Which states explicitly include gender identity in employment nondiscrimination statutes 2025?

1. What “explicitly include” means and why it matters

“Explicitly include” is a statutory standard: researchers who count states for this purpose look for the words “gender identity” (or comparable textual enumeration) in state law rather than administrative interpretations or judicial readings that treat existing sex‑based protections as covering gender identity, a distinction MAP and the Williams Institute both emphasize ^{[1] [3]}. That textual difference matters for predictability and for the scope of remedies, because an explicit statutory listing can limit opportunities for state actors to narrow protections and gives clearer grounds for enforcement at the state level—whereas relying on Bostock or agency interpretation requires ongoing litigation or administrative will ^{[3] [5]}.

2. How many states—and who—count as explicit protectors in 2025

Multiple state‑law tracking projects converge: Movement Advancement Project reports that state law “explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity” in 22 states, plus one territory and Washington, D.C., for nondiscrimination laws broadly, which MAP’s employment map applies to employment protections as well ^[1]. The Williams Institute and other trackers note earlier counts (for example, 23 states plus D.C. in older briefs) but stress that totals shift with legislative changes and that their reports count only statutes that facially enumerate SOGI terms ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Federal backstop and shifting state actions

Regardless of state statutes, the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision means people can pursue claims of employment discrimination based on gender identity under Title VII in federal fora, a point MAP and HRC underscore as a baseline protection for employees nationwide ^{[2] [6]}. Still, states continue to legislate: for example, Iowa’s legislature removed “gender identity” from its civil rights law effective July 1, 2025, illustrating volatility and the limits of counting snapshots—federal Title VII remains applicable to covered employers after state rollbacks, but the statutory landscape at the state level can both expand and retract protections ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Where counts diverge and why local ordinances matter

Trackers differ because some include administrative interpretations—states where agencies or attorneys general say existing sex‑discrimination laws include gender identity—while others count only explicit statutory text ^{[1] [5]}. Movement Advancement Project also highlights the role of local nondiscrimination ordinances: in many states without statewide statutory protections, municipal ordinances provide workplace protections within cities and counties, and MAP reported numerous local NDOs across 21 states as of April 1, 2025 ^[9]. Advocacy organizations such as Freedom for All Americans and HRC emphasize that 21–27 states lack explicit statewide SOGI protections in some categories, underscoring that the precise number depends on whether researchers lump together employment, housing, and public‑accommodations statutes or isolate employment law specifically ^{[10] [6]}.

5. Bottom line and how to read the tallies

The most defensible short answer from the provided reporting: 22 states plus the District of Columbia and one territory had state statutes that explicitly enumerate gender identity in nondiscrimination laws as counted by Movement Advancement Project, but other reputable trackers (Williams Institute, HRC, Freedom for All Americans) note slightly different totals depending on methodology and timing, and recent legislative changes—like Iowa’s 2025 rollback—can alter the count quickly ^{[1] [3] [7] [10]}. For anyone assessing legal protection in a particular state, the distinction between explicit statutory text, administrative interpretation, and federal Title VII coverage is crucial and must be verified against the most current state code or authoritative state guidance ^{[3] [5]}.