List of cities and counties in the United States offering an LGBTQ non-discrimination ordinance

Sexual orientation Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College In 2013, Kim Hively filed a lawsuit against the Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana in South Bend, arguing that she was denied promotions and let go from her job because of her sexual orientation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in the case in November 2016 with discussion focusing on the meaning of the word "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace discrimination based on race, religion, national origin or sex. On April 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals ruled in an 8–3 vote that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Ivy Tech subsequently stated they would not appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. This ruling creates a precedent for lower courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin to follow, meaning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is now banned in these states (Illinois and Wisconsin already had laws prohibiting such discrimination). Human Rights Campaign hailed the ruling, saying: "Today's ruling is a monumental victory for fairness in the workplace, and for the dignity of lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans who may live in fear of losing their job based on whom they love." Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. On February 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont) ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation employment discrimination under the category of sex. Donald Zarda, who worked for Altitude Express as a skydiving instructor in New York, is gay. To avoid any discomfort his female students might feel being strapped to an unfamiliar man, Zarda would often disclose he was gay. Before one particular jump with a female student, Zarda told her that he was gay. After the skydive, the student told her boyfriend that Zarda had inappropriately touched her and disclosed his sexual orientation to excuse his behavior. The woman's boyfriend told Zarda's boss, who fired Zarda shortly thereafter. Zarda denied touching the student inappropriately and believed that he was fired solely because of his reference to his sexual orientation. The Court ruled, 10–3, that: "Logically, because sexual orientation is a function of sex and sex is a protected characteristic under Title VII, it follows that sexual orientation is also protected." Donald Zarda died in 2014 in a base jumping accident and the case was continued by his family. The ruling did not focus on whether the merits of his case specifically, but whether sexual orientation was protected as a function of sex, and in effect protected gay workers under the Civil Rights Act. Prior to the ruling, in July 2017, the Justice Department under President Trump had unexpectedly interceded in the case, arguing in filed a friend of the court brief that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not explicitly cover sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. This stance put the DOJ at odds with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes On March 7, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination against transgender people. It also ruled that employers may not use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify discrimination against LGBT people. Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman, began working for a funeral home and presented as male. In 2013, she told her boss that she had a gender identity disorder and planned to transition. She was promptly fired by her boss who said that "gender transition violat[es] God's commands because a person's sex is an immutable God-given fit." Case law Case law has been established in the following cases. Schwenk v. Hartford On February 29, 2000, citing Title VII case law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Guam, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington, ruled that a transgender woman serving a prison sentence appropriately stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Gender Motivated Violence Act when filing a complaint about an assault from a prison guard. Rosa v. Parks W. Bank & Trust Co On June 9, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island) ruled that Lucas Rosa, a transgender woman, could claim sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when a bank denied her a loan application because of the way she was dressed. The ruling cited Title VII case law. Tovar v. Essentia Health On May 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (covering Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) ruled in Tovar v. Essentia Health, the case of a nurse practitioner in Minnesota claiming discrimination based on gender identity because her insurance company would not cover her transgender child under her health insurance. The court ruled that Tovar lacked standing to pursue the claims of discrimination because she could not file suit on behalf of her child. However, in its ruling the 8th Circuit wrote that "because the district court concluded that Tovar is not within the class of plaintiffs for whom Title VII and the MHRA create causes of action, we assume for purposes of this appeal that the prohibition of sex-based discrimination under Title VII and the MHRA encompasses protection for transgender individuals". The judge, who had been appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, cited other recent cases as shaping the final decision. ==States==

