The District of Columbia Human Rights Act prohibits, among other things, employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. 1 A similar prohibition is contained in Rule 9.1 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.2 In addition, Executive Order 13087 prohibits discrimination against federal employees on the basis of sexual orientation. 3 Also, the Association of American Law Schools requires its member schools to “pursue a policy of providing its students and graduates with equal opportunity to obtain employment, without discrimination or segregation,” on the basis of sexual orientation (as well as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, handicap, and disability).4

Such prohibitions recognize the existence of the discriminatory conduct to which they are addressed, and constitute a condemnation of such conduct. As history teaches, however, the existence of a prohibition against discrimination does not necessarily mean that discrimination will no longer occur. This Report examines the existence and nature of employment discrimination against gay and lesbian lawyers working in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, and recommends actions that employers can and should take in an effort to eliminate such discrimination and create a workplace free of bias, prejudice, and intolerance—the type of workplace to which everyone is entitled, regardless of sexual orientation.

1. D.C. Code § 1-2512 (1991). A number of other jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area likewise prohibit such discrimination. See Montgomery County (Maryland) Code, ch. 27, Article I (1994); Prince George's County (Maryland) Code, ch.2 (1995); Alexandria City (Virginia) Ordinance, Title 12, ch. 4 (1998); and Arlington County (Virginia) Code, ch. 31 (1997). In addition, the American Bar Association has formally adopted a policy urging federal, state and local governments to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (in addition to race, creed, color, national origin, and sex) in employment, housing, and public accommodations. See ABA Policy and Procedures Handbook, 1998-1999, p. 174. Also, the D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act, D.C. Code § 36- 1301, et seq ., which among other things requires employers to provide employees with leave to care for a “family member” who is seriously ill, defines “family member” to include the domestic partner of a gay or lesbian employee as well as the spouse or partner of a heterosexual employee. D.C. Code § 36-1301(4)(1997).


2. Rule 9.1 provides: “A lawyer shall not discriminate against any individual in conditions of employment because of the individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, family responsibility, or physical handicap.” D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 9.1 (1998). Comment [1] to the Rule states that it “is not intended to create ethical obligations that exceed those imposed on a lawyer by applicable law.”


3. See Executive Order No. 13087, 63 Fed. Reg. 30097 (1998), amending Executive Order No. 11478, 34 Fed. Reg. 12985 (1969). The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 also prohibits discrimination against federal employees on the basis of non-merit factors. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10)(1998).
4. Association of American Law Schools, Bylaw Section 6-4(b). In order to carry out such policies, member law schools must require employers, as a condition of “obtaining any form of placement assistance or use of the school's facilities” (e.g., for the common practice of conducting job interviews) to provide an assurance that they will not engage in discrimination on the prohibited bases. Association of American Law Schools, Executive Committee Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6.19.