discrimination lgbtq essay

It’s Always Been About Discrimination for LGBT People

As a gay person, I grew up knowing I was different. Hearing other kids call anyone who deviated from traditional gender expectations a “fag.” Getting called a “lesbo” at age 11. I hadn’t come out to anyone and didn’t even really understand what it meant, but I knew it was an insult.

At an early age, we learn that it’s at best different to be LGBT. And many of us are taught that this difference is bad — shameful, deviant, disgusting. We might try to hide it. We might wish it away. We learn that even if our family accepts us, there are some relatives who might not; we get asked to hide who we are so as not to make them uncomfortable.

This teaches shame.

We hear about LGBT people who have been physically attacked or even killed for being who they are.

This teaches fear.

While I know I grew up with privilege, and others have stories far worse than mine, I also believe that countless other LGBT people could tell stories like this — not the same, but all rooted in a legacy that made us feel ashamed of who we are. And yet I, like many of us, also learned pride and hope and found a community that loves me and makes me feel welcome.

Those experiences are part of why I care so much about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. A decision in support of the bakery would open the door to sweeping discrimination. What’s at stake isn’t just whether we have the freedom to go about our daily lives and purchase the same things that others are able to buy. That’s part of it, but it’s not the whole picture.

We never leave those initial experiences of shame and discrimination behind completely. Our sexual orientation may or may not be readily visible to others. How we dress or how we act might identify us as gay but it might not, and it won’t in all circumstances.

Even with a girlfriend — even holding hands — people don’t always see a couple. I have to decide whether to come out or hide again and again — at the doctor’s office, at my child’s school, when talking about weekend plans with colleagues — because people usually assume heterosexuality. Gay people think about when to hold hands or kiss goodbye in public. Sometimes, it will be a matter of safety. The fact that straight couples don’t have to think about these questions is a reminder of difference. And every time I do come out, some part of me still wonders whether, in this moment, I’ll find that my community has grown larger or if I’ll face rejection — or worse.

The Colorado law that’s being challenged by the bakery in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case says that businesses that open their doors to the public can’t discriminate based on race, religion, sex, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Laws like Colorado’s aim to make sure that when we walk through the doors of a store or hotel, we all have the same freedom to buy a cake, eat a meal, or rent a room. They say to LGBT people, “you matter, and you shouldn’t be mistreated because you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.”

This case isn’t about the cake. It’s about a legacy of discrimination and devaluation and a rejection of our shared humanity.

Through laws like Colorado’s, we start to trust those assurances and feel more confident living our lives. But when a business owner says, “No, we won’t serve you because you’re gay,” all that humiliation resurfaces.

That’s why it’s inappropriate to tell us — as the bakery and the federal government do in this case — to just go to a different bakery. This isn’t just about the services. It’s about the harm that being turned away causes. It’s about how shame and fear prevent us from fully feeling safe and participating in public life. It’s about the pain of our children seeing us, and them, rejected, or the pain of our parents watching, unable to protect us. And it doesn’t matter if it’s just one store. Because once we are refused, every time we approach the door of a store, we wonder how we will be treated and are more likely to hide who we are. That comes at a steep cost.

The bakery is arguing to the Supreme Court justices that the Constitution protects their right to refuse to serve gay people, to tell people like me, like Dave and Charlie, and countless others that they object to our relationships and therefore refuse to serve us. But this case isn’t about the cake. It’s about a legacy of discrimination and devaluation and a rejection of our shared humanity.

And yet it’s also a case about hope, promise, and love. The hope that the court will recognize that all of us are worthy of respect and fair treatment. The promise that LGBT young people won’t live in fear and embarrassment as I did. And a mother’s unwavering love for her son and his fiancé , showing us why discrimination has no place in our Constitution.

Learn More About the Issues on This Page

• LGBTQ Rights
• Public Places
• LGBTQ Nondiscrim­ination Protections

Related Content

ACLU Files Title IX Complaint Against Harrison County School District for Dress Code Discrimination

Fourth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Gay Teacher from North Carolina Catholic School

National Women’s Law Center Intervenes In Defense of Transgender College Athletes

Kalarchik v. Montana

How do we solve LGBTQ discrimination? One word: visibility

Each of us can play a part in creating an inclusive world and end LGBTQ discrimination Image:  Reuters/Tyrone Siu

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Simon Freakley

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Gender Inequality is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, gender inequality.

• Harvey Milk was the first openly gay elected official in the US.
• When in office he sponsored a bill against LGBTQ discrimination and was also the spokesperson for SanFrancisco's LGBTQ+ community.

As many workplaces, and even entire industries, continue to work on building inclusive and diverse environments, I am reminded of Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States. With the 40th anniversary of his assassination recently behind us, there still is much we can learn from him.

The voice against LGBTQ discrimination

Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, following a tenure as a political spokesperson for the city’s LGBTQ+ (then known as LGB) community and founder of a business association of predominantly LGBTQ+ merchants.

