View source for Employment Non-Discrimination Act

{{short description|Legislation proposed in the United States Congress}}
{{Redirect|ENDA|other uses|Enda}}
{{Use American English|date=June 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2012}}
{{LGBT rights}}
The '''Employment Non-Discrimination Act''' ('''ENDA''') is legislation proposed in the [[United States Congress]] that would prohibit [[discrimination]] in hiring and employment on the basis of [[sexual orientation]] or, depending on the version of the bill, [[gender identity]], by employers with at least 15 employees.

ENDA has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 except the [[109th United States Congress|109th]]. Similar legislation has been introduced without passage since 1974.<ref>{{cite web|title=Nondiscrimination legislation historical timeline|url=http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/timeline|publisher=National Gay and Lesbian Task Force|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140524062405/http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/timeline|archive-date=May 24, 2014|access-date=June 17, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> The bill gained its best chance at passing after the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] gained the majority after [[Republican Revolution|twelve years]] of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] majorities in the [[United States elections, 2006|2006 midterm elections.]] In 2007, [[gender identity]] protections were added to the legislation for the first time. Some sponsors believed that even with a Democratic majority, ENDA did not have enough votes to pass the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] with [[transgender]] inclusion and dropped it from the bill, which passed the House and then died in the Senate. President [[George W. Bush]] threatened to veto the measure. LGBT advocacy organizations and the LGBT community were divided over support of the modified bill.

In 2009, following Democratic gains in the [[United States elections, 2008|2008 elections]], and after the divisiveness of the 2007 debate, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] introduced a transgender-inclusive version of ENDA. He introduced it again in 2011, and Senator [[Jeff Merkley]] introduced it in the Senate. On November 7, 2013, Merkley's bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support by a vote of 64–32. President [[Barack Obama]] supported the bill's passage, but the House Rules Committee voted against it.

From 2015 on, LGBT rights advocates moved to support the [[Equality Act (United States)|Equality Act]], a bill with far more comprehensive protections than ENDA.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://transequality.org/blog/the-equality-act-is-the-lgbt-rights-bill-we-want-and-need|title = The Equality Act is the LGBT Rights Bill We Want and Need|date = July 22, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.glaad.org/vote/topics/equality-act|title = The 2016 Election: Know the facts about the Equality Act|date = November 20, 2015}}</ref> The Equality Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity not only in employment, but also housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and jury service.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-equality-act|title=Equality Act NOW|access-date=June 17, 2020|archive-date=August 21, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210821011202/https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-equality-act|url-status=dead}}</ref>

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' that Title VII of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bostock-v-clayton-county-georgia/|title = Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia}}</ref> The ruling was only on employment, like ENDA. LGBT rights advocates welcomed the ruling and called on Congress to pass the Equality Act, noting that as of 2020, 29 states do not have the full protections the Equality Act would provide for the LGBT community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrc.org/news/hrc-supreme-court-is-on-right-side-of-history-for-lgbtq-rights|title=Human Rights Campaign: Supreme Court is on Right Side of History|date=June 15, 2020 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20200615_supreme-court-workplace-protections-lgbtq-employees|title=Victory at Last! Supreme Court Confirms Workplace Protections for LGBTQ Employees}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/06/15/one-colorado-lgbtq-supreme-court/|title=One Colorado Celebrates 'Really Historic Day' & Supreme Court Ruling|date=June 15, 2020}}</ref>

==Evidence of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity==
{{Main|LGBT employment discrimination in the United States}}
In states that have anti-discrimination policies in place, LGBT complaints are equivalent to the number of complaints filed based on sex and fewer than the number of complaints filed based on race.<ref>{{cite web|title=The State of the Workplace: for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Americans|url=http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC_Foundation_State_of_the_Workplace_2007-2008.pdf|publisher=Human Rights Campaign|access-date=December 15, 2013|archive-date=September 9, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130909033917/http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC_Foundation_State_of_the_Workplace_2007-2008.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>Evidence Discrimination based on sexual orientation occurs at a similar rate as sex and race at 4.7 per 10,000, as compared to discrimination based on sex at 5.4 and race at 6.5.</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Ramos|first=Christopher|title=Evidence of Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Complaints Filed with State Enforcement Agencies, 1999–2007|url=http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Sears-Ramos-Emply-Discrim-1999-2007-Nov-08.pdf|publisher=The Williams Institute|access-date=December 16, 2013|archive-date=December 16, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131216184754/http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Sears-Ramos-Emply-Discrim-1999-2007-Nov-08.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> EEOC statistics from 2018 show that 1,811 LGBT complaints were filed.<ref>{{cite web | author=[[U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] | date=2020 | title=LGBT-Based Sex Discrimination Charges | url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/lgbt_sex_based.cfm | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200421003948/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/lgbt_sex_based.cfm | archive-date=2020-04-21}}</ref>

The [[Williams Institute]] estimates the number of LGBT employees as follows: 7 million private sector employees, 1 million state and local employees, and 200,000 employees of the federal government. Thirty percent of state and local LGBT employees live in California and New York. In comparison, less than half of one half of one percent of LGBT state and local employees live in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming combined.<ref>{{cite web|title=Estimates of LGBT Public Employees|date = September 23, 2009|url=http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6cz123ww?display=all|publisher=The Williams Institute|access-date=April 30, 2011|last1 = Sears|first1 = Brad}}</ref> As one might expect, many of the documented complaints of discrimination by state and local governments against LGBT employees are in California and New York. Surveys that seek to document discrimination on the basis of perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity are often conducted with a pool of self identified LGBT people, making it difficult to ascertain the impact of this type of discrimination on non-LGBT individuals.

