NE: Pro-LGBT amendment stripped from workplace privacy bill, 20-6

Yesterday, after five hours of debate over two days, the Unicameral advanced LB821, ll Sen. Tyson Larson's bill to establish workplace electronic privacy protections in Nebraska. From Unicameral Update:

     ...The bill and would prohibit an employer from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant:

• disclose his or her user names or passwords to personal Internet accounts;
• log into a personal Internet account in the presence of an employer;
• add anyone to his or her personal Internet account; or
•  change his or her personal Internet account settings.

     The amendment also would prevent an employer from taking adverse action against, failing to hire, or otherwise penalizing an employee or applicant for failure to disclose his or her personal Internet account setting information.
     ...Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers offered an amendment March 29 that would add the words “including discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity” to the bill’s prohibition on employer retaliation. He said the change would make LB821 inclusive of all employees.      “All this amendment does is to grant the same protection to my friends—your friends, some of our relatives—who are members of the LGBT community, the protections that every employee is seeking,” Chambers said.
Larson opposed the amendment, calling it unnecessary.
     “There is no discrimination [in the bill],” he said. “It is as broad and sweeping as possible. It protects every employee and every prospective employee.”
Chambers countered that LB821 creates a right to workplace privacy that currently does not exist in Nebraska law. As a result, he said, the definition of employee in the bill is only as broad as the understanding articulated in state policy generally.
     “The policy of this state is clear that members of the LGBT community have no rights when it comes to employment, period,” Chambers said.
     Lincoln Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks supported the amendment, saying employers could discriminate against LGBT workers without the additional language.
     “Everyone that has equal rights in the workforce would have protections under this bill,” she said, “but without a way to protect [LGBT individuals] in the workforce, then they can be treated differently.”
     The amendment failed on a vote of 10-26.

Here are the votes on Chambers' floor amendment FL109 and the subsequent motion to reconsider:

Senator Chambers offered the following amendment to the committee amendment: FA109 Amend AM2210 Page 1, line 7 after "discrimination" insert ", including discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity". Senator Larson requested a ruling of the Chair on whether the Chambers amendment is germane to the committee amendment. The Chair ruled the Chambers amendment is germane to the commit tee amendment. Senator Chambers moved for a call of the house. The motion prevailed with 24 ayes, 0 nays, and 25 not voting. Senator Chambers requested a record vote on his amendment. 
Voting in the affirmative, 10: 
Baker Cook Hansen Howard Pansing Brooks Campbell Haar, K. Harr, B. Mello Schumacher 
Voting in the negative, 26: 
Bloomfield Friesen Hughes McCoy Watermeier Brasch Garrett Johnson Riepe Williams Coash Gloor Kintner Scheer Davis Groene Kuehn Schilz Ebke Hadley Larson Schnoor Fox Hilkemann Lindstrom Stinner
Present and not voting, 8:
Bolz Crawford Kolterman Seiler Chambers Kolowski McCollister Smith
Excused and not voting, 5:
Craighead Krist Morfeld Murante Sullivan
The Chamber amendment lost with 10 ayes, 26 nays, 8 present and not voting, and 5 excused and not voting. The Chair declared the call raised. Senator Chambers offered the following motion: MO240 Reconsider the vote taken on FA109. Senator Chambers moved for a call of the house. The motion prevailed with 22 ayes, 0 nays, and 27 not voting. Senator Chambers requested a roll call vote on the motion to reconsider.
Voting in the affirmative, 7: Bolz Cook Howard Pansing Brooks Chambers Haar, K. Kolowski
Voting in the negative, 29: Baker Friesen Hughes McCoy Smith Bloomfield Garrett Johnson Riepe Stinner Brasch Gloor Kintner Scheer Sullivan Coash Groene Kuehn Schilz Watermeier Ebke Hadley Larson Schnoor Williams Fox Hilkemann Lindstrom Seiler
Present and not voting, 7: Cambell Harr, B. Mello Schumacher Hansen McCollister Morfeld
Excused and not voting, 6: Craighead Davis Krist Crawford Kolterman Murante
The Chambers motion to reconsider failed with 7 ayes, 29 nays, 7 present and not voting, and 6 excused and not voting. The Chair declared the call raised