Why would I make that up? More from the Kansas City Star:
"A Wall Street trader says his boss called him "gay" for refusing to eat meat. And now, of
course, he's suing. He alleges that his boss worked up a bunch of complaints to fire him, when he really disliked the guy for being a vegetarian. Which the boss reportedly considered the same thing as being gay. Snip from the Daily News:
Ryan Pacifico is suing Calyon in the Americas, charging that his one-time boss at the French financial firm presided over a testosterone-fueled trading desk, where he was mocked for avoiding meat and wearing snug-fitting shorts during triathlons."
Of course, the real issue is the term "gay", and this example serves to warm up some of the content in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is focused on expanding Title 7 to include sexual orientation as a protected class. Here's a summary of the bill to get you warmed up:
"In an attempt to broaden Title VII, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) proposes to add “actual or perceived sexual orientation” to the list. ENDA will affect HR professionals on several levels, including how to conduct interviews, hiring and firing employees, instituting policies and procedures, and ultimately creating a workplace that is heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual friendly.
Many of us (including me) have had sexual orientation language in the anti-harassment and discrimination policies for years, so I regard this type of legislation as a non-event in many ways. Additionally, I've been fortunate to have worked for some great companies, with managers at all levels who didn't/don't judge or act based on someone's sexual orientation.
Here's the only problem I have with the bill. It over-reaches by including an "associational discrimination" clause, which makes unlawful discrimination against persons who associate with others who are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, i.e., every human being on the face of the planet. Of course, the ENDA does not further define what association means but would very likely encompass such things as being friendly towards an individual or spending time with them outside of work.
You're kidding me right? Friends of those with a "perceived orientation"? That's overreaching in my eyes.
Many folks that I've read are also wary of the "perceived orientation" language in the bill. I'm not. While more and more people are candid about their orientation, there are also many more who aren't, and the perception of their orientation is always in play in the workplace by managers, co-workers and vendors alike. It's the reality. Additionally, others are concerned about the act imposing on religious rights. Most of the folks I know with strong religious beliefs in the workplace understand not everyone shares their beliefs, and as a result they have to be moderate in the workplace.
Of course, it sounds like Wall Street might have to be a little more careful of their treatment of vegetarians (as well as runners concerned with maximizing performance) if the ENDA becomes law.
Comments