One source of evidence for [[hiring discrimination]] against openly gay men comes from a field experiment that sent two fictitious but realistic resumes to roughly 1,700 entry-level job openings. The two resumes were very similar in terms of the applicant's qualifications, but one resume for each opening mentioned that the applicant had been part of a gay organization in college. The results showed that applicants without the gay signal had an 11.5 percent chance of being called for an interview; openly gay applicants had only a 7.2 percent chance. The callback gap varied widely according to the location of the job. Most of the overall gap detected in the study was driven by the Southern and Midwestern states in the sample – Texas, Florida, and Ohio. The Western and Northeastern states in the sample (California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New York) had only small and statistically insignificant callback gaps.<ref>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661653 Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586–626.]</ref>

Transgender people may experience higher rates of discrimination than the LGB population. A survey of transgender and gender non-conforming people conducted by the [[National Center for Transgender Equality]] found 90 percent of respondents experienced harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.<ref>{{cite web|last=Grant |first=Jamie M. |title=Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. |url=http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/ntds |publisher=National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006061544/http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/ntds |archive-date=October 6, 2014 }}</ref> In comparison, a review of studies conducted by the Williams Institute in 2007 found that transgender people experienced employment discrimination at a rate of between 15 and 57 percent of the population.<ref>{{cite web|last=Badgette|first=M.V. Lee|url=http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Bias%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf|title=Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination|publisher=The Williams Institute|access-date=December 16, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720073606/http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Bias%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf|archive-date=July 20, 2011|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In a survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 38 percent of LGBT people report incomes less than $35,000, compared to 33 percent of all U.S. adults over age 18.<ref>{{cite web|last=Witeck|first=Bob|title=Ending Employment Discrimination in America: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics About America's LGBT Families|url=http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/11/ending-employment-discrimination-in-america-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-about-americas-lgbt-families.html|access-date=December 16, 2013}}</ref>

==Provisions==
The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of some sexual orientations or gender identity. Sexual orientation is limited to "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality," thereby legalizing discrimination against asexual individuals. Religious organizations are provided an exception, broader than that found in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].<ref name=HuffPo>{{cite news|author=[[Jennifer Bendery]]|title=Gay Rights Groups Pull Support For ENDA Over Sweeping Religious Exemption|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/enda-religious-exemption_n_5568736.html|access-date=16 August 2014|date=8 July 2014}}</ref> Non-profit membership-only clubs, except labor unions, are similarly exempt.

All versions of the bill, irrespective of the military's changing policies with respect to service by open gays and lesbians, have provided an exclusion for the military as an employer of members of the armed forces, though not as an employer of civilians.<ref>103rd Congress: "For purposes of this Act, the term 'employment or employment opportunities' does not apply to the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces."; 112th Congress: "In this Act, the term 'employment' does not apply to the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces."</ref>

Since the 111th Congress, the legislation has included language to prevent any reading of the law as a modification of the federal definition of marriage established in the Defense of Marriage Act (1995).<ref>111th and 112th Congresses: "In this Act, the term 'married' refers to marriage as such term is defined in section 7 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the 'Defense of Marriage Act')."</ref> Since the 110th Congress, a related provision aimed at non-marital legal relations like civil unions and domestic partnerships prevents requiring an employer to treat unmarried and married couples similarly.<ref>112th Congress: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a covered entity to treat an unmarried couple in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits."</ref>

==Legislative activity==

[[File:S 2056 - Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996 - Senate vote.svg|thumb|400px|right|Senate vote on '''Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996'''.<ref>[http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/7760#.UWKgfFezf78 S 2056 – Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996 – Voting Record]</ref>
{{legend|#000080|Both yes}}
{{legend|#0066FF|One yes, one didn't vote}}
{{legend|#D42AFF|One yes, one no}}
{{legend|#800000|Both no}}]]

On May 14, 1974, Reps. [[Bella Abzug]] (D-NY) and [[Ed Koch]] (D-NY) introduced {{USBill|93|H.R.|14752}}, an "Equality Act" which would have added "sex, marital status or sexual orientation" to the protected classes specified in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], thus prohibiting discrimination in employment and access to public accommodations and facilities.<ref>(October 13, 2007) [http://www.stonewallvets.org/BellaAbzug.htm U.S. Congressmember Bella S. Abzug] Stonewall.org. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> The bill died in June 1974 but [[Equality Act (United States)|a similarly named bill]] would later be introduced in the [[115th United States Congress]] on May 2, 2017.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://njtoday.net/2017/05/04/equality-act-reintroduced-congress-unprecedented-corporate-support/|title=Equality Act Reintroduced in Congress with Unprecedented Corporate Support|author=Staff Report|date=2017-05-04|website=njtoday.net|access-date=2017-07-29|archive-date=July 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729195503/http://njtoday.net/2017/05/04/equality-act-reintroduced-congress-unprecedented-corporate-support/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In the early 1990s, supporters of the legislation decided to focus on employment. Rep. [[Gerry Studds]] introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on June 23, 1994.<ref>[Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 2d Session, 140 Cong. Rec. E 1311; Vol. 140 No. 81 (June 23, 1994).]</ref> The legislation failed in 1994 and 1995.<ref>Wendland, Joel. (April 9, 2007) [http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/ANewBeginningforENDA.html A New Beginning for ENDA] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080125092049/http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/ANewBeginningforENDA.html |date=January 25, 2008 }} The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> In 1996, the bill failed on a 49–50 vote in the Senate and was not voted on in the House.<ref>Bull, Chris. (May 13, 1997) [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n733/ai_19736014 No ENDA in sight – Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1996] The Advocate. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref><ref>Manley, Roslyn. (June 17, 2003) [http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=740 New "Unified" Bill to Replace ENDA: A Left Coast Perspective] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040217180400/http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=740 |date=February 17, 2004 }} TG Crossroads. Accessed October 20, 2007; ''MetroWeekly'': [http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6567 Chris Geidner, "Double Defeat," September 15, 2011], accessed February 10, 2012</ref> Massachusetts Senator [[Ted Kennedy|Edward Kennedy]] "believed that other senators looking for 'cover' on their vote in favor of [[Defense of Marriage Act|DOMA]] might be more inclined to support ENDA."<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Socarides |first=Richard |date=2013-11-05 |title=Kennedy's ENDA: A Seventeen-Year Gay-Rights Fight |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kennedys-enda-a-seventeen-year-gay-rights-fight |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105220635/https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kennedys-enda-a-seventeen-year-gay-rights-fight |archive-date=2024-01-05 |access-date=2024-01-05 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref> Early versions of ENDA did not include provisions to protect [[transgender]] people from discrimination<ref>{{USBill|110|HR|3685}}</ref> and ENDA was not introduced in the 109th Congress.