Alabama There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Cities: Birmingham, Huntsville, and Tuscaloosa. • Sexual orientation only • City: Montgomery. Alaska Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for state employees by executive order. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Consolidated city-boroughs: Anchorage, Juneau, and Sitka. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Cities: Chandler, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sedona, Tempe, Tucson, and Winslow. Arkansas There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. The Arkansas Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act blocks any local unit of government from barring discrimination on any basis not already covered by state law to private businesses. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • County: Pulaski. • Cities: Conway, Eureka Springs, Fayetteville, Hot Springs, Little Rock, • Sexual orientation only • City: Marvell, and Springdale. Connecticut Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. Delaware Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. Florida There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. Florida cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Tallahassee, etc. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Counties: Alachua, Broward, Leon, Monroe, Osceola, Palm Beach, Sarasota, and Volusia. • Cities: Atlantic Beach, Cape Coral, Leesburg, Mascotte, Mount Dora, Neptune Beach, North Port, St. Augustine Beach, • Sexual orientation only • Town: Montverde. Georgia There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Counties: Gwinnett.'''''' • Consolidated city-counties: Augusta-Richmond County, and Macon-Bibb County. • Cities: Atlanta, Chamblee, Clarkston, Decatur, Doraville, Dunwoody, Pine Lake, Savannah, Smyrna and Statesboro. • Sexual orientation only • Counties: DeKalb, • Cities: East Point, and Tybee Island. • Cities: Bellevue, Boise, Hailey, Idaho Falls, Ketchum, Meridian, Moscow, Pocatello, Sandpoint, • Sexual orientation only • City: Twin Falls. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Counties: Monroe, and Vanderburgh. • Consolidated city-county: Indianapolis-Marion County. Carmel, Columbus, Crawfordsville, Hammond, Michigan City, Muncie, South Bend, and West Lafayette. • Towns: Munster, and Zionsville. • City: Fort Wayne. • Town: Whitestown. • Cities: Ames, Bettendorf, Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Decorah, Des Moines, Dubuque, Fort Dodge, Grinnell, Iowa City, Sioux City, Waterloo, Webster City (housing only) Kansas Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Consolidated city-county: Kansas City–Wyandotte County. • Cities: Fairway, Hutchinson, Mission Hills, Roeland Park, Shawnee, Kentucky Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. • Cities: Bellevue, Covington, Dayton, Frankfort, Georgetown, Henderson, Paducah, and Vicco. • Unincorporated community: Metairie. Minnesota Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. Mississippi There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Cities: Clarksdale, Hattiesburg, Jackson, Magnolia, Oxford, and St. Louis. Columbia, Ferguson, Kansas City, Kirkwood, Olivette, and St. Joseph, University City. • City and county: Butte. • Cities: Bozeman, Helena, Missoula, Nebraska There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • City: Bellevue, • Sexual orientation only • Cities: Grand Island, New Jersey Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. New Mexico Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. New York Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. North Carolina Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for public employees only by executive order. North Dakota There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • City: Grand Forks. • Sexual orientation only • Cities: Fargo, and Jamestown. Ohio cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Cleveland, Lakewood, and East Lansing, among others. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Montgomery, Summit, Athens, Bexley, Bowling Green, Cincinnati, Dayton, Gahanna, Lima, Newark, Olmsted Falls, Oxford, Toledo, • Villages: Laura, • Sexual orientation only • Cities: Edmond, and Tulsa. Oregon Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. Pennsylvania Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees by executive order. While the state has not explicitly enacted anti-discrimination legislation, discrimination in employment based on both sexual orientation and gender identity is interpreted by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as being banned under the category of sex of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Pennsylvania cities banning discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment which are located in counties with similar protections are not listed below. Such cities include Pittsburgh, Mt. Lebanon, and Ross Township, among others. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Counties: Allegheny, • Cities: Allentown, Pittston, Reading, Scranton, and York. Cheltenham, East Norriton, Newtown, Upper Dublin, Upper Merion, Upper Moreland, Bridgeport, Camp Hill, Carlisle, Conshohocken, Dickson City, Downingtown, Doylestown, Jenkintown, Lansdale, Lansdowne, Norristown, Plymouth, • Sexual orientation only • Borough: Oxford. Rhode Island Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. South Carolina There is no legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees on a statewide level. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • County: Richland. • Cities: Charleston, • Towns: Latta, and Mount Pleasant. • Sexual orientation only • Cities: Folly Beach, and North Charleston. • Cities: Brookings, Sioux Falls, • Cities: Spearfish, • Cities: Chattanooga, Memphis, and Nashville. Dallas, • Cities: Austin, San Antonio, and Waco. Note that Arlington, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, Lubbock, Mesquite, and Waco have protections for sexual orientation and gender identity offered only for city employment, which may include city contractors. An additional law within Virginia, also allows cities and counties to make their own ordinances on this topic as well listed below. • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Independent cities: Charlottesville, Washington Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for both public and private employees by state statute. West Virginia • Sexual orientation and gender identity • Cities: Beckley, Buckhannon, Charles Town, Charleston, Huntington, Martinsburg, Morgantown, and Wheeling. • Towns: Harpers Ferry, Shepherdstown, and Thurmond. • Sexual orientation only • County: Kanawha. • City: Elkins.