Several cities along the West Coast of the United States have expanded workplace anti-discrimination laws to include protections for individuals in polyamorous and other nontraditional family or relationship structures, according to a May 13 announcement. Cities such as Oakland, Berkeley, and West Hollywood in California; Portland in Oregon; and Olympia in Washington have adopted these new legal safeguards.
These changes matter because they broaden the definition of protected classes under local civil rights ordinances. Individuals involved in multi-partner or multi-parent families, step-families, multi-generational households, single-parent families, consensually non-monogamous relationships, and asexual or aromantic relationships are now explicitly covered by these laws. The legislative histories indicate that people with “non-normative family or relationship structures” face discrimination at work and elsewhere.
In Portland, a civil-rights ordinance effective April 10 expands the city’s anti-discrimination code to include “family or relationship structure,” allowing individuals to bring private lawsuits over employment discrimination. Title 23 of the Portland City Code now defines this category broadly as any involvement—actual or perceived—in intimate personal relationships among consenting adults.
Oakland’s ordinance took effect on April 16, prohibiting discrimination based on family and relationship structure across employment, housing, and business establishments. Violators may be liable for damages equal to three times actual damages plus attorneys’ fees. Similar measures were enacted unanimously by city councils in Berkeley (effective January 1), West Hollywood (effective April 16), and Olympia (effective January 13). These ordinances grant aggrieved persons a private right of action with potential remedies including injunctive relief and punitive damages.
No states have yet passed similar statewide legislation but may face pressure as more cities adopt these protections. The new laws have drawn objections on religious grounds; however, there are no publicly documented legal challenges so far.
For employers operating within these jurisdictions, compliance will require reviewing policies and practices related to hiring decisions, benefits administration, workplace conduct rules, and termination procedures. Littler said it anticipates possible legal efforts challenging enforcement of these ordinances: “In many communities, these laws may be considered controversial, and we anticipate legal efforts to enjoin their enforcement… Littler will monitor and report on significant developments in this area.”