[[Image:United ENDA press conference.jpg|thumb|left|The "United ENDA" coalition protests the removal of gender identity from the 2007 bill at [[San Francisco City Hall]].]]

===110th Congress===

[[File:HR 3685 - Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) - House of Representatives vote.svg|thumb|400px|right|House vote on '''Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007''' by congressional district.<ref>[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/h1057 H.R. 3685 (110th): Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (On Passage of the Bill)]</ref>
{{legend|#000080|Democratic aye}}
{{legend|#FF5050|Republican aye}}
{{legend|#C8C8C8|Abstention or no representative seated}}
{{legend|#5050FF|Democratic no}}
{{legend|#800000|Republican no}}]]

In the [[110th United States Congress]] there were two versions of the bill, both of which provided employment protections similar to Title VII of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].<ref name=cra64>{{Cite web |url=http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 |title=Civil Rights Act of 1964 |access-date=October 2, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101021141154/http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 |archive-date=October 21, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Reps. [[Barney Frank]], [[Chris Shays]], [[Tammy Baldwin]], and [[Deborah Pryce]] introduced {{USBill|110|H.R.|2015}} on April 24, 2007. It included [[gender identity]] within its protections. It defined gender identity as "gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth." It allowed employers to require adherence "to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning."<ref>Weiss, Jillian Todd. (April 26, 2007) [https://perma.cc/N2W2-TJ89 The text of ENDA] Transgender Workplace Diversity Blog. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref>

When that bill died in committee, Frank introduced {{USBill|110|H.R.|3685}} on September 27, 2007, which did not include gender identity and contained exemptions concerning employer dress codes. It was endorsed by the Education and Labor Committee on October 18 and the House of Representatives passed it on November 7, 2007, by a vote of 235 to 184, with 14 members not voting.<ref>[http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml Final Vote Results For HR 3685]</ref> Frank introduced a separate piece of legislation to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of gender identity.<ref>Eleveld, Kerry. (September 29, 2007) [http://www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=41128 "ENDA to Be Separated Into Two Bills: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity"] ''The Advocate''. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref>

Some LGBT activist organizations refused to support H.R. 3685 because of its failure to cover gender identity.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/ENDA_oct1_letter |title=ENDA October 1 Letter &#124; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force |access-date=2007-10-11 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509124722/http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/ENDA_oct1_letter |archive-date=May 9, 2008 }}</ref><ref>http://nosubstitutes.org {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071010191400/http://nosubstitutes.org/ |date=October 10, 2007 }}</ref> An exception was the [[Human Rights Campaign]], which received wide criticism from the LGBT community for supporting a non-inclusive ENDA.<ref>{{cite news |last=Schindler |first=Paul |date=October 4, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080409024947/http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18883568&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6 |url=http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18883568&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6 |archive-date=April 9, 2008 |title=HRC Alone in Eschewing No-Compromise Stand |newspaper=Gay City News |access-date=December 17, 2013}}</ref> The LGBT activist organizations that refused to support H.R. 3685 argued that not including transgender people undermined the underlying principle of ENDA.<ref>{{cite news |title=A Moment of Truth |first=Nadine |last=Smith |url=http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/a_moment_of_truth.php |newspaper=The Bilerico Project |date=September 29, 2007 |access-date=March 22, 2012 |archive-date=February 8, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208131424/http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/a_moment_of_truth.php |url-status=dead }}</ref> They claimed that failure to include gender identity/expression weakened the protection for the portion of the LGBT population that most needed its protections: gender non-conforming people, who they claimed are discriminated against in greater numbers than their gender-conforming compatriots.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013 |title=Employment Non-Discrimination Act |url=https://www.aclu.org/cases/employment-non-discrimination-act |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105221131/https://www.aclu.org/cases/employment-non-discrimination-act |archive-date=2024-01-05 |access-date=2024-01-05 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}}</ref> Moreover, groups such as the [[National LGBTQ Task Force]], among others,<ref>{{Cite news |last=O'Keefe |first=Ed |date=2021-11-26 |title=Gay rights groups withdraw support of ENDA after Hobby Lobby decision |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/07/08/gay-rights-group-withdrawing-support-of-enda-after-hobby-lobby-decision/ |access-date=2024-01-05 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> later withdrew support in 2014 due to the ENDA's broad religious exemptions.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Op-ed: Why One of the Biggest LGBT Orgs Has Stopped Supporting ENDA |url=https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/07/08/op-ed-why-one-biggest-lgbt-orgs-has-stopped-supporting-enda |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105222031/https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/07/08/op-ed-why-one-biggest-lgbt-orgs-has-stopped-supporting-enda |archive-date=2024-01-05 |access-date=2024-01-05 |website=www.advocate.com |language=en}}</ref> Others argued that this was ENDA's best chance of passing Congress in thirty years, that civil rights victories have historically been incremental, that concerns about the legislation's protections were unfounded, and that forgoing a chance to provide immediate workplace protections to millions of lesbians, gays and bisexuals was politically and morally wrong.<ref>{{cite news |title=How did the T get in LGBT? |first=John |last=Aravosis |url=http://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/singleton |newspaper=[[Salon.com]] |date=October 8, 2007 |access-date=March 22, 2012}}</ref>

