Lots Of Love: Polyamorous And Nontraditional Family Structures Gain Anti-Discrimination Protections In Cities In California, Oregon, And Washington

At a Glance

• U.S. West Coast cities have expanded workplace anti-discrimination laws to recognize polyamorous and “non-normative family or relationship structures” as new protected categories. 
• No states have yet enacted similar laws, but states like CA, OR, and WA may face pressure to do so as more cities in those states recognize these new protections. 

Cities along the U.S. West Coast and beyond are expanding workplace anti-discrimination laws to cover diverse family and relationship structures, including polyamorous and other “non-normative family or relationship structures.” Indeed, cities in multiple states have adopted such protections, including Oakland in California; Portland in Oregon; Cambridge in Massachusetts; and Olympia in Washington. 

Some of the legislative histories of these laws state that individuals with “non-normative family or relationship structures” face discrimination in certain areas of life—including in the workplace—and seek to remedy such discrimination. These laws generally define these structures to include non-marital, intimate personal relationships between more than two consenting adults (commonly referred to as “polyamory”), and non-nuclear family arrangements to include multi-partner and multi-parent families, blended (step) families, multi-generational households, single-parent families, and more. 

These laws have drawn objections based on religious and other grounds, although no publicly documented legal claims appear to have been filed against them as yet. 

OREGON 

Portland: Effective April 10, 2026, Portland enacted a civil‑rights ordinance that expands its anti‑discrimination code to include protections based on “family or relationship structure,” expressly covering polyamorous and other consensual, non‑monogamous households. Adopted unanimously by the Portland City Council, the ordinance allows individuals to bring private lawsuits alleging discrimination in employment (PCC 23.01.050), housing, and public accommodations. The update materially broadens the scope of protected classifications beyond traditional categories, creating new potential grounds for claims arising from hiring decisions, workplace policies, benefits administration, and termination practices.

Title 23 of the Portland City Code now has a much broader definition of “family or relationship structure”:

D. Family or relationship structure means the actual or perceived involvement, or lack thereof, of consenting individuals in intimate personal relationships. Intimate personal relationships include, but are not limited to, multi-partner or multi-parent families and relationships, step-families, multi-generational households, diverse family structures, consensually nonmonogamous relationships, and consensual sexual and/or intimate relationships, including asexual and aromantic relationships.

This is much broader and more specific than the “familial status” definition stated by the state of Oregon at ORS 659A.001(6), which covers any individual having or seeking custody of minor children.

CALIFORNIA 

Oakland: Effective April 16, 2024, Oakland added Chapter 9.45 to the Oakland Municipal Code, with the intent to prohibit discrimination on the basis of family and relationship structure in employment, housing, and in business establishments and introduces a civil penalty for any rights violated in connection with city-supported services or facilities. “Family and relationship structure” has been expanded to include “an individual in an intimate personal relationship or relationships.” “Intimate personal relationships” is defined to include “multi-partner/multi-parent families and relationships, step-families, multi-generational households, diverse family structures, consensually non-monogamous relationships, and consensual sexual and/or intimate relationships, including asexual and aromantic relationships.” A person alleging a violation of the ordinance may bring a civil action within three years of the alleged discriminatory acts, and the court may award equitable relief and punitive damages. Any person (including a business) who violates the ordinance will be liable to each aggrieved person for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, plus damages equal to three times the actual damages. The remedies are not exclusive and may be used cumulatively with any other available legal remedies.

Berkeley and West Hollywood:  It is unclear if ordinances in these cities extend similar protections in the workplace. Indeed, unlike in the Oakland ordinance, there is no explicit mention in the Berkeley and West Hollywood ordinances to “employment.” However, both the Berkeley and West Hollywood ordinances (the latter of which is to be finalized via a taskforce) do prohibit discrimination on the basis of their actual or perceived family or relationship structure in business establishments, and that “employee[s]” of “business establishments” may not discriminate in the “use or availability of or access to goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations from any business establishment, and/or any related terms, conditions, advertisements or communications.” While the intent of this language appears to be intended to protect customers from discrimination, employees may argue, for example, that a “privilege” provided by a business establishment includes employment. Whether such an argument would pass muster in court remains to be seen. Parties that violate these ordinances will be liable to each aggrieved person for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as determined by the court, plus damages equal to three times the amount of actual damages or a minimum of $1,000.

WASHINGTON

Olympia: On January 13, 2026, the city council in Olympia voted unanimously to add “diverse family and relationship structures” to the city’s workplace discrimination and unfair housing practices laws. Olympia thereby adopted explicit legal protections for employees who are in an “interpersonal relationship, other than a marital relationship, between two or more adult individuals that involves romantic, physical, or emotional intimacy.” The law (Ordinance 7462, which adds new chapter Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 7.01 Code Against Discrimination) now protects “multi partner/multi-parent families and relationships, stepfamilies, multi-generational households, diverse family structures, consensual non-monogamous relationships, and consensual sexual and/or intimate relationships, including asexual and aromantic relationships.” 

Next Steps for Employers

For employers operating in cities that have expanded their anti-discrimination laws to cover polyamorous and other “non-normative family or relationship structures,” this development represents a meaningful expansion of potential liability exposure. Employees who believe they have been treated adversely because of their relationship or family structure may now bring claims directly under applicable city laws, increasing the likelihood of novel and untested claims in the employment context. These city ordinances underscore the need for employers to review and update policies, training, and decision‑making processes as needed to ensure compliance with local laws.

In many communities, these laws may be considered controversial, and we anticipate legal efforts to enjoin their enforcement, either broadly or in specific settings. Littler will monitor and report on significant developments in this area. 

See Footnotes

*Thank you to the contributions of Littler attorneys Devjani Mishra and Corinn Jackson.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.