Several folks have pointed out this Cincinnati Enquirer article from Jon Craig that talks about the “doomed” fate of H.B. 176, the Equal Housing and Employment Act, Ohio’s LGBT nondiscrimination bill that passed the House for the first time earlier this month.
Sen. Seitz (R-Cincinnati)
It’s true that the Senate is a far more uphill battle than the Democratic-controlled House, but I think the headline writers (and Craig) went a bit overboard in their assessment of the bill’s chances in the Senate. The reliance on Cincinnati Republican Sen. Bill Seitz as the only on-the-record senator discussing the bill’s Senate chances was more than a bit problematic. Of course Seitz opposes the bill and is going to say whatever he can to hurt the bill’s chances of passage.
The idea that the Rules Committee assignment is itself a death knell is just wishful thinking on Seitz’s part. President Harris and Minority Leader Cafaro are the Chair and Ranking Member of the committee, and I’m sure they can find a way to get the bill out of committee if they wish to do so. Sen. Jon Husted — running for Secretary of State in 2010 — is on the committee and one of the folks who I think we could get to support this bill.
Craig doesn’t, however, note the major question facing this bill: What is the Ohio Chamber of Commerce going to do? The Chamber did not oppose the bill in the House, although there are still some amendments that they want to see added to the bill before they would support it. That — and not Bill Seitz’s opposition — is the primary question facing the bill in the Senate.
But, while we’re at it, let’s look at Seitz’s opposition. Seitz is given pretty much unfettered access to the Enquirer’s readership to put out unanswered — and incorrect — claims about the EHEA. First:
Anytime you allow another basis for people to sue for discrimination, Seitz said, the burden shifts to the employer to prove non-discrimination. “It’s not so clear-cut as proponents would have you believe that it’s all about somebody saying, ‘I’m not going to hire you because you are gay,’ ” he said. “There are all kinds of legal intricacies.”
This is just factually incorrect. In a nondiscrimination lawsuit, the burden is on the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case of discrimination before the suit can go anywhere. Otherwise, it would be dismissed. What this means is that a person would need to show evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption or to establish the fact that an employer or potential employer has discriminated against the person. It is only then that the burden shifts to the employer to show a legal, non-discriminatory reason why it failed to hire the plaintiff or take whatever employment action is in question. If the employer can show that, then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the non-discriminatory reason was just a pretext for the employer to be able to discriminate. So, yes, there are “legal intricacies” in the law, as Seitz says, but being a long-time lawmaker that’s akin a mathematician expressing concern about the “intricacies” of complex proofs.
Second:
Such legislation also could trigger creation of new affirmative action programs in the state, he said. Ohio civil rights statutes already make it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age or ancestry.
Again, false. From the bill, proposed R.C. 4112.02 (V):
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or require any private employer, employment agency, or labor organization to implement quotas or affirmative action policies or programs, based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
So, that’s just an outright lie.
Third:
Finally, Seitz questioned whether such legislation is even necessary: “Given that so many companies have voluntarily adopted these kinds of policies, there are plenty of employment opportunities for folks regardless of their sexual orientation.”
This is the least sensible of Seitz’s arguments. Again, as a long-time lawmaker, Seitz understands that an employer’s “policy” is not enforceable for an employee with no contract or for a job applicant. The only group of people with any legal recourse related to such policies is that group of people who have an employment contract that actually contains the nondiscrimination language.
Moreover, the fact that “there are plenty of employment opportunities for folks” who are LGBT is not in any way an answer to the entire purpose of the legislation. In fact, if anything it proves the point of those advocating for the EHEA. If someone said, “there are plenty of places willing to hire Jews” or “there are plenty of employment opportunities for black people,” it would be immediately obvious that those employers unwilling to hire Jewish or black people are the problem. It would lead to the question: How can we ensure that someone’s race or religion is not used by employers to disqualify otherwise qualified applicants?
That, of course, is all that the EHEA aims to do: It will ensure that employers do not use sexual orientation or gender identity to disqualify otherwise qualified people from employment. There’s no reason why the Ohio Senate shouldn’t act in quick fashion to second the action of the House in passing the EHEA and send it to Governor Strickland’s desk for signature.
Popularity: 13% [?]
Chris Geidner is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who writes at Law Dork, is the senior political writer at Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications. An extended biography can be found
Hey, Geidner, put the Danish down and chill out!!! Your huge panties are all in-a-bunch; and you’re undoubtedly squealing at an extra-high vocal pitch, but Jesus H. Christ: It’s just one guy’s frickin’ opinion. You know, kind of what you think you do on this “blog.”
Let other people have other opinions, and go on your extremely merry way.
Chris has the power to prevent other people from having other opinions merely by voicing his disagreement with those opinions? Yikes!
I don’t think I said that “PG.” I think I simply told the Geidner to calm down.
Are you one of his former lovers? You like those rolls and those pathetic glasses? I bet you two like to see whose voice can hit the higher pitch.
You never said “calm down.” You said, “Let other people have other opinions.” (Not a good idea to deny what you’ve said when it’s in writing and on the same webpage.) In what way is Chris *not* letting other people have other opinions? Does the act of criticism prevent the criticized from having their opinions? Do you consider yourself to not be letting Chris have his opinions when you criticize them?
Your gibes are so antiquated, they’re delightfully campy. I look forward to your irrelevant ad hominems about prancing and floppy wrists.
It’s not “just an opinion” if it is based on lies. The author was trying to point out the factual inaccuracies so that you are able to gather the facts and form your own opinion.
Are there any other Senators other than Husted who might be persuaded to vote for the bill? On which Senators should we waste our breath trying to persuade to support the bill?