Policy

Chained Women: When Religion and the State Intersect   

Reflections on Our Wounded Identities in Law

Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Private Employment

Performing Gender

Pornography: 
The Epitome of Sexuality

Subjectivity and Gender-Identity in Cyberspace

GWU

Women's Studies

Newsletter 2000

Resources

Submit links

Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Private Employment: Comparing the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
by: Erica Swanson

Sexual orientation discrimination in employment is a newly emerging field of state law.  In 1979, the United States Court of Appeals (9^th Circuit) considered whether sexual orientation bias came within the purview of the 1964 law passed by Congress prohibiting sex discrimination.  The Court held that “Title VII’s prohibition of ‘sex’ discrimination applies only to discrimination on the basis of gender and should not be judicially extended to include sexual preference such as homosexuality” or transsexualism.  The ruling followed widely held assumptions about Congressional intention in denying gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons any protection under federal law.[1]  Thus, protection against unfair employment practices for these classes falls to state legislatures or a Congressional revision of federal law.[2]

     To date, only 11 states have prohibited sexual orientation discrimination in private employment.[3]  Of these 11 states, only Minnesota extends this coverage to the transgendered by including protection on the basis of gender identity.  Most state prohibitions against sexual orientation discrimination have been added to existing nondiscrimination or civil rights laws.  In 1993, Minnesota chose this particular statutory method; California did so only in 1999, after relying on case law and labor law for many years.

Each of these state laws offers a definition of “sexual orientation,” although the definitions differ in their nomenclature and scope.[4]  Both states offer recourse to “open” and “closeted” gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.  Only Minnesota, as noted above, prohibits discrimination against transgendered persons.  Minnesota and California both exempt employers with very few employees and exclude discriminatory action that is related to a bona fide occupational qualification. 

Generally, both states’ statutes provide that employers are not to consider sexual orientation in decisions that affect hiring, firing, or promoting an employee.  Neither grants same-sex benefits.  Employees who are unlawfully discriminated against may sue for a variety of remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages.  In each state, the political context shaped the historical development of the current statute and the language of the law. 

This paper will briefly examine the problems associated with employment discrimination and the ways in which the gay rights and feminist communities have addressed the issue.  This paper will then show that Minnesota’s nondiscrimination law is much broader in scope than California’s; it will do so by comparing the development of both states’ laws, and the wording of each.  Finally, this paper will propose a way in which California can similarly extend its reach to be more inclusive of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community.

Pervasiveness of Discrimination

Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is pervasive, and such discrimination harms both the employee and the employer.  When controlled for experience, education, occupation, marital status, and region of residence, General Social Survey data indicates that gay and bisexual male workers earn from 11% to 27% less than their heterosexual counterparts.[5]

Discrimination surfaces directly – supervisors or colleagues harassing, firing, or refusing to promote the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered employee – or indirectly —supervisors or colleagues creating a heterosexist workplace that threatens workers.[6]  One in three gay men report discrimination at work; nearly 17 percent of these men believe that they have either been fired or denied employment because of their sexual orientation.  One in four lesbians report similar discrimination.[7]  Understandably then, most gays and lesbians believe that revealing their sexual orientation would affect them negatively.[8]  Many therefore attempt to ‘pass’ as heterosexual to avoid discrimination; however, passing involves isolation, which can also negatively affect the employee’s career and comfort.

Passing presents less of an option for transgendered persons, whose gender signals frequently and obviously contradict each other.  Because their physical or behavioral characteristics more readily identify them as transgendered, they are even more likely than gay, lesbian, and bisexual people targeted for discrimination.  Transsexuals undergoing sex-reassignment are particularly vulnerable.[9]

Fear of discrimination leads many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people to enter professions deemed “gay friendly” — a cluster of professions that tend to offer lower pay and status.[10]  Other workers adopt a passive response to discrimination or anticipation of discrimination, transferring out of troublesome departments or resigning.  According to corporate educator Brian McNaught, establishing a non-discriminatory workplace helps a business “attrac[t] and retai[n] the ‘best and brightest’ employees,”[11] making it more productive.

