Nevada business lobbyists skip debate on rights for gay workers

Steve Green

Thursday, April 1, 1999 | 11:10 a.m.

The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce is the self-proclaimed "voice of business" in Clark County.

But the chamber doesn't have much to say about a bill in the Legislature that could affect every business in the state by preventing employment discrimination against gays.

"This is a policy that has to be decided by the Legislature," said Chamber lobbyist Kara Kelley. "With 5,700 (chamber) members, it is very difficult to take a position and have unanimous consensus."

Chamber Chairman Robert Forbuss said that while he's sensitive to the issue, "Typically the chamber doesn't get involved in social issues."

Both the Las Vegas and Reno chambers of commerce are neutral on the bill. Opposition so far has come from conservative social groups.

An observer says the decision by business lobbyists not to fight the bill can be seen as de facto approval, since the business lobby is usually vocally opposed to bills imposing onerous taxes, regulations and mandates on companies.

"If this was offensive or frightening to the business community, it would be out in force," said Lee Plotkin, a columnist for the Las Vegas Bugle, a gay newspaper.

On the other hand, Plotkin noted: "It's bad business to tacitly support discrimination."

Kelley said the chamber is not opposing the bill as being an unwarranted, expensive new mandate because it has seen no evidence that complying with the bill would cost employers a lot of money.

And while the issue of civil rights is crucial to individual homosexuals, the issue of gay rights in the workplace isn't generating much debate in Nevada corporate boardrooms and at workplace water coolers.

Experts say this is because most Nevada companies don't tolerate discrimination against anyone -- even those firms that don't explicitly protect gays in their personnel policies and employee handbooks.

"Most employers discourage this sort of conduct in the first instance and it's not going to dramatically change the way they do business," said Patrick Hicks, managing partner of the Las Vegas office of Hicks & Walt, which is part of the national employment law practice of Littler Mendelson.

Hicks said that in other states that have banned sexual-preference discrimination, there's been only a modest number of discrimination claims against employers.

"I can't say there's been an explosion of claims," Hicks said.

If the bill is approved, Nevada employers at minimum would need to revise their employee handbooks to spell out that discrimination against gays is banned.

"It would (also) require some employers to do some sensitivity training. Some of the jokes we hear in the workplace about sexual preference, and comments and innuendo, have no place in the workplace," he said.

But sexual preference issues won't be the top concern in the real world of discrimination claims, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits against companies by current and former employees.

The greatest number of claims will continue to allege sexual harassment and age and disability discrimination, Hicks said.

Kelley agreed that claims of discrimination based on sexual preference are rare in Las Vegas.

"In today's marketplace, with such low unemployment, everybody who wants to work is working. It's an employee market," Kelley said. "It's been our experience that employers are fair people. I agree it's not a big issue in the workplace."

Proponents note that a handful of Nevada companies already ban discrimination based on sexual preference or are considering adding such bans to their personnel policies. They include the Riviera, Harrah's, Rio and Coast Resorts properties.