go widely ignored for years.
Although it has excluded the LGBT population of Michigan up to this point, the
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act has been effective in protecting those included in its
mandate, and has been amended multiple times to incorporate other groups into its
protection. For example, most recently, former Michigan Governor Jennifer
Granholm signed Public Act 190, a 2009 amendment that increased employment
protections for pregnant workers (Equality Michigan). Similarly, in 2000, the
Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the ELCRA prohibited age discrimination
against younger employees and job applicants. Taken together, these additions
provide precedent for amending the law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation, gender identity, and gender expression (Equality Michigan).
The exclusion of transgender protections from greater LGB legislation is not
without president either. In 2007 there was similar controversy regarding an
amendment proposed by Democratic representative Barney Frank. The bill brought
to the U.S. House, was an amendment to the federal Employment NonDiscrimination Act that only included protections for discrimination based on sexual
orientation, not gender identity (Brydum). At the time a number of national LGBT
groups supported the legislation, including notable the Human Rights Campaign,
despite the exclusion of transgender protections. Predictably, this sparked a
massive fissure among activists, as some felt that politicians had sacrificed
protections for transgender people in the interest of political expediency (Brydum).
The bill ended up dying in committee but set a precedent regarding the dangers of

5 | Page

the exclusion of transgender protections from legislation concerning gay, lesbian

and bisexual discrimination.

How it might be resolvedThere are a number of ways in which the current conflict over the proposed
amendments to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act could be resolved. One option
would be for the LGB community to take their win and hope for transgender
inclusion in the future. This however is a dangerous decision, both for its implicit
implications regarding the precedent it sets, and in terms of dividing vital members
of the states LGBT community.
A far better approach would be for Fosters proposed amendment to be
eliminated, in favor of Singhs more inclusive bill. Singhs amendment, which is
greatly favored by the states LGBT population (notable because thats who the bill
concerns) has been widely blocked by the Republican-dominated Congress. As it
happens, state Democrats have an interesting opportunity for bargaining in the
near future as well. As it happens, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is vying for $1 billion in
funding for state-wide road repairs, which will require some Democratic support.
The lawmakers could refuse to support the funding request until a bill that protects
both sexual orientation and gender identity is on the table (Ford).

ConclusionAs this paper has shown, recently proposed amendments to the Elliot-Larsen
Civil Rights Act, while seemingly beneficial to the states queer community, are in
fact potentially dangerous in practice. The states Republican-led Congress has used
its majority to propose a piece of legislation which would benefit some while
unnecessarily excluding others. As the majority of Michiganians agree, a persons
6 | Page

employment should be determined by their ability, not their sexual orientation or

gender identity. Lets support a piece of legislation that moves in that direction.

BibliographyBrydum, S. (2014, November 12). Could Michigan Pass a Gay-Only

Nondiscrimination Bill? Retrieved November 16, 2014, from
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/11/12/could-michigan-pass-gay-onlynondiscrimination-bill

7 | Page

Discrimination. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2014, from

https://www.equalitymi.org/issues/discrimination

Ford, Z. (2014, November 13). Michigans Proposed LGBT Protections Could Instead
Become A License To Discriminate. Retrieved November 16, 2014, from
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/11/13/3592046/michigan-nondiscriminationprotections-transgender/

More Information. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2014, from

http://www.droppingthecall.com/info

Oosting, J. (2014, November 12). Michigan gay rights: GOP bill would add sexual
orientation, but not gender identity protections. Retrieved November 16, 2014, from
http://www.mlive.com/lansingnews/index.ssf/2014/11/michigan_gay_rights_gop_bill_w.html

REPORT ON LGBT INCLUSION UNDER MICHIGAN LAW. (2013, January 28).

Retrieved November 16, 2014, from
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdcr/MDCR_Report_on_LGBT_Inclusion
_409727_7.pdf

8 | Page