Framing the Issue

     Gay rights activists have successfully framed the issue as one of civil rights, comparing it to the struggles for racial and gender equality.  They argue, as have the editors of the Harvard Law Review, that: “sexual orientation discrimination is as offensive to the principles of fairness and equal treatment as discrimination based on any other non-work-related attribute.”[12]  A majority of Americans support “equal job opportunities” for gays and lesbians; this public support has greatly increased, from 56 percent in 1977 to 84 percent in 1996.[13]

     The issue has also garnered support from feminists, who view discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a subset of heterosexism.  Heterosexism, which refers to the institutional valorization of heterosexuality, relies upon the traditional notions of two natural, distinct, and bipolar genders.[14]  Heterosexism prioritizes heterosexuality over homosexuality (or bisexuality); it privileges male over female.  Men and women who are not heterosexual challenge this concept of binarism and the subordination of women, gays, and lesbians that accompanies it.  Because homosexuality and transgenderism effectively transcend traditional, stereotypical, socially constructed sex roles, successes for the gay rights movement are successes for the contemporary feminist movement.[15] 

The Minnesota Human Rights Act

     Minnesota’s Human Rights Act (MHRA)[16] is a model for sexual orientation nondiscrimination law in that it unambiguously extends protection to the transgendered.  Although its nondiscrimination statute is relatively new, the state has a history of attempting progressive sexual orientation policy.

One of the state’s earliest public accounts of sexual orientation discrimination in employment occurred at the University of Minnesota in 1970.  The University Board of Regents rejected a gay activist librarian applicant on the grounds that his “personal conduct. . .[was] not consistent with the best interest of the University.”[17]  Alleging that the Board deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process of law, McConnell sought relief in the federal courts.  The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an injunction against the University, stating that an employee’s private life should not be of concern to an employer unless it affects the employee’s work performance.  However, this injunction was dissolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which accepted the employer’s argument that McConnell’s activism would “foist tacit approval of this socially repugnant concept upon his employer.”[18]

     Shortly thereafter, Senator Steve Endean introduced a bill prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the Minnesota Legislature.  Endean introduced the bill three times during the 1970s — 1973, 1975, and 1977 — but each time the measure was defeated in bitter debate.[19]  Such a bill was not voted on again until 1993.

     In 1991, the Governor’s Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Minnesotans reported that sexual minorities were subject to “harassment on the job, death threats and assaults.”[20]  The committee’s recommendations included the prohibition of discrimination in employment and housing, the repeal of sodomy laws, and a call for sensitivity training.[21]  In 1993, State Senator Allan Spear (DFL-Minneapolis), an openly gay man who had served on the task force, took advantage of the momentum that had been created by the committee’s report and reintroduced the sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill.  The bill proposed to amend the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), by adding the words “sexual orientation” to the existing prohibition of discrimination on the basis of “race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age.”[22]  State Representative Karen Clark (DFL-Minneapolis), a lesbian, concurrently sponsored the bill in the House.

     Activists on both sides of the issue organized and lobbied their legislators; debate on the bill was emotional.  Proponents of the bill championed it as an extension of basic civil rights.  The proponent campaign, “It’s Time Minnesota,” won a wide array of endorsements, including the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the Minnesota representatives of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and the Minnesota Association of Realtors.[23] More moderate backers of the bill qualified their support.  Minority Leader Dean Johnson (IR-Willmar) broke ranks with his party in supporting the bill, saying: “Even though I do not understand the homosexual lifestyle, I think it is prudent that each of us in the majority vote to give rights to the minority.”[24]  Opponents, organized by the “Traditional Values Coalition of Minnesota,”[25] claimed that the bill would “discriminate against heterosexuals, promote unhealthy lifestyles, undermine family values and sanction pedophilia, pornography and harassment by gays.”[26] 

Before its adoption by the legislature, amendments accommodated the moral sensitivities of the opposition.  The first amendment exempted: “a religious or fraternal corporation, association, or society, with respect to qualifications based on religion or sexual orientation, when religion or sexual orientation shall be a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.”[27]  Such religious exemptions, commonly found in sexual orientation nondiscrimination law, accede to those groups who base discrimination against non-heterosexuals on their religious beliefs.[28]  Danger, however, lurks in the interpretation of the BFOQ defense.  Although the Minnesota Supreme Court has in other circumstances adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of a BFOQ, it remains to be seen how broadly it will be applied in terms of sexual orientation.

