Last time, we discussed the apparent rising tide on the push toward gender-based pay equity. Over the past two weeks, momentum has begun to build toward another long-sought expansion of federal employment rights law: protections from workplace discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers.

On Valentine's Day, 37 Democratic senators sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to issue an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Similarly, just two days ago, more than 50 civil rights and other organizations sent their own letter to the president seeking an executive order outlawing sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by federal contractors.

Others also have spoken up. During a Feb. 13 American Bar Association webinar, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Chai Feldblum and a panel of lawyers commented on the need for executive action to bar bias by federal contractors against LGBT workers. In addition, Feldblum called for Congress to enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which has been repeatedly introduced in Congress since 1994, but has failed to gain the necessary votes for passage.

The most recent version of ENDA proposed barring employers with 15 or more employees--as well as all public sector employers--from basing employment decisions on a worker's sexual orientation or gender identity; would have permitted actual, perceived, and association-based discrimination claims; and would have provided the same relief as available under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The proposed law was introduced in both the House and Senate last year, but has not been reintroduced yet this year. The 37 Democratic senators who submitted the Feb. 14 letter to the White House all support ENDA.

Other EEO developments over the past two weeks include:

• The California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff pursuing a state law employment discrimination claim under the mixed-motive theory must show that his or her protected trait was a substantial rather than just a motivating factor in the challenged employment decision.

• A female physician at a Harvard Medical School teaching hospital settled her sex discrimination and retaliation claims against the hospital for $7 million.

• EEOC and trucking company CRST Van Expedited Inc. resolved their longstanding legal skirmish, which involved issues relating to EEOC's enforcement powers, for $50,000.