LB 173: BAD FOR BUSINESS

LB 173 would be burdensome for businesses.

o A persons race, color, and sex are apparent. Religion, disability, and marital
status can be confirmed with objective criteria. But sexual orientation and
gender identity are subjective traits and can even change from one day to the
next without the employers knowledge. How does an employer know an
employees sexual orientation or gender identity at any given time, in order to
avoid discriminating on that basis?
o LB 173 would give employees carte blanche to threaten a lawsuit without
objective grounds on the basis of SO/GI in response to justified adverse
employment actions, accompanied by potentially crippling legal fees, for
employers to defend SO/GI discrimination actions.
o An employer who is found liable for SO/GI discrimination could be forced to pay
the employees back pay, alleged financial and emotional damages and the
employees attorneys fees.
o LB 173s accommodation provision can be expected to lead to the same
disasters that have occurred in other states already: forcing good people to fully
participate in ceremonies and activities with which they conscientiously
disagree, or face the ruin of their businesses.

LB 173s imprecision will inject economic uncertainty for Nebraska

businesses

o The discrimination prohibition would apply both to actual and perceived

sexual orientation and gender identity. What does perceived mean?
Whose perception is at issue: the employers?; the job applicants or
employees?
o Gender identity protection would apply broadly to the appearance,
expression, identity, or behavior of an individual. It would require multiple and
lengthy litigations to clarify these numerous ambiguities.

There is no correlation between sexual orientation employment

discrimination laws and state economic growth, as the proponents attempt to
argue.

o Last year, 7/10 states with the largest rate of job growth and population growth
do not have a statute prohibiting private employment discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation. Likewise, six of the leading ten states in personal
income growth also do not have such a statute.
o Last year, even the Omaha Chambers representative stated at the committee
hearing that his support of LB 173 is not based on verifiable economic statistics,
but is based on feedback from some job applicants.

LB 173 could force Nebraska employers to act against their consciences.

o The current religious exemption in the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act
only exempts religious entities employing individuals of a particular religion to
perform work connected with its religious activities.
o A Nebraskan who operates a business in accordance with his or her religious or
moral beliefs would be forced to hire and retain even people who promote
 homosexual and transgender lifestyles contrary to those beliefs both within and
outside the workplace.
o Opposition to LB 173 is a matter of respecting Nebraskans right to follow their
consciences. It is telling perhaps alarming that proponents of LB 173 tend to
react with closed minds against including strong conscience protections. These
protections should not only be for officially religious organizations. Conscience
should be protected for all Nebraskans.