Does California or any other state have a law forbidding discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation? I just saw where pro football scouts are asking players leading questions with the obvious intention of determining if they are gay. I would think this has been outlawed somewhere by now.
California has anti-discrimination laws.
http://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map
In practice, they are rather difficult to enforce. The plaintiff in such a case usually has to have evidence that there was a deliberate attempt to exclude protected people. As you have observed, it is very easy for an employer to find the information they want to know without being explicit about it.
Wouldn’t scouts be accountable to laws of the state in which the team is located? So you have your answer if the scout is for one of the California teams.
In Tennessee (home of the Titans), not only is sexual orientation not protected, it’s against the law for any jurisdiction in Tennessee to add sexual orientation to it’s local non-discrimination ordinances unless the whole state does so first. When the city of Nashville passed such protections, the state overturned it.
I have been listening to SiriusXM NFL Radio and though I have not seen the original story the consensus is that NFL scouts are not asking about sexual orientation, and it is most certainly against the law.
Could there be a few old school folks who might think it’s an issue? Sure. However if the past few years of activity in the NFL is an indicator (Bountygate) such behavior will result in fines, suspensions and a quick end to employment by those who are doing it.
The NFL is very aware of the importance of it’s public perception.
Oh in answer to the original question, yes I believe many, but not all, states do not allow sexual orientation hiring discrimination.
I have to admit, I’m intrigued- what kind(s) of questions are being asked that you think are designed to figure out sexual orientation?
(“Would you rather see a movie with a) Will Smith, b) Chuck Norris, c) Jim Carrey, d) Bette Midler”)
Can you point to some articles describing these interview questions?
I am aware that scouts and executives often ask all sorts of weird questions, to get some kind of personality profile of players they may draft, but I hadn’t heard that they were asking questions that were created to figure out which guys were gay.
Here’s a pertinent article on the topic:
Evidently they are going with more direct questions: “Do you have a girlfriend? Are you married? Do you like girls?”
Google “Elicitation.” There’s a lot of indirect information you can get on topics like this while sharing “casual conversation.” If the subject has no girlfriend, hasn’t had one, gets uncomfortable when you ask why not, etc… Unless the subject has a cover story ready, you can put the pieces together.
“You ever…see a grown man naked? Do you like…movies about gladiators? Ever been…in a Turkish prison?”
Surely you can’t be serious.
I am serious. And don’t call me Shirley!
Back on topic, the NFL has announced it is going to investigate those questions. As noted above, it is potentially illegal based on the team, and it is definitely against league policy no matter what team.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/27/league-will-investigate-quetioning-of-nick-kasa-at-combine/related/
It’s also a great way to screen out people who just have trouble forming romantic relationships. And there’s no law banning discriminating against them.
In California, there is the Unruh Act of 1959, which prohibits discrimination, and lists several specific categories of people that you can’t discriminate against (or for, for that matter).
I studied these things for a term paper about 20 years ago, about discrimination in real estate sales and rentals. (That whole business about what words you can and can’t use in advertisements.) So after all these years I don’t remember the cites, except that I actually went to a law library and read a bunch of cases.
The Unruh Act is very nearly identical to a similar Federal law. However, the Federal law was tested in several Federal court cases, while the Unruh Act was tested in several California state court cases. The Federal and state judges made different interpretations in their rulings, wherefore to this day the Federal and state laws, although nearly identical in their text, have different effect.
The Federal court found that the law (the Federal law) covered just those categories specifically listed, and that’s all. Any additions to that list could happen only by later acts of Congress.
The State court interpreted the law (the Unruh Act, the State law) differently: The listed protected categories were just examples of protected classes, and other classes were protected as well. This of course could only raise further dispute about what classes were actually protected. The State courts tended to take an expansive view. The state act didn’t mention gays, but was interpreted (at least as far back as 1985) to protect gays. Nevertheless, the act was amended in 2005 to include sexual orientation explicitly as a protected class.
While that might be true, I’m not sure what it has to do with this. Are you suggesting that was the purpose of the purported questions? And although this is almost certainly not going to turn into a lawsuit, arguments that are so patently ridiculous don’t get far.
Here’s a list of the laws or lack thereof in each state-
Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity-
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Washington DC
Hawaii
Iowa
Illinois
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation-
Deleware
Maryland
New Hampshire
New York
Wisconsin
Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment-
Alaska
Arizona
Missouri
Montana
Ohio
Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in public employment-
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Pennsylvania
States with No Law Prohibiting Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
I was being silly before, obviously, but have scouts been asking these questions for a long time? Or have they STARTED asking such questions in the aftermath of the Mant’i Teo fiasco?
I don’t see how that can stand in light of Romer v. Evans, which overturned just such a law in Colorado.
So they should add “Your girlfriend … have you actually seen her?”
Of course, anyone who skips a top prospect because they don’t like their colour, orientation, religion, whatever risks having an inferior team. What’s more important, a straight team or a winning season?
When I take a moment and step back from all the Gay Marriage debate and Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation, I can’t help but laugh at time, energy, money and sheer hatred that these fucking morons WASTE because of their OBSESSION with the idea of two hot studs going at it like dogs in heat!!! That’s all they talk about, so you know they must think about it constantly as well…and I’ve ever heard them start describing various sex acts and I they start talking louder and louder…they’re not getting angry, they’re getting turned on! They cut away and pan the crowd every few minutes because Rev or Senator Fired Up at the podium needs a moment to readjust, a boner in dress slacks won’t stay put no matter which way you point it…
Cut to Rev Holier than Thou after dellivering his hellfire damnation on those depraved homos in the men’s room, just minding his own business and tapping out some morse code with his shoes…next thing you know, the poor bastard has slipped and fell to his knees and his head slid under the stall next to him which was also in use…and the chances must be one in 10 billion that the guy in the next stall dropped his cock into the Rev’s mouth…repeatedly…