Once in office, Milk supported LGBTQ+ rights, notably sponsoring an anti-discrimination bill and opposing a ballot initiative that would have mandated the firing of gay teachers in California public schools. He championed inclusive policies for other marginalized groups as well, including women (particularly working mothers) and minorities.

Milk was visionary. He recognized the importance of being seen, and the crucial role visibility could play in changing widespread discriminatory attitudes.

There remains much work to do. In 73 countries homosexuality is still considered a crime, in some places punishable by death. In the US, there still is no federal law barring employment discrimination against LGBTQ - on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and varying state laws make it possible for such discrimination to persist. In addition, according to a leaked memo obtained by the New York Times in October, the US Department of Health and Human Services is considering narrowing the definition of gender – a move that could end the federal recognition of more than a million transgender people.

What we can learn from Milk, though, and what the recent transgender-rights #WontBeErased movement further highlights, is that visibility helps combat LGBTQ discrimination.

A positive shift to deter LGBTQ discrimination

In the US, the 2018 midterm elections served as a continuation of Milk’s legacy. More openly LGBTQ+ people were elected to public office this year than in any previous election – notably Colorado’s Jared Polis, the first openly gay elected governor in the US; Sharice Davids, the first lesbian Native American to be elected to the House of Representatives; and Kyrsten Sinema, the first openly bisexual US senator.

In other parts of the world, attitudes also are changing regarding LGBTQ discrimination. This year, the World Health Organization reclassified “gender incongruence” so transgender people would no longer be deemed mentally ill. In September, India’s Supreme Court unanimously decriminalized gay sex and ruled that gay Indians be given all the protections of the country’s constitution. In 27 countries, same-sex marriage is now legal.

This progress is heartening. Further, it underscores the visibility Milk spoke about, a foundational component to achieving fair treatment for all.

Have you read?

The real cost of lgbt discrimination, the cost of homophobia: ruined lives, stilted economies, as cuba drops same-sex marriage, five lgbt+ advances and setbacks in 2018.

Of course, we do not have to wait for new legislation or an election cycle to have an impact. Each of us can play a part in creating an inclusive world, and we can start in a place where many of us spend so many hours each day: the workplace. If we can foster an environment at work where everyone feels safe – physically and emotionally – to bring their whole selves to the office and be visible, we can each play a small part in affecting change on a much grander scale.

Milk said, “Gay people, we will not win our rights by staying quietly in our closets.” At the heart of his statement is the importance of visibility, the first step toward solving the bigger ills of homophobia and LGBTQ discrimination. It serves us all to remember his words and his bravery, as we build a better world for each other.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Pay transparency and pay gap reporting may be rising but how effective are they?

Tom Heys and Emanuela Nespoli

May 29, 2024

How focused giving can unlock billions and catapult women’s wealth

Mark Muckerheide

May 21, 2024

Progress for women in the workplace stagnating in four key areas, global study reveals

The care economy is one of humanity's most valuable assets. Here's how we secure its future

This is how AI can empower women and achieve gender equality, according to the founder of Girls Who Code and Moms First

Kate Whiting

May 14, 2024

Here's how rising air pollution threatens millions in the US

Cornell Chronicle

• Architecture & Design
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Economics & Entrepreneurship
• Computing & Information Sciences
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Food & Agriculture
• Global Reach
• Health, Nutrition & Medicine
• Law, Government & Public Policy
• Life Sciences & Veterinary Medicine
• Physical Sciences & Engineering
• Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Coronavirus
• News & Events
• Public Engagement
• New York City
• Photos of the Week
• Big Red Sports
• Freedom of Expression
• Student Life
• University Statements
• Around Cornell
• All Stories
• In the News
• Expert Quotes
• Cornellians

Discrimination impacts health of LGBT people, analysis finds

In a review of thousands of peer-reviewed studies, the  What We Know Project ,  an initiative of Cornell’s  Center for the Study of Inequality , has found a strong link between anti-LGBT discrimination and harms to the health and well-being of LGBT people.

The  results of the analysis , the largest-known literature review on the topic, indicates that 286 out of 300 studies, or 95%, found a link between anti-LGBT discrimination and LGBT health harms.

“The research we reviewed makes it crystal clear that discrimination has far-ranging effects on LGBT health,” said Nathaniel Frank, director of the What We Know Project, an online research portal that aggregates existing peer-reviewed LGBT research. “And those consequences are compounded for especially vulnerable populations such as people of color, youth and adolescents, and transgender Americans.”

The research team screened more than 11,000 titles and read more than 1,300 peer-reviewed studies in order to identify those that addressed the question, “What does the scholarly research say about the effects of discrimination on the health of LGBT people?” Among the key findings identified by the report:

• Anti-LGBT discrimination increases the risks of poor mental and physical health for LGBT people, including depression, anