Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Issue Analysis. It needs to be at least 1250 words.Download file "Issue Analysis" to see previous pages... Though there is no definite law protecti

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Issue Analysis. It needs to be at least 1250 words.

Though there is no definite law protecting bisexual, lesbian, and gay employees from discrimination at work, there are possible amendments to existing laws that could benefit bisexual, lesbian, and gay employees, dependent on the jurisdiction the employee is in and the type of employment the employee holds.

For employees employed by the federal or state government, in case of termination, there should be the option of suing the employer based on a violation of federal or state due process and equal protection of law. The procedural due process case should be able to assert that the termination of the bisexual, lesbian, or gay employee violated due process if the employee was not given an opportunity to be heard or a proper notice prior to the date of effectivity of the termination. A considerable due process case should address the equality of the law itself. The employee should be able to file a case against the employer in case the federal or state's termination of the employee for being bisexual, lesbian, or gay in unreasonable and would dispossess the employee of a property or personal right ensured by the constitution. An equal protection argument must be able to assert that the employer gave a different treatment to the bisexual, lesbian, or gay employee from other equally placed employees, for no grounds that are justifiable in law (4).

EEmployers have no trouble dealing with the worry of proving that the reason for a government action is rational. Until now, alienage, nationality, and race are the only classifications that were directly given the mantle of suspect classification that has produced the instinctive utilization of the pressing state interest test (5). Also, quasi-suspect qualifications were recognized by the Court (6), and merely one court has spared putting lesbians, bisexuals, and gays in this classification (7). That middle ground between rational basis and suspect class require a showing that the government action can be "significantly associated to a valid interest of the state" (8). For employers, it is not hard to defend the disparity in treatment between non-gay and gay employees under the more relaxed rational basis test. Even though courts have largely backed off from allowing a disparity in management based mainly on the employee's identification or standing as lesbian or gay (9), it generally does not take much to prove that being lesbian or gay is, on way or another, linked to performance at work. For example, the possibility of security risks from discovery of lesbian or gay employees' affinity orientation was a frequently used justification in treating these employees differently (10). This happens even when the employee does not really conceal their orientation or affinity so that "discovery" is not really a concern (11). On the other hand, some local and state jurisdictions have in fact implemented laws particularly to protect lesbian and gay public employees from discrimination at work, therefore freeing them from this legal struggle over due process or equal protection classification (12).

Private Employees

The situation is not considerably different for private employees. There is almost no protection from suffering job discrimination merely by being bisexual, lesbian, or gay, or being perceived as such, unless the employee resides in one of the few states that have anti-discrimination laws (13).