===111th Congress===
On June 24, 2009, Frank introduced {{USBill|111|H.R.|3017}} to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,<ref name="advocate.com">[http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid93114.asp Frank Introduces Trans-Inclusive ENDA|News|Advocate.com:]</ref> with 114 original cosponsors, up from 62 cosponsors for the trans-inclusive bill of 2007."<ref name="advocate.com"/> The lead Republican cosponsor was Rep. [[Ileana Ros-Lehtinen]] (R-FL).<ref name="wblade06-17">{{cite news |last=Johnson |first=Chris |title=Pro-LGBT Republican endorses Romney |work=[[Washington Blade]] |date=November 30, 2011 |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/11/30/pro-lgbt-republican-endorses-romney/ |access-date=June 25, 2009}}</ref> [[Republican Main Street Partnership]] members [[Mark Kirk]] (R-IL), [[Mike Castle]] (R-DE), [[Todd Russell Platts]] (R-PA), [[Judy Biggert]] (R-IL), and [[Leonard Lance]] (R-NJ) were among the original cosponsors.<ref>[https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/2015/cosponsors Cosponsors - H.R.2015 - 110th Congress (2007-2008): Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007]</ref> The bill was referred to the [[United States House Committee on Education and the Workforce|House Education and Labor Committee]], which held a hearing on the legislation on September 23, 2009.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bilerico.com/2009/09/congressional_hearing_on_enda_great_success.php |publisher=Bilerico.com |title=Congressional hearing on ENDA: great success! |access-date=November 10, 2009 |archive-date=September 26, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090926194128/http://www.bilerico.com/2009/09/congressional_hearing_on_enda_great_success.php |url-status=dead }}</ref> At the end of the 111th Congress, H.R. 3017 had 203 cosponsors in the House.<!--, on 3/3/10, 192 Democrats and 6 Republicans --><ref>[https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3017/cosponsors Cosponsors - H.R.3017 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009]</ref>

On August 5, 2009, Sen. [[Jeff Merkley]] introduced ENDA legislation ({{USBill|111|S.|1584}}) that included gender identity,<ref name=Thomas1584>{{USBill|111|S.|1584|pipe=S.1584 - Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009}}</ref> with 38 original cosponsors including Sens. [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-MA), [[Susan Collins]] (R-ME), [[Olympia Snowe]] (R-ME) and [[Chris Dodd]] (D-CT).<ref>{{cite web|title=Merkley, Collins, Kennedy, Snowe Introduce Legislation To End Workplace Discrimination, August 5, 2009|url=http://www.merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=4EC04C19-3A3D-465A-A2A0-FA605C57AAAF|publisher=U.S. Senate|access-date=October 6, 2012|archive-date=October 10, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121010141842/http://www.merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=4ec04c19-3a3d-465a-a2a0-fa605c57aaaf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Sen. Merkley said "It's certainly possible that this could be passed by year's end, though the [congressional] schedule is very crowded."<ref name="Advocate08-05">{{cite news |last=Harmon |first=Andrew |title=ENDA Possible by Year's End |work=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]] |date=August 5, 2009 |url=http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid103460.asp |access-date=August 5, 2009}} As Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Merkley successfully managed the enactment of Oregon's state version of ENDA, the [[Oregon Equality Act]]. {{cite news |title=Senator Jeff Merkley Introduces the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) |first=Kristin |last=Teigen |url=http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/08/senator-merkley-introduces-the-employment-nondiscrimination-act-enda/ |newspaper=BlueOregon |publisher=Mandate Media |date=August 5, 2009 |access-date=March 22, 2012}}</ref>

The U.S. Senate [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee]] held a hearing on the legislation on November 5, 2009.<ref>{{cite web|date=June 12, 2012|title=Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Ensuring Opportunity for All Americans|url=http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_11_05/2009_11_05.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091103213535/http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_11_05/2009_11_05.html|archive-date=November 3, 2009|work=Washington Blade|publisher=U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Before the hearing, Sen. Merkley spoke at a press conference alongside two transgender women, Diane Schroer and Earline Budd. However, no transgender witnesses testified at the Senate hearing.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Colletta|first=Jen|date=2009-11-12|title=ENDA comes before Senate committee|url=https://epgn.com/2009/11/12/4445863-enda-comes-before-senate-committee/|access-date=2020-06-20|website=Philadelphia Gay News|language=en-US}}</ref> As of March 13, 2010, S. 1584 had 45 co-sponsors and was pending before the HELP committee.<ref name="Thomas1584" />

