Between the Southern Comfort Conference last September and today, the HRC’s public position on ENDA has gone from opposing any version of ENDA wasn’t fully inclusive with transgender/real or perceived gender protections, to fully supporting ENDA without transgender/real or perceived gender protections.

Here’s how the position as changed:

1. Here is where Executive Director Joe Solmonese states at the Southern Comfort Conference this past September that the HRC will oppose any version of ENDA that doesn’t include protection for transgender people:

a href=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8Cw”>the HRC will oppose any version of ENDA that doesn’t include protection for transgender people:

2. Here is the press release where the HRC said:

“Since 2004, HRC has had in place a policy that supports only a fully inclusive version of ENDA and the Board of Directors voted to reaffirm that position,” Solmonese continued.  “Therefore, we are not able to support, nor will we encourage Members of Congress to vote against, the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill.”

3. The HRC, in a letter out this morning, stated that they now support H.R. 3685, without transgender/perceived gender protections.

[Full text of the letter sent to congressional representatives after the break]

November 6, 2007

Dear Representative:

We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our support for
H.R. 3685, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007″ (ENDA). ENDA would prevent most employers from firing, refusing to hire, or denying a promotion to any worker on the basis of sexual orientation. In doing so, this legislation represents a major step forward in the advancement of civil rights protections for all Americans, and would bring federal law closer in line with highly-successful policies that already exist in a number of states and corporate environments.

Arriving at a position in support of H.R. 3685 has been extraordinarily difficult for our organizations. As you may know, earlier this year, Congress introduced - with our enthusiastic support - H.R. 2015, a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of not only sexual orientation, but also gender identity. Out of concern that Congress as a whole may not yet have the political will to pass the fully-inclusive version of ENDA, the House leadership reluctantly decided to pursue a narrower bill, one that would advance protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees, but would not include employees whose gender identity leaves them especially vulnerable to employment discrimination.

We continue to believe that H.R. 2015 is a far better approach.  While it is beyond dispute that H.R. 3685 would improve protections for employees who might otherwise face unjust discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is also beyond dispute that transgender employees are particularly in need of those protections.  They face far more pervasive and severe bias in the workplace and society as a whole.  While transgender employees may in some cases be protected under Title VII, they otherwise have little relief under existing state laws, municipal ordinances, or private employment policies.

As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans.  From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature.  With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs.  We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future. With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.

While we are greatly disappointed that the current version of ENDA is not fully-inclusive, our sense of frustration in this case is directed at those who would clearly prefer to see no one from the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community protected at all. We know the decision to pursue a narrower strategy was a very difficult one, and we appreciate the steadfast efforts of our Congressional allies over the years to advance the rights of all Americans - even when they are forced at times to make progress that is measured by inches rather than yards.

As such, we urge you to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and to oppose any floor amendments or motions that would undermine its protections. If you have any questions, or need any further information please feel free to contact LCCR Vice President and Director of Public Policy Nancy Zirkin at (202) 263-2880 or Rob Randhava, LCCR Counsel, at 202-466-6058. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees
Human Rights Campaign
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

(emphasis added)

News organizations confirming that the HRC letter is accurate include 365Gay, and Gay City News.  Gay City News wrote about this HRC change of heart, writing:

Breaking its month-long posture of nuanced neutrality, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) today endorsed the revised version of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act that provides protections for gay and lesbian Americans but does not include language barring bias based on gender identity and expression.

Transgender activists are already beginning to express outrage over this recent development.  Former HRC Steering Committee Member Kathy Padilla, wrote a letter this morning to Philadelphia activists — specifically referencing a recent conversation the activists had with Joe Solmonese:

Dear Friends:

It is with great sadness and disillusionment that I’m forced to send the following note. All of us entered into a discussion recently with HRC, in what we thought was good faith. They assured us that they did not support a non-inclusive ENDA & that none of their actions should be construed as in any way leading to passage of such a bill.

HRC has secretly signed letter supporting the non-inclusive ENDA in violation of the recent HRC Board Vote & assurances made to the community.

It’s time to call for Joe Solmonese and David Smith to resign. They outright lied to us in the Philadelphia community just 3 weeks ago on this very subject. It’s time to stop supporting organizations that lie to our faces. All of you were on the conference call, all of you received Joe’s email assurances that HRC was firm in their policy.

This was not the only instance over the past few weeks of HRC acting at variance with the position they assured us they were following. It should be the last time we allow them to lie to us without consequence.

This is Joe in his email to leaders in the Philadelphia LGBT community when we questioned HRC’s stance on ENDA:

“It seems that the most controversial issue here is our board’s position on H.R. 3685, the stripped-down bill that Rep. Frank introduced last week.  We will neither support the bill nor ask members to vote against it.  Let me be clear:  this does not amount to approving of a non-inclusive bill; it does not set up a situation where a non-inclusive bill will pass without gender identity, and it most certainly does not give Congress a “pass.”  I will explain in detail below.

First, we do not “support” the non-inclusive bill.  HRC is not lobbying in favor of H.R. 3685.  We have not mobilized our members in support of it, nor expended resources to secure a vote on it.  HRC cannot throw our resources behind it, because it leaves transgender people behind.  Plain and simple.”

HRC’s disdain for its constituents is more than evident.

Sincerely,
Kathy Padilla

Whether one agrees or disagrees with supporting only a transgender inclusive ENDA, how the HRC has behaved since September has been far less than straightforward.  One might even call it duplicitous.  Whatever the reasons are for their complete change of position on ENDA, the manner in which they’ve gone about this change of position has been cruel and cold-hearted to the transgender people they say they support in their mission statement.