LGBTQ employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBTQ people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBTQ employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.
Federal employees and law Presidents have established certain protections for some employees of the federal government by executive order. It was not for years that a president did in fact establish an executive order in order to protect LGBTQ discrimination in the work force. In 1995, President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12968 establishing criteria for the issuance of security clearances included sexual orientation for the first time in its non-discrimination language: "The United States Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information." It also said that "no inference" about suitability for access to classified information "may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee." Clinton's Executive Order 13087 in 1998 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce. It applied to employees of the government of the District of Columbia and the United States Postal Service and to civilian employees of the armed forces, but not to certain excepted services, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Clinton acknowledged its limitations in a statement:
At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It was Obama's wish to further attend to LGBTQ civil rights not only through legislation, but also the executive branch. In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow gender identity-based employment discrimination because it is a form of sex discrimination. In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow sexual orientation discrimination in employment because it is a form of sex discrimination.
In March 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in EEOC v. RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes that transgender people are protected by federal sex discrimination laws. By August of that year, 16 states had joined an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case as R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in a 6–3 decision on June 15, 2020, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
On March 31, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in the case of TerVeer v. Billington, that Peter TerVeer can sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that bans sex discrimination, claiming that he faced discrimination after his boss found out that he was gay. Title VII does not explicitly protect against sexual orientation discrimination, but Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling leaves that a person could bring a claim under Title VII's ban on sex discrimination because an employer views an employee's sexual orientation as "not consistent with acceptable gender roles."
On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce and both "sexual orientation" and gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors. On July 31, 2014, Obama also signed Executive Order 13673, "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces," requiring companies with large federal contracts to prove their compliance with labor laws; this executive order, however, was revoked by President Trump on March 27, 2017.
In 2017, the Trump administration, through the Department of Justice, reversed the Obama-era policy which used Title VII to protect transgender employees from discrimination.
A bill to ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), was introduced repeatedly in the U.S. Congress since 1994. Under the ENDA, it was illegal for an employer to discriminate against their employees due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Unlike the Equality Act of 1974, the main focus of the ENDA was to end employment discrimination. In 1994, the ENDA only made it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation. By 2007, discrimination based on gender identity had been added to the law as well. In 2015, a broader bill, the Equality Act, was introduced in place of this.
In March 2019, a group representing the Department of Justice's LGBTQ employees addressed a letter to Attorney General William Barr, complaining about the increasing hostility and discrimination towards the LGBTQ employees. The group also claimed that LGBTQ employees had left the department due to alleged mistreatment and that the department did nothing to recruit and retain top LGBTQ employees.
State law prior to Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Pennsylvania became the first state to ban public sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1975. Wisconsin became the first state to ban both public and private sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1982. Minnesota became the first state to ban employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity when it passed the Human Rights Act in 1993. Currently, 25/50 states, the District of Columbia, and at least 400 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
25 out of 50 US states, and the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have statutes that explicitly codifies and protects against both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment in both the public and private sector: California,Cal Civ Code sec. 51 Colorado,C.R.S. 24-34-402 (2008) Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. One state being Pennsylvania have acquired such protections through executive orders, regulations, court rulings or binding decisions under a human rights commission since 2018.
In addition, two states, Indiana, Iowa (since 2025) and Wisconsin prohibit discrimination on account of sexual orientation only; gender identity is not addressed. Indiana, in accordance with Hively v Ivy Tech Community College, a ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wisconsin through a statute enacted in 1982, which made Wisconsin the first state to have private employment protections for sexual orientation. Similarly to Indiana, the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, covering Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, have found sex protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include the category of gender identity.
Furthermore, 8 U.S. states -- Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Kansas. -- have an executive order, administrative order, or personnel regulation prohibiting discrimination in public employment only based on either sexual orientation or gender identity: An additional 2 states -- Alaska and MissouriMissouri governor sets new discrimination policy -- and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have executive orders prohibiting discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation only.
The remaining states do not offer any type of discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community at the state level, although some cities and localities have passed their own ordinances within these states.
Chronological order 1972: although the first local protections were enacted this year in Michigan (in East Lansing and Ann Arbor).Eskridge, William K., Jr. (1999). In Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet. Harvard University Press paperback edition (2002). p. 130. . Google Books. Retrieved on January 26, 2011. 1973: District of Columbia: Mooney, Linda A., David Knox, Caroline Schacht. (2009). In Understanding Social Problems. 6th Edition. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. p. 467. . Google Book Search. Retrieved on January 23, 2011. 1975: Pennsylvania: Rimmerman, Craig A., Kenneth D. Wald, Clyde Wilcox. (2000). In The Politics of Gay Rights. The University of Chicago Press. p. 272. . Google Book Search. Retrieved on January 23, 2011. 1979: California: Brown, Jerry. Civil Rights . Jerrybrown.com. Accessed: 2011-01-23. 1982: Wisconsin: 1983: New York: Quinn, Christine. Bloomberg Must Speak Up on Gay Marriage. Gotham Gazette. 2004-03-08. Accessed: 2011-01-23. Ohio: Resnick, Eric. Kasich lets LGBT job bias rule expire. Gay People's Chronicle. 2011-01-14. Accessed: 2011-01-23. 1985: New Mexico: New Mexico Non-Discrimination Law . Human Rights Campaign. 2007-03-20. Accessed: 2011-01-23. Rhode Island: Cumming, Doug. . (Fee required for access to the full article.) The Providence Journal. 1985-09-03. Accessed: 2011-01-23.Memorandum -- Rhode Island -- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination p. 9 (Acrobat format) (Refers to Rhode Island Executive Order No. 11 (1985) (Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy)). The Williams Institute. 2009-09. Accessed: 2011-01-25. Washington: Gardner, Booth. Executive Order 85-09 . Governor of Washington web site. 1985-12-24. Accessed: 2011-01-23. 1987: Oregon: Roberts pushes gay rights bill. (1991, April 17). The Associated Press via The Bulletin (Bend, Oregon), p. A-7. Retrieved January 23, 2011 via Google News Archive. 1988: Oregon: Beggs, Charles E. (1992, November 12). Anti-gay measure voided. The Associated Press via The Bulletin (Bend, Oregon), p. A-1. Retrieved January 23, 2011 via Google News archive. 1989: Massachusetts: 1990: Colorado: Robinson, B.A. . Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 2003-07-07. Accessed: 2011-01-23. 1991: Connecticut: Hawaii: Minnesota: Carlson, Arne. Executive Order 91-4 (Adobe Acrobat format). Minnesota Legislature. 1991-01-29. Accessed: 2011-01-23. New Jersey: Florio, James G. Executive Order #39. The State of New Jersey. 1991-08-16. Accessed: 2011-01-23. 1992: California: Louisiana: Louisiana -- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination (Adobe Acrobat document). The Williams Institute. 2009-09. Accessed: 2011-01-23. New Jersey: Vermont: Oregon: 1993: Minnesota: