{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022182786157941437, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005323868677905945, 'mean_word_length': 5.520231213872832, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Failing to protect: a historical analysis of The Employment Nondiscrimination Act

Abstract As of October 2019, it is legal for employers to fire a worker if they identify as LGBT. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) was a proposed bill that would have prohibited LGBT discrimination in the workplace, but continuously failed to be enacted by Congress. This paper explores ENDA’s tempestuous history by conducting a historical analysis of the bill, Congressional Records, and congressional hearings, to identify the factors which influenced ENDA’s outcome. The findings indicated support for historical contingency theory because the historical conditions affected (1) the capacity of LGBT groups to advance their interests, and (2) the state managers and their decision to enact ENDA. These findings are important because it offers a clearer history of LGBT politics and shows how cultural attitudes, state policies, and state actors influenced ENDA’s policy formation process. Specifically, the analysis highlights that the historical conditions of the years when ENDA was proposed affected its failure to be enacted.