Sexual orientation clause proposal dies in Ada

By Eric Swanson, Writer
The Ada News

An effort to amend Ada’s equal employment opportunity statement to cover sexual orientation failed Monday night.

After an hourlong discussion, the Ada City Council considered a motion to delay a decision until the next meeting, set for Oct. 5. But the motion failed on a 2-3 vote and the issue died, leaving the statement unchanged.

Earlier this month, the city’s Advisory Committee on Multiculturalism proposed amending the statement to include sexual orientation. Ada’s current statement bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, but it does not cover sexual orientation.

Legal protections

Much of the discussion centered on whether the city risked inviting lawsuits by adding sexual orientation to ITS non-discrimination statement.

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already concluded that the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity as a subset of sex, said Christine Pappas, chairwoman of the Advisory Committee on Multiculturalism. She added that the committee wanted to raise the issue of amending the city’s non-discrimination statement because same-sex marriage is now legal in Oklahoma, but employment protection is not covered.

“It’s still legal to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation,” she said. “And the committee feared that — as it pertained to employment only in the case of city employment — we feared that there would be individuals who might seek to exercise their civil right to be married but would fear that they would lose their employment in so doing.”

Councilman Bryan Morris noted that President Barack Obama has issued an executive order barring discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation. Since that was the case, he wondered if the Multiculturalism Committee’s main goal in amending the statement was to let people know that federal laws already forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Pappas acknowledged that the EEOC currently reads the law to cover sexual orientation, but that interpretation could change when Obama’s successor takes office.

“It’s not supreme law of the land,” she said. “it’s not a Supreme Court opinion. It’s something that could be subject to change with a new administration.”

Morris later wondered whether adding sexual orientation to the statement would create a new group of people who enjoy legal protections against discrimination.

“In your view, does including sexual orientation into the list of bases that’s already recognized under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — does that somehow create a protected class of some sort?” he said.

Pappas said amending the statement would not create a new protected class, but it would clarify the protections that already exist.

Councilman Preston Draper said he thought adding sexual orientation to the statement would, in fact, create a new group of protected people.

“I think if we change our statement, we’re now elevating that category to a new protected class,” he said. “That’s part of my concern.”

Draper later said he believes the city should not discriminate against anyone. At the same time, he said, he thought the current non-discrimination statement already covers sexual orientation.

“I feel like our statement matches up and gives sexual orientation three separate protections in the current statement: Sex, marital status and any other legally protected status,” he said.

For and against

As the discussion continued, the council appeared divided on whether sexual orientation should be part of the city’s non-discrimination statement.

Councilman Greg McCortney, who opposed amending the statement, said he thought adding new language to the statement would lead to more lawsuits against the city.

“I feel like we’re opening ourselves up to lawsuits, and win or lose, lawsuits cost the city a ton of money,” he said.

McCortney also said most of his constituents would not agree that city employees need protection against whatever the next president might decide.

“My read of constituents that I serve is, trying to protect them from a Republican administration is not what they elected me to do,” he said.

But Mayor Guy Sewell said he thought amending the statement was the best way to protect against future lawsuits.

“Our EEO (equal employment opportunity statement) is to govern how we act, and the best way that we can get so that we don’t get sued for this is, don’t do it,” he said. “And I think if that statement is clear — the city’s EEO statement — that we don’t do it, we’re a lot less likely to do it.”