===112th Congress===
On April 6, 2011, Frank introduced an ENDA bill ({{USBill|112|H.R.|1397}}) in the House to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.<ref name="MetroWeekly 4-6-11">{{cite web|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=ENDA Introduced – With 92 Fewer Co-Sponsors Than at the End of the 111th Congress|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/enda-introduced----with-92-few.html|work=MetroWeekly|access-date=April 7, 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110408023435/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/enda-introduced----with-92-few.html|archive-date=April 8, 2011|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

On April 14, 2011, Sen. [[Jeff Merkley]] introduced an ENDA bill ({{USBill|112|S|811}}) in the Senate.<ref name="merkleypr112">{{cite web|publisher=Office of Senator [[Jeff Merkley]]|url=http://merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=4CE98436-CD2B-445E-9E94-FCCF12B77C69|title=Merkley, Kirk, Harkin, Collins Introduce Legislation to End Workplace Discrimination|access-date=April 14, 2011|archive-date=April 25, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110425005755/http://merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=4CE98436-CD2B-445E-9E94-FCCF12B77C69|url-status=dead}}</ref> The bill had 39 original cosponsors. On June 19, 2012, the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions]] held a hearing on the bill, the first such hearing to include testimony by a transgender witness.<ref>{{cite news|last=Johnson|first=Chris|title=Trans advocate testifies before Senate on ENDA|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/06/12/trans-advocate-testifies-before-senate-on-enda/|access-date=October 6, 2012}}</ref>

[[File:ENDA Senate vote 2013.svg|thumb|left|400px|Senate vote on the '''Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013'''.<ref name="2013 roll call" /> {{legend|#000080|Both yes}}{{legend|#0066FF|One yes, one didn't vote}}{{legend|#D42AFF|One yes, one no}}{{legend|#FF6600|One no, one didn't vote}}{{legend|#800000|Both no}}]]

===113th Congress===
{{wikisource|Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (H.R. 1755; 113th Congress)}}
On April 25, 2013, Representative [[Jared Polis]] (D-CO) introduced an ENDA bill in the House ({{USBill|113|H.R.|1755}}) and Senator [[Jeff Merkley]] (D-OR) introduced an ENDA bill in the Senate ({{USBill|113|S.|815}}).<ref>{{cite news|last=Benen|first=Steve|author-link=Steve Benen|title=ENDA introduced with bipartisan backing|url=http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/25/17915739-enda-introduced-with-bipartisan-backing?lite|access-date=April 25, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602104528/http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/25/17915739-enda-introduced-with-bipartisan-backing?lite|archive-date=June 2, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref>

On July 10, 2013, the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee]] approved ENDA by a 15–7 vote. Senator [[Lamar Alexander]] (R-TN) announced he would offer three amendments when the Senate takes up the measure.<ref name="Senate20130710">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/07/10/historic-senate-panel-advances-trans-inclusive-enda/|title=Senate panel advances trans-inclusive ENDA|date=July 10, 2013|publisher=Washington Blade}}</ref>

A [[cloture]] vote succeeded in the Senate on November 4, 2013, with 61 voting in favor and 30 against, allowing the Senate to schedule a vote.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/10/31/reid-sets-senate-vote-monday-enda/|title=Reid sets up Senate vote Monday for ENDA|publisher=Washington Blade|date=October 31, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/dean-heller-enda-legislation-99309.html|title=Gay rights advances in Senate |publisher=Politico|date=November 4, 2013}}</ref> Republican Senators [[Kelly Ayotte]] (NH), [[Susan Collins]] (ME), [[Orrin Hatch]] (UT), [[Dean Heller]] (NV), [[Mark Kirk]] (IL), [[Rob Portman]] (OH), and [[Pat Toomey]] (PA) voted for cloture,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/11/04/enda_prevails_in_the_senate_61_30.html|title=ENDA Prevails in the Senate, 61-30|publisher=Slate|date=November 4, 2013}}</ref> joining 52 of 53 Democratic senators and both independent senators.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00229|title=Roll Call Vote On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 815)|website=United States Senate|access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref> Senators [[Claire McCaskill]] (D-MO) and [[Lisa Murkowski]] (R-AK) supported the legislation, but were unable to attend the cloture vote.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/enda-vote_n_4214682.html|title=ENDA Vote: Senate Clears Major Hurdle On Bill Barring LGBT Workplace Discrimination|last=Terkel|first=Amanda|website=[[The Huffington Post]]|date=November 4, 2013 |access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/11/04/breaking-senate-passes-enda-procedural-vote|title=Senate Passes ENDA on Procedural Vote|last=Brydum|first=Sunnivie|website=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]] |date=November 4, 2013|access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref>

