Protected characteristics are expanding at the local level. Several city councils have amended their anti-discrimination ordinances to protect people based on how they arrange their households and romantic relationships, including those in polyamorous relationships. The primary federal law prohibiting employment discrimination, Title VII, is silent on relationship structure, and there is little case law on the issue. In most of the country, there are no laws prohibiting adverse action against an employee because of a non-monogamous relationship. That is true even in states that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. 

However, at least 10 local governments have chosen to address the issue on their own. They include Berkeley, Oakland, and West Hollywood, California; Cambridge and Somerville, Massachusetts; Hazel Park, Michigan; Astoria and Portland, Oregon; and Olympia and Seattle, Washington.  

Seattle's ordinance, passed unanimously on Sept. 15, 2026, is the most recent. It expands the city's definition of sexual orientation to include pansexuality, asexuality, and consensual relationships involving multiple partners. Portland's April 2026 ordinance goes further. It protects "family or relationship structure," including multi-partner, multi-generational, and non-monogamous households, in employment, housing, and public accommodations.  

More laws are likely on the way, with similar proposals pending in several other jurisdictions. A comparable bill is before the New York City Council. Beaverton, Oregon, is expected to adopt an ordinance shortly, and Oregon lawmakers may take up a statewide measure in 2027. Advocates have also raised statewide legislation in Massachusetts and New York.

For employers operating in these cities, the most immediate step is to review and update EEO policies and handbooks to reflect the new protected categories. Over time, these protections may also raise questions about religious accommodation, such as when an employee objects on religious grounds to recognizing a coworker's multi-partner relationship. Employer-sponsored benefits, however, are not affected for now. The ordinances do not require benefits changes, and any such mandate would likely have to come from federal legislation.

Whether these protections will take hold at the state level remains an open question. Even so, their rapid spread signals a growing compliance burden for multistate employers.