District of Columbia Human Rights Act Amendment Expands Protections
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.12.22
Employers in the District of Columbia should be aware that, effective October 1, 2022, the Human Rights Enhancement Amendment Act expanded the D.C. Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”) in several significant ways. Specifically, pursuant to the amendment, the definition of “employees” protected from discrimination under the DCHRA now includes independent contractors and unpaid interns. The amendment also protects individuals experiencing homelessness from discrimination, and codifies protections against workplace harassment.
The DCHRA prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and educational institutions, and renders discrimination illegal based on a number of protected characteristics for people that live, visit, or work in D.C. Prior to the amendment, an “employee” was defined in the DCHRA as an individual employed by or seeking employment from an employer. Now, the term “employee” also includes an individual working or seeking work as an independent contractor, as well as unpaid interns. While the DCHRA does not define “independent contractor,” it does note that the phrase does not “mean a service vendor who provides a discrete service to an individual customer.”
Protected characteristics under the DCHRA for housing, employment, public accommodations and educational institutionsinclude race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, political affiliation, and disability. Now, as a result of the amendment, “homeless status” is included as a protected characteristic. Note that additional protected characteristics apply to employment (matriculation, genetic information, credit information, and status as a victim or family member of a victim of domestic violence, a sexual offense, or stalking), while other additional traits are applicable solely to the areas of housing and public accommodations. Under the amendment, an employer may not fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual or to otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of an employee or applicant’s actual or perceived status as homeless. Homelessness is defined in the amendment as set forth in the Homeless Services Reform Act, specifically “[a]n individual or family that lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”
Lastly, the amendment provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to engage in sexual harassment or harassment based on one or more protected characteristics. Harassment is defined as “conduct, whether direct or indirect, verbal or nonverbal, that unreasonably alters an individual’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.” The amendment further provides the following definition for sexual harassment: conduct of a sexual nature that constitutes harassment, and where submission to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other such conduct of a sexual nature is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of employment or where submission to or rejection of the conduct is used as the basis for an employment decision affecting the individual's employment. The amendment also lists a number of factors to be considered in determining whether conduct constitutes unlawful harassment, including the frequency, duration and location of the conduct, whether the conduct involved threats, slurs, epithets, stereotypes or humiliating/degrading conduct, and whether any party to the conduct held a position of formal or informal power relative to another party.
D.C. employers should be aware of these expanded protections, and be sure that their policies have been updated accordingly. For example, these employers should confirm that all antidiscrimination policies reflect that independent contractors and unpaid interns are protected under the law, and that all anti-harassment policies are up to date.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development