After rejecting by a vote of 43–55 an amendment by Senator Toomey to expand the religious exemptions<ref name="Advocate-11-07">{{cite web|url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/11/07/breaking-senate-approves-enda-initial-vote|title=Senate Approves ENDA|last=Brydum|first=Sunnivie|website=The Advocate|date=November 7, 2013|access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref> and accepting by unanimous [[voice vote]] an amendment by Senator Portman to prevent government retaliation against religious institutions,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/189434-senate-adopts-amendment-to-enda-aimed-at-protecting-churches/|title=Senate adopts ENDA amendment designed to protect churches|last=Cox|first=Ramsey|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|date=November 6, 2013|access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref> the Senate approved ENDA on November 7, 2013, on a 64–32 vote.<ref name="2013 roll call">{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00232|title=Roll Call Vote On Passage of the Bill (S. 815 As Amended) |website=United States Senate|access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/us/politics/senate-moves-to-final-vote-on-workplace-gay-bias-ban.html?hp|title=Senate Approves Ban on Antigay Bias in Workplace |last=Peters|first=Jeremy W.|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=November 7, 2013|access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref> Arizona Republicans [[Jeff Flake]] and [[John McCain]] unexpectedly<ref name="Advocate-11-07"/> joined Sen. Murkowski and the seven Republicans who had supported three days earlier. Both independents and 52 of 53 Democrats again supported the measure, with McCaskill present but Pennsylvania Senator [[Bob Casey, Jr.|Bob Casey]], who supported the bill's passage,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/casey-statement-on-senate-enda-vote|title=Casey Statement on Senate ENDA Vote|publisher=casey.senate.gov|date=November 7, 2013|access-date=November 7, 2013}}</ref> absent.

In the House, on September 17, 2014, Representative Polis filed a [[discharge petition]], that, if signed by a majority of the House membership, would force a vote on the version of ENDA with a narrow religious exemption.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=Chris|title=Discharge petition filed for ENDA with narrowed religious exemption |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/09/17/discharge-petition-filed-enda-narrowed-religious-exemption/ |access-date=September 22, 2014|work=Washington Blade|date=September 17, 2014}}</ref> By September 22, it had been endorsed by 190 of the 218 that constitute a majority.<ref>U.S. House of Representatives [http://clerk.house.gov/113/lrc/pd/petitions/DisPet0011.xml Motion to Discharge a Committee from the Consideration of a Resolution], accessed September 22, 2014</ref> On December 3, 2014, 6 of the 8 Republican co-sponsors asked House Speaker [[John Boehner]] to allow a vote on the legislation "as part of any available legislative vehicle including the [[National Defense Authorization Act]]" before the end of the 113th Congress.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Snow |first1=Justin |title=House Republicans urge Boehner to allow ENDA vote |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/12/house-republicans-urge-boehner-to-allow-enda-vote/|access-date=December 3, 2014 |work=Metro Weekly|date=December 3, 2014}}</ref> Later that day, the [[United States House Committee on Rules|House Rules Committee]] voted 7 to 3 against adding ENDA as an amendment to the 2015 defense authorization bill.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Chris|title=House panel rejects last-ditch effort to pass ENDA |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/12/03/house-panel-rejects-last-ditch-panel-pass-enda/|access-date=December 3, 2014 |work=Washington Blade|date=December 3, 2014}}</ref>

===114th Congress onwards===
From the [[114th United States Congress|114th Congress]] onwards, efforts to pass non-discrimination legislation has focused on the broader [[Equality Act (United States)|Equality Act]] which focuses on additional protections including in housing and the jury system as well as employment.

==Arguments==

===In favor of ENDA===
Political proponents of the law intend it to address cases where [[gay]], [[lesbian]], [[bisexual]], and [[transgender]] employees have been discriminated against by their employers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, these employees are unable to find protection in the courts because sexual orientation is not considered to be a [[suspect class]] by the [[United States federal courts|federal courts]] and by many U.S. states. Proponents argue that such a law is appropriate in light of the [[United States Constitution]]'s guarantees of [[equal protection]] and [[due process]] to all. Advocates argue that homosexuality is not a "choice" but a personal identity, a claim supported by the [[American Psychological Association]] (APA), and that all working people have a right to be judged by the quality of their work performance and not by completely unrelated factors.<ref name= APA_ENDA>[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/employment-nondiscrimination.aspx# Examining the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA): The Scientists Perspective] American Psychological Association. Accessed May 22, 2010.</ref> According to a study published in 2001 by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, reports of discrimination based on sexual orientation are roughly equal to those on race or gender.<ref>Rubenstein, William B. (January 30, 2002) [http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/programs/dogayrightslawsmatter.pdf Do Gay Rights Laws Matter?: An Empirical Assessment] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100625003440/http://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/programs/dogayrightslawsmatter.pdf |date=June 25, 2010 }} The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> The APA also states that there is significant discrimination against homosexual people in the workforce.<ref name= APA_ENDA/>

The Congressional Budget Office in 2002 estimated that the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]'s complaint caseload would rise by 5 to 7% as a result of the proposed law.<ref>(April 24, 2002) [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3527&amp;sequence=0 CBO Cost Estimate: S. 1284 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2002] Congressional Budget Office. Accessed October 20, 2007.</ref> Assessments of the impact of comparable state policies also show a minimal impact on caseload.<ref>{{cite web|title=Employment Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People in Oklahoma|url=http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Policy-Discrimination-index.html|work=The Williams Institute|access-date=May 1, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110320004612/http://www2.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Policy-Discrimination-index.html|archive-date=March 20, 2011|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Regarding constitutionality, the act incorporates language similar to that of [[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]],<ref name=cra64/> which has consistently been upheld by the courts.

