Employment Discrimination against Gays and the Law

The crusade for equal rights and respective protections by the federal government for the lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) community has highlighted discriminatory practices faced by the LGB through every channel of society. Due to perceived discrimination, gays, lesbians and bisexuals reported significantly higher psychiatric disorders than heterosexuals (Mays, Cochran, 1871). Moreover, according to the William Institute at the University of California, there are approximately eight million gay and lesbian employees in the United States (O’Keefe). However, these gay and lesbians continue to navigate the workforce without federal protection. Federal workplace protection exists for age, disability, race and religion. The United States currently does not have federal legislation that prohibits employment discrimination of gays and lesbians based on their sexual orientation. Contrawise, many states have adopted anti discriminatory laws to protect gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

András Tilcsik from Harvard University conducted an assessment of workplace discrimination against gay men and documented his findings in the article, “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. In his experiment, Tilcik sent two fictitious but realistic resumes to1, 769 entry-level job openings. The two resumes were very similar in terms of the applicant's qualifications, but one resume indicated gay affiliations; through membership of gay organizations in college for example. The results showed that applicants without the gay indicators in the resumes had an 11.5 percent chance of being called for an interview; whereas, openly gay applicants had only a 7.2 percent chance (Tilcik 605). The largest callback gap was detected in the Southern and Midwestern states (Texas, Florida, and Ohio). The Western and Northeastern states in the sample (California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New York) had only small and negligible callback gaps (Tilcsik 606).

Another facet of sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace materializes in a wage or income. Discrimination lowers the wages and income of gay men. The William Institute estimates that gay men earn anywhere from ten percent to thirty two percent less than heterosexual men which indicates a noteworthy wage or income gap. The range of the wage and income gap is the result of the compilation of numerous studies conducted across the United States. The wage and income gap is not influenced by differences in occupation in either direction (Lee Badgett, Lau, Sears, Ho 13).

In response to such evidence of discrimination, there has been an ongoing effort to illegalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the United States. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (EDNA) is a proposed a bill that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. EDNA was first introduced to the United States Congress in the year 1994. The bill has yet to be passed. Since then, the bill has been reintroduced at every subsequent congress except one (hrc.org). According to data provided by a poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, roughly sixty eight percent of people in the United States support the protection of gays and lesbians from employment discrimination. Major opposition of EDNA comes from the Republican Party. Ed O’Keefe from the Washington Post states that the Republicans generally consider EDNA unnecessary because of existing workplace discrimination federal laws, and if written too broadly, they believe it could cause legal risk for employers.

Currently twenty three states – including the District of Columbia – have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in all sectors of employment (aclu.org). Conversely, seventeen states do not have any protection laws for lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The remaining ten states offer protection but only at a state level of employment. Nonetheless, “states with laws similar EDNA have not seen a significant increase in litigation based on sexual orientation” (O’Keefe). The William Institute notes that all states in which discrimination against sexual orientation is illegal, LGB people file discrimination complaints at similar rates to women and racial minorities.

Upon analyzing András Tilcsik’s article and examining the mapped out laws by state that protect sexual orientation, there is a clear pattern. The states with largest callback gaps from Tilcsik’s audit, with the exception of Ohio, do not have anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation. The law in Ohio applies to state employment and thus, the applicants from Tilcsik’s study would not have been protected. Several states with statistically insignificant (California, Nevada, and New York) callback gaps have laws that protect sexual orientation in all employment. Pennsylvania legislation only covers state employment. Overall, the existing research on sexual orientation discrimination provides consistent proof that discrimination against LGB people exists. At the federal level of government there have been many failed attempts to successfully implement protection for LGB people. State level legislations that provide defense appear to have responded accordingly.

---

Works Cited

"A History of Federal Non-Discrimination Legislation." Hrc.org. Human Rights Campaign, n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/HRC_BeyondMarriageEquality7_22_15_Chart.pdf>.

"American Support for LGBT Employment Protections." PublicReligion.org. Public Religion Research Institute, 6 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <http://publicreligion.org/2014/03/american-support-for-lgbt-employmentprotections/#.VhyHiflVikp>.

Badgett, M. V. Lee, Holning Lau, Brad Sears, and Deborah Ho. "Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination." EScholarship.org. EScholarship the University of California: the William Insititute, June 2007. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5h3731xr#page-2>.

Mays, Vicki M., PhD, and Susan D. Cochran, PhD, MS. "Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States."American Journal of Public Health 91.11 (2001): 1869-876. Apha Publications.American Public Health Association. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.<http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1869>.

"Non-Discrimination Laws: State by State Information - Map." ACLU.org. American Civil Liberties Union, n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination laws-state-state-information-map>.

O'Keefe, Ed. "ENDA, Explained." WashingtonPost.com. The Washington Post, 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the fix/wp/2013/11/04/what-is-the-employment-non-discrimination-act-enda/>.

Tilcsik, András. "Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States." AJS 117.2 (2011): 586-626. Utoronto.ca. University of Toronto. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/34998/1/TilcsikAJS.pdf.