The Legislature also granted a sexual orientation discrimination exemption to any “nonpublic service organization whose primary function is providing occasional services to minors. . . .”[29]  This exemption mirrors the rationale given in opposition to gay rights.  Namely, it is assumed that: 1) homosexuality is immoral and should not be sanctioned by the state, 2) homosexuals are likely to molest children, and 3) homosexual behavior, if modeled, will encourage children to become homosexual.[30]

Lawmakers made an even greater concession, however, in adding to the MHRA a section explicitly denying acceptance of non-heterosexual conduct.  The amended section reads:

“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to:

1.) mean that the state of Minnesota condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle;

2.) authorize or permit the promotion of homosexuality or bisexuality in education institutions or require the teaching in education institutions of homosexuality or bisexuality as an acceptable lifestyle;

3.) authorize or permit the use of numerical goals or quotas, or other types of affirmative action programs, with respect to homosexuality or bisexuality in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this chapter; or

4.) authorize the recognition of or the right of marriage between persons of the same sex.”[31]

Activists criticized the amendment for indicating that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals did not deserve full protection.[32]  Yet, after this change the law passed both houses.  On April 2, 1993, the bill was signed by Independent-Republican Governor Arne Carlson, who defended his signature as “the right thing to do.”[33]  Despite its internally conflicting language, the MHRA provides more comprehensive protection to sexual minorities than does any other state statute. 

Surprisingly, the broad definition of sexual orientation sparked relatively little debate.  According to the Minnesota law, sexual orientation means:

“having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness. ‘Sexual orientation’ does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.”[34]

Thus, the definition covers “open” and “people are covered closeted” gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.  Heterosexual people who may be perceived as gay, lesbian or bisexual are also expressly covered.  More significantly, because the definition is inclusive of gender image and identity, the statute extends protection to transgendered persons.

     Few discrimination suits have been brought under the amended MHRA, interpreting this broad definition of sexual orientation.[35]  The first case to test these new legal waters, Goins v. West,[36] concerned a trans-gendered employee.  Julienne Goins, born male, was granted a legal change of gender by a Texas court.  Though she had not had any surgical procedure to alter her anatomy, she “sincerely and consistently” identified herself as female.  Her employer denied her access to the women’s restroom, justifying the decision on what he believed to be her biological maleness.  The Hennepin County District Court granted the defendant’s request for summary judgment on the discrimination claim, and compelled Goins to respond to discovery regarding her genitalia[37].  In November 2000, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, reversed the lower court.  The Appeals Court found that the defendant failed to present a legitimate defense to Goins’ prima facie case of sexual orientation discrimination, and that findings of Goins’ genitalia were irrelevant to the case.  In its ruling, the Appeals Court stated that the MHRA is unambiguous in its prohibition of “discrimination on the basis of the inconsistency between anatomy and self-image.”[38]

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act

     California’s sexual orientation nondiscrimination law evolved much differently than Minnesota’s.  Although sexual orientation was added to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) -- the general antidiscrimination law – only in 1999, California has protected gay, lesbian, and bisexual people from employment discrimination since 1979.

     In that year, ruling in the landmark case, Gay Law Students Ass’n v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.,[39] the California Supreme Court found that sexual orientation discrimination by a private employer was unlawful under Sections 1101 and 1102 of the Labor Code.  That law stated in part that an employer may not “coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or refrain from adopting or following any particular course of line of political action or political activity.”[40]  The Court ruled that this statute could not be “narrowly constrained to partisan activity,” and acknowledged that “the struggle of the homosexual community for equal rights, particularly in the field of employment, must be recognized as a political activity.”[41]