In 1994, [[Barry Goldwater]], a hero among the [[conservative]] and [[libertarian]] movements, became honorary chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.<ref>{{cite news|title=Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=November 2, 2013|date=June 5, 1998}}</ref>

===In opposition to ENDA===
Ed Vitagliano, director of research for the [[American Family Association]] (AFA), expressed concern about the impact of anti-discrimination laws on religious organizations. He cited a lack of clarity around whether the narrow exemption would apply to support staff and lay employees in addition to churches and clergy.<ref name="Vitagliano">{{cite web|last=Vitagliano|first=Ed|title=How ENDA Could Begin an Uncivil War|url=http://www.afajournal.org/0907ENDA.asp|work=American Family Association Journal|access-date=April 30, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511233900/http://www.afajournal.org/0907ENDA.asp|archive-date=May 11, 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] (TVC) has claimed that the legislation would have a negative impact on school children by eliminating schools' ability to avoid hiring transgender teachers. It said that "If ENDA passes, students and children in daycare centers all across the nation will be subjected to individuals experimenting with their gender identities."<ref>{{cite web|title=ENDA Hurts Kids: The Impact on Classrooms|url=http://traditionalvalues.org/data/sites/73/pdfs/_WPapers/070713_TVCELI_ENDA2013_FINAL.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210211195922/http://traditionalvalues.org/data/sites/73/pdfs/_WPapers/070713_TVCELI_ENDA2013_FINAL.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 11, 2021|website=TVC Education & Legal Institute|publisher=Traditional Values Coalition|access-date=July 7, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Some [[Libertarianism|libertarians]] argue that laws against private sector discrimination are acts of [[coercion]] that infringe on employers' [[property rights]] and [[freedom of association]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Context Matters: A Better Libertarian Approach to Antidiscrimination Law|url=http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06/16/david-bernstein/context-matters-a-better-libertarian-approach-to-antidiscrimination-law/|work=Cato Unbound|date=June 16, 2010|access-date=December 12, 2012}}</ref>

The [[United States Conference of Catholic Bishops]] said ENDA goes beyond prohibiting unjust discrimination and poses several problems. It notes, for example, that the bill: (1) lacks an exception for a "[[bona fide occupational qualification]]," which exists for every other category of discrimination under [[Civil Rights Act 1964#Title VII|Title VII of the Civil Rights Act]], except for race; (2) lacks a distinction between [[homosexuality|homosexual inclination]] and [[Same-sex relationship#Same-sex sexuality|conduct]], thus affirming and protecting extramarital sexual conduct; (3) supports the redefinition of marriage, as state-level laws like ENDA have been invoked in state court decisions finding marriage discriminatory or irrational; (4) rejects the biological basis of gender by defining "[[gender identity]]" as something people may choose at variance with their [[biological sex]]; and (5) threatens [[religious liberty]] by punishing as discrimination the religious or moral disapproval of same-sex sexual conduct, while protecting only some religious employers.<ref>{{cite web|title=Questions and Answers About the Employee Non-Discrimination Act|url=http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/labor-employment/upload/enda-backgrounder-2013.pdf|work=United States Conference of Catholic Bishops|access-date=November 4, 2013}}</ref>

In June and July 2014, several pro-LGBT advocacy groups, including the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[National Center for Lesbian Rights]], [[National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]], [[Transgender Law Center]], and [[Lambda Legal]], announced they were withdrawing support for the 113th Congress version of ENDA because of their concerns about the breadth of its religious exemption in relation to the ruling in ''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.]]''.<ref name="MyUser_The_Huffington_Post_July_13_2015c">{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/enda-religious-exemption_n_5568736.html |title=Gay Rights Groups Pull Support For ENDA Over Sweeping Religious Exemption |last1=Bendery |first1=Jennifer |newspaper=The Huffington Post |date= July 8, 2014 |access-date= July 13, 2015}}</ref>

