iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Adam Winkler

GET UPDATES FROM Adam Winkler
 

Why Are Taxpayers Subsidizing Anti-Gay Discrimination?

Posted: 02/10/2012 10:14 am

The harassment began in November 2006. On a daily basis, a co-worker directed derogatory anti-gay epithets at James Friso, a structural mechanic employed by military contractor DynCorp International. Friso was repeatedly called a "faggot," "queer" and accused of engaging in homosexual acts. Even after discovering the harassment, management at DynCorp, which has received over $2 billion in federal contracts, did nothing.

Why are American taxpayers financing this hateful prejudice and harassment? The time has come for President Obama to sign an executive order banning sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by federal contractors.

There is a long history of presidents of both parties issuing executive orders to prohibit unfair discrimination. In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt issued executive orders barring federal agencies from discriminating on the basis of race and requiring all contracts with defense contractors to include "a provision obligating the contractor not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin."

President Harry Truman adopted an executive order desegregating the military. President Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order requiring all federal contractors -- not just those in defense industries -- to have a policy against discrimination on the basis of race. President Lyndon Johnson added protections against sex discrimination and subsequent administrations have expanded the anti-discrimination policy to include disability, age, and veteran status.

Sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to this list of prohibited forms of discrimination by federal contractors. Despite important gains in legal rights over the past two decades, LGBT employees still face extensive discrimination in the workplace. According to research by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, where I work, up to 40 percent of gay people report having been the victim of harassment or other mistreatment in their jobs. Among transgendered employees, the situation is even worse: according to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, an astounding 90 percent reported having suffered harassment at work.

Under federal law, the president can issue an executive order applicable to federal contractors so long as the order enhances the "economy and efficiency" of the procurement process. As courts that have examined previous executive orders dealing with discrimination explain, "it is in the interest of the United States in all procurement to see that its suppliers are not over the long run increasing its costs and delaying its programs by excluding from the labor pool available minority" workers.

Simply stated, ending discrimination against gays and transgendered Americans is good for business. The decision by a few top executives to look the other way while workers are harassed and denied equal job opportunities has a ripple effect across all the business's stakeholders -- from the employees who face mistreatment to the shareholders who lose the valuable human capital scared away by a hostile work environment. Just ask the DynCorp shareholders, who are now paying out $155,000 in a settlement with James Friso.

Insuring equality of all employees helps firms attract the best talent and makes the workforce more productive, which in turn benefits the taxpayers who pay for the goods and services provided by federal contractors. No wonder the five largest recipients of federal contracts -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics -- each have strong diversity policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Indeed, stopping anti-gay discrimination can fairly be considered a corporate "best practice." Today, a majority of Fortune 500 companies bar sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

Some might argue that an executive order by Obama extending the nondiscrimination policy would really be designed to achieve social and political goals, not improved efficiency. Yet courts have repeatedly held that executive orders regulating federal contractors are valid even if adopted for non-economic reasons. If the president can rationally conclude that one effect of the order will be to improve workplace conditions, then the existence of other objectives is irrelevant. Certainly, all of the previous executive orders on discrimination by federal contractors were adopted for social and political reasons too.

Rumors have begun circulating in Washington that both the Labor Department and the Justice Department have recently signed off on a proposal to extend protections against discrimination for LGBT people through an executive order. Now it's up to Obama to act. He should follow the lead of his many predecessors and put an end to taxpayer financed discrimination.

 

Follow Adam Winkler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/adamwinkler

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
big dubya
05:00 AM on 02/13/2012
I dunno. Why are Quakers paying for aircraft carriers?
photo
tnkeating
Dyslexic agnostic insomniac
06:12 PM on 02/12/2012
The time has come for President Obama to sign an executive order banning sexual orientation and gender identity. I agree, if we didn't have sexual orientation and gender identity we would still look for and identify the weak link and tease and make fun of them, how else can we make ourselves feel better about ourselves?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wayne the pain
02:13 PM on 02/12/2012
The government not only discriminates against gays but whistle blowers as well. These are signs of a government in decline. When you fail to protect the least of us and people that point out wrongs, that is proof the government has lost its moral compas and it needs to be recalibrated. The sad news is that there appears to be no one on the scene that is capable of doing the recalibration.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CPAwADD
Always look on the bright side of life.
10:23 AM on 02/12/2012
The Federal government discriminates against gays in many significant ways but most especially in the tax code.
George Picard
Send lawyers, guns and money
10:17 AM on 02/12/2012
President Obama will be all over fixing this after the election in Nov.

He will then come out for gay marriage too.

Just dont think he will be a leader on the issue until after that.
06:25 PM on 02/10/2012
True. Taxpayer money should not be going to anyone involved in anti-gay actions.
photo
WI Patriot
Defending the Constitution.
04:13 PM on 02/10/2012
Why are taxpayers subsidizing the Democratic party via National Public Radio?
09:33 PM on 02/10/2012
Why is Fox allowed to mislead so many people with its "Fair and Balanced" newscasts that are anything but fair and balanced and in fact grossly misinform its viewership, all while operating on the good graces of a federally issued license?
03:20 PM on 02/12/2012
When they get taxpayer funding you may have a valid point.
photo
Alwayspissedoffatsomeone
Liberalism = Stultification of the Brain
10:04 PM on 02/12/2012
And PMSNBC is not?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Watching rock grow
FE = Iron, and Female = Iron Male :)
01:40 PM on 02/11/2012
We remember the desires of earlier Americans dreams of an educated public.
01:20 PM on 02/10/2012
Good question! Great article. Relevant discussion. Thanks for writing an article about it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
01:13 PM on 02/10/2012
This is a great idea. Unfortunately, President Obama will probably need time to "evolve" on this issue ...
12:19 PM on 02/10/2012
An even greater subsidization of discrimination by taxpayers comes from the tax exemptions granted churches which are politically active in anti-LGBT causes (Catholic and Mormon churches, especially). If such tax exemptions were yanked, as they should be, the boon to this nation's revenue would be huge creating a lesser burden on individuals.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
03:23 PM on 02/10/2012
Exactly. I would love to see the tax-exemptions for the churches revoked. It is past time for them to stop having a free ride on the taxpayers' dime and yet to be able to support discrimination against some of those same taxpayers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Watching rock grow
FE = Iron, and Female = Iron Male :)
01:41 PM on 02/11/2012
I agree dear friend!