     This interpretation of “political activity” was criticized by some as a broad construction that would flood the courts with litigation.[42]  Such was not the case, however.  In fact, reinforced by the advice of the California Attorney General,[43] lower courts later expanded upon the ruling, concluding that this protection applied to all homosexuals, whether they are open, closeted, or merely perceived to be homosexual.[44] 

     Although the court ruled consistently against discriminatory employers, many gay rights activists pressed for legislation that would treat freedom from sexual orientation discrimination as a civil right rather than a political activity.  In 1991, the California Legislature passed a bill that amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include sexual orientation as a protected class.  Amidst what the Los Angeles Times called a “firestorm of controversy,” Republican  Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the bill.[45]  He defended his veto on the grounds that the bill would oppress innocent employers, drive away business, and increase litigation.[46]  The bill’s supporters were furious with Wilson, who had supported gay rights in his campaign; opponents were also disappointed, believing that his veto occurred only because of their strong lobbying effort.

     Unwilling to concede the victory, the Legislature responded the next year with a bill that effectively codified the case law established in Gay Law Students by amending the Labor Code.  This bill, introduced by Assembly Member Terry Friedman, generated much less public opposition; a far-right group, the Traditional Values Coalition emerged, yet the business communities stayed neutral.[47]   Many observers credited this generally conducive climate to the public outcry after the Governor’s earlier veto.[48]  Moreover, the law would have little if any real impact – because it simply reflected existing legal status.  Nevertheless, gay-rights groups claimed it as a victory when the Governor signed the amendment into law on September 25, 1992.[49]  Previously, the outcome of each discrimination case depended upon judicial interpretation and the weight of the evidence; this law provided California’s first explicit statute protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination by private employers.

     Despite these gains, the gay, lesbian and bisexual community continued to seek inclusion of sexual orientation in the FEHA, with the other immutable human characteristics.  Again in 1997 the Legislature added sexual orientation to the FEHA list of “race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, and age.”[50]  Again the Governor vetoed the bill; this time, however, he did so with much less fanfare.  The bill was introduced once more in 1999 by Assembly Member Villaraigosa.[51]  This time when it passed it faced a much more receptive Governor, Democrat Gray Davis.  Confident that the majority of Californians supported the measure, the Governor signed the bill into law.[52]

     Discrimination suits under the FEHA offer administrative relief similar to that offered under the Labor Code.  However, complainants have more options under the FEHA.  They may allow the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to resolve the issue, they may bring the issue before both the DFEH and the civil courts, or they may choose not to use the DFEH and instead pursue damages or remedies in the civil courts alone.[53] 

     Of equal significance, a complainant has more time to file a discrimination report under the FEHA’s guidelines.  Under the Labor Code, sexual orientation discrimination reports were handled by the State Labor Commissioner — who handled no other discrimination claims; the commission required that reports be filed within 30 days of the discriminatory action.  Under the FEHA, all discrimination reports are handled by the DFEH — having one agency responsible for all discrimination actions makes it easier for both businesses and potential plaintiffs to understand the law.  Further, the FEHA allows complainants one full year to file a report.  This extended time benefits employees who feel that they have been discriminated against, but who are not sure if they should or how they could address it. 

     No cases have yet been tried under the new law.  Recent news, however, suggests that it will not address all sexual orientation discrimination.  In January 2000, a California truck driver who cross-dresses on his days off was fired after his boss learned of his private dressing habits.  The employer contended that “his activity could harm the company image,” and he therefore asked the man to resign.[54]  Because California’s nondiscrimination law does not prohibit gender stereotyping, this man has no recourse in state courts.  In the words of the Harvard Law Review, by refusing to extend protection on the basis of gender identity, the state of California “merely reinforces and perpetuates those prejudices that led to the stigmatization” of this class in the first place.[55]

     The California FEHA statute defines sexual orientation as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.”[56]  It also offers coverage for those who are discriminated against on the basis of a perceived sexual orientation[57]; this law is likely to be interpreted by the courts as applicable to closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons as well as heterosexual persons who are wrongly believed to be homosexual or bisexual.  However, California law does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Expanding FEHA protection to the transgendered

     Minnesota’s Human Rights Act demonstrates that a state can offer protection against discrimination to those who have or are perceived as having “a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness.”[58]  Similarly amending California’s FEHA would send the message to employers and employees that transsexuals, cross-dressers, transvestites — as well as ‘effeminate’ men and ‘macho’ women — have the same rights at work as everyone else.