==Legislative history==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Congress
! Short title
! Bill number(s)
! Gender identity included?
! Date introduced
! Sponsor(s)
! # of cosponsors
! Latest status
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[103rd Congress]]
| rowspan=2 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994
| {{USBill|103|H.R.|4636}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| June 23, 1994
| [[Gerry Studds]]<br />(D-MA)
| 137
| Died in the House Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights
|-
| {{USBill|103|S.|2238}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| July 29, 1994
| [[Ted Kennedy]]<br />(D-MA)
| 30
| Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
|-
| rowspan=3 | [[104th Congress]]
| rowspan=3 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1995
| {{USBill|104|H.R.|1863}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| June 15, 1995
| [[Gerry Studds]]<br />(D-MA)
| 142
| Died in the [[United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties|House Subcommittee on the Constitution]]
|-
| {{USBill|104|S.|932}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| June 15, 1995
| [[Jim Jeffords]]<br />(R-VT)
| 30
| Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
|-
| {{USBill|104|S.|2056}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| September 5, 1996
| [[Ted Kennedy]]<br />(D-MA)
| 3
| Failed in Senate (49–50)
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[105th Congress]]
| rowspan=2 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997
| {{USBill|105|H.R.|1858}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| June 10, 1997
| [[Christopher Shays]]<br />(R-CT)
| 140
| Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations
|-
| {{USBill|105|S.|869}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| June 10, 1997
| [[Jim Jeffords]]<br />(R-VT)
| 34
| Died in the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources]]
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[106th Congress]]
| rowspan=2 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999
| {{USBill|106|H.R.|2355}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| June 24, 1999
| [[Christopher Shays]]<br />(R-CT)
| 173
| Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations
|-
| {{USBill|106|S.|1276}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| June 24, 1999
| [[Jim Jeffords]]<br />(R-VT)
| 36
| Died in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[107th Congress]]
| Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2001
| {{USBill|107|H.R.|2692}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| July 31, 2001
| [[Christopher Shays]]<br />(R-CT)
| 193
| Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations
|-
| Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2002
| {{USBill|107|S.|1284}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| July 31, 2001
| [[Ted Kennedy]]<br />(D-MA)
| 44
| Died in the Senate
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[108th Congress]]
| rowspan=2 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003
| {{USBill|108|H.R.|3285}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| October 8, 2003
| [[Christopher Shays]]<br />(R-CT)
| 180
| Died in the [[United States House Education Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions|House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations]]
|-
| {{USBill|108|S.|1705}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| October 2, 2003
| [[Ted Kennedy]]<br />(D-MA)
| 43
| Died in the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions]]
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[110th Congress]]
| rowspan=2 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007
| {{USBill|110|H.R.|2015}}
| style="text-align: center" | Yes
| April 24, 2007
| [[Barney Frank]]<br />(D-MA)
| 184
| Died in the [[United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties|House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties]]
|-
| {{USBill|110|H.R.|3685}}
| style="text-align: center" | No
| September 27, 2007
| [[Barney Frank]]<br />(D-MA)
| 9
| Passed the House (235–184), died in the Senate
|-
| rowspan=3 | [[111th Congress]]
| rowspan=3 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009
| {{USBill|111|H.R.|3017}}
| style="text-align:center" | Yes
| June 24, 2009
| [[Barney Frank]]<br />(D-MA)
| 203
| Died in the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|Judiciary]], [[United States House Committee on House Administration|House Administration]], [[United States House Committee on Education and Labor|Education and Labor]], and [[United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform|Oversight and Government Reform]] committees. Hearings held September 23, 2009 in [[United States House Committee on Education and Labor|Education and Labor]] committee.
|-
| {{USBill|111|H.R.|2981}}
| style="text-align: center" | Yes
| June 19, 2009
| [[Barney Frank]]<br />(D-MA)
| 12
| Died in the [[United States House Judiciary Committee|House Judiciary Committee]]
|-
| {{USBill|111|S.|1584}}
| style="text-align:center" | Yes
| August 5, 2009
| [[Jeff Merkley]]<br />(D-OR)
| 45
| Died in the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee]] Hearings held November 5, 2009.
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[112th Congress]]
| rowspan=2 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2011
| {{USBill|112|H.R.|1397}}
| style="text-align: center" | Yes
| April 6, 2011
| [[Barney Frank]]<br />(D-MA)
| 171
| Died in the [[United States House Committee on Education and the Workforce|Education and the Workforce]], [[United States House Committee on House Administration|House Administration]], [[United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform|Oversight and Government Reform]], and [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|Judiciary]] committees.
|-
| {{USBill|112|S|811}}
| style="text-align: center" | Yes
| April 14, 2011
| [[Jeff Merkley]]<br />(D-OR)
| 43
| Died in the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions]] committee. Hearings held June 12, 2012.
|-
| rowspan=2 | [[113th Congress]]
| rowspan=2 | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013
| {{USBill|113|H.R.|1755}}
| style="text-align: center" | Yes
| April 25, 2013
| [[Jared Polis]]<br />(D-CO)
| 205
| Referred to the [[United States House Committee on Education and the Workforce|Education and the Workforce]], [[United States House Committee on House Administration|House Administration]], [[United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform|Oversight and Government Reform]], and [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|Judiciary]] committees.
|-
| | {{USBill|113|S.|815}}
| style="text-align: center" | Yes
| April 25, 2013
| [[Jeff Merkley]]<br />(D-OR)
| 56
| Passed in Senate (64–32), died in the House.
|}

From the [[114th United States Congress|114th Congress]] onwards, efforts to pass non-discrimination legislation has focused on the broader [[Equality Act (United States)|Equality Act]] which focuses on additional protections including in housing and the jury system as well as employment.

==See also==
* [[Equality Act (United States)|Equality Act]]

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017 H.R. 3017: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 on GovTrack]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070831132952/http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/enda.asp A page on ENDA on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, endorsing ENDA]
* [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/employment-nondiscrimination.aspx A scientific examination of ENDA by the American Psychological Association]
* [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=78-032 Transcript of the 2002 Senate Hearings on ENDA]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070928105511/http://www.ahrf.org/Portals/0/ENDA.pdf A 2005 analysis by the Arizona Human Rights Foundation discusses ENDA's history, the corporate response to it, religious issues and gender identity inclusion issues]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20071118134458/http://campusprogress.org/opinions/2188/infighting-enda A Campus Progress debate about ENDA and gender-identity protections.]
* [http://www.eeocoffice.com Directory of EEOC and state anti-employment discrimination agencies]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/yc/churchlawtaxupdate/themeploymentnondiscrimact.html The Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 by Richard R. Hammar]
* [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40934.pdf Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination in Employment: A Legal Analysis of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)] [[Congressional Research Service]]
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=deborah_cook The Employment Non-Discrimination Act: An Argument for H.R. 3685 by Deborah L. Cook] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402125917/http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=deborah_cook |date=April 2, 2015 }}

{{LGBTQ rights in the United States}}

[[Category:United States proposed federal LGBTQ legislation]]
[[Category:United States proposed federal labor legislation]]
[[Category:Proposed legislation of the 110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Proposed legislation of the 111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:2009 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:2007 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:LGBTQ rights in the United States]]
[[Category:Employment discrimination]]
[[Category:Anti-discrimination law in the United States]]
[[Category:Transgender law in the United States]]
[[Category:Proposed legislation of the 112th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Proposed legislation of the 113th United States Congress]]