     There are several ways in which California could effect this protection.  The Legislature could offer an amended definition of sexual orientation, one which more closely resembles the definition used in Minnesota.  For definitional clarity, though, it is worth noting that most transgenderites, transvestites, and transsexuals are heterosexual in their orientation.[59]  When transgendered people are discriminated against, it is not necessarily because they are thought to be gay, lesbian or bisexual.[60]  Rather, they are scorned for not exhibiting the traits stereotypically associated with their biological sex; they are harassed because they are not “doing” their gender appropriately.  These traits may include facial hair, body shape or size, clothing, hairstyle, mannerisms, or vocal pitch.  So, although amending the definition of sexual orientation may accomplish the desired goal, it may also lead to greater confusion and misunderstanding of transgender issues.

     Another, more definitionally sound proposal, adds a broadly defined term, “gender,” as a protected class under the FEHA.  Although the courts consistently interchange the words “sex” and “gender,”[61] gender discrimination is not explicitly prohibited.  Prohibiting gender discrimination precludes employers from making employment decisions based on gender stereotyping.[62]  If defined broadly, it also offers protection to those discriminated against because their gender performance appears to others to be contradictory.

     California’s Penal Code definition of gender is satisfactorily broad enough to do just this.  There, gender is defined as follows:

 “the victim’s actual sex or the person’s perception of the victim’s sex, and includes the person’s perception of the victim’s identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim’s sex at birth.”[63] 

It is recommended, then, that the California Legislature amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include “gender,” as defined, as a protected class.

     Making the FEHA more inclusive acknowledges that employment discrimination is pervasive, and that protection from such action honors a fundamental civil right.  Those who would benefit include workers discriminated against, businesses whose employees fear harassment and therefore work less productively, and women who still battle gender stereotyping.  The state would then be recognized, as Minnesota has, as a progressive state in which gender related characteristics unrelated to the job are unworthy of consideration in employment decisions.  California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act would then truly ensure fairness.

 Sources

Monographs

Hunter, Nan, Sherryl E. Michaelson, and Thomas B. Stoddard. The Rights of Lesbians and Gay Men: The Basic ACLU Guide to a Gay Person’s Rights. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992.

Hedgpeth, Judith M. “Employment Discrimination Law and the Rights of Gay Persons.” Homosexuality and the Law. Ed. Donald Knutson. New York: Haworth Press, 1980.

McNaught, Brian. Gay Issues in the Workplace. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

Newton, David E. Gay and Lesbian Rights. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1994.

Rubenstein, William B. Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law. New York: The New York Press, 1993.

The Editors of the Harvard Law Review. Sexual Orientation and the Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Scholarly Articles

Badgett, M.V. Lee. “The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation   Discrimination.” 48 Industrial and Labor Relations Review 726 (1995).

Capers, I. Bennett. “Sex(ual Orientation) and Title VII.” 91 Columbia Law Review 1159 (1991).

Cruz, David B. “Piety and Prejudice: Free exercise exemption from laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination.” 69 New York University Law Review 1177 (1994).

“Developments—Employment Discrimination.” 109 Harvard Law Review 1625 (1996).

Dickey, Todd R. “Reorienting the Workplace: Examining California’s New Labor Code Section 1102.1 and Other Legal Protections Against Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation.” 66 Southern California Law Review 2297 (1993).

“Discrimination Against Transgendered People in America.” 3 National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law 1 (1997). <http://www.ibiblio.org/gaylaw/>.

Goldstein, Charles M. and Lori V. Berke. “The New Human Rights Protection Based on Sexual Orientation: A Promising Beginning.” 62 Hennepin Lawyer 26 (1993).

Johnson, LeeAnn. “Gay Law Students Association v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.: Constitutional and Statutory Restraints on Employment Discrimination Against Homosexuals by Public Utilities.” 68 California Law Review 681 (1980).

Leonard, Arthur S. “Sexual Orientation and the Workplace: A rapidly developing field.” 44 Labor Law Journal 574 (1993).

Mendelson, Littler. “The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) has been amended to include sexual orienation as an unlawful basis for discrimination.” California Employment Law Monitor. 25 October 1999.

Riccucci, Norma M. and Charles W. Gossett. “Employment Discrimination in State and Local Government: The Lesbian and Gay Male Experience.” 26 American Review of Public Administration 175 (1996).

Richardson, Alan W. “Sexual Orientation Rights in the Workplace: A Proposal for Revising and Reconsidering California’s Assembly Bill 101.” 26 University of California Davis Law Review 425 (1993).

Valdes, Francisco. “Queers, Sissies, Dykes, and Tomboys: Deconstructing the conflation of ‘sex,’ ‘gender,’ and ‘sexual orientation’ in Euro-American law and society.” 83 California Law Review 1 (1995).

Van der Meide, Wayne. “Legislating Equality: A review of laws affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in the United States.” 2000. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. <http://www.ngltf.org>.

Vander Velden, Mark. “Gay Rights at Work.” 4 California Lawyer 46 (1984).

Yang, Alan. “From Wrongs to Rights: Public opinion on gay and lesbian Americans moves toward equality.” 1999.  National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. <http://www.ngltf.org>.

Newspaper Articles

Alcorn, Wallace. “Traditional Family Values are Best               Advocated by Example.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 14 June    1993: A13.

Boxhall, Bettina. “Gays Press for Signing of Rights Bill.” Los Angeles Times 1 Sept. 1992: B3.

Chanen, David. “Foes of Gay Rights Bill Say Task Force Failed.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 17 March 1993: B2.

Grant, Ashley. “Appeals Court: Transgender employee can sue over restroom rights.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 21 November 2000. <http://www.startribune.org>

Halvorsen, Donna. “Carlson Signs Gay-Rights Bill into Law.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 3 April 1993: B2.

Halvorsen, Donna. “Gay Rights Bill Passes House; Senate Expected to Give Final Passage Today.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 1 April 1993: B2.

Halvorsen, Donna. “House Panel Approves Gay Rights Measure.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 6 March 1993: B1.

Halvorsen, Donna. “Legislators Besieged by Lobbyists on Both Sides of Gay Rights Bill.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 11 March 1993: A10.

Halvorsen, Donna. “Legislature Votes for Gay-Rights Bill.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 19 March 1993: A1.

Holding, Reynolds. “New Spin on Sex Discrimination Law.” San Francisco Chronicle.19 November 2000. <http://www.sfgate.com.>.

Morain, Dan. “Assembly Oks Bill Banning Anti-Gay Bias but Rejects Another.” Los Angeles Times 5 June 1997: A3.

“Opponents of Gay Rights Measures Stage Rally.” Los Angeles Times 25 May 1999: B4.

“Panel Urges Law Banning Gay Discrimination.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 24 March 1991: B7.

Skelton, George. “Wilson Signs Bill on Gay Job Rights.” Los Angeles Times 26 Sept. 1992: A1.

Court Cases

DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., 608 F.2d 327 (9^th Cir.), 1979.

Gay Law Students Ass’n v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., 24 Cal. 3d 458, 595 P.2d 592 (1979).

Goins v. West Group, 2000 Minn. App. LEXIS 1152 (November 15, 2000).

McConnell v. Anderson, 451 F.2d 193 (8^th Cir.), 1971.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

Soroka v. Dayton, 18 Cal. App. 4^th 1200, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 77 (1991).

Statutes

California Government Code §§ 12900-12996 (2000).

California Labor Code § 1102 (2000).

Minnesota Session Laws, chpt. 22, 1993.

Minnesota Statute § 363 (2000).

Other

California Assembly, AB 1001 (introduced Feb. 25, 1999). <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/>.

California Assembly, AB 2142/Analysis (introduced April 4, 2000). <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/>.

69 Op. Atty Gen. Cal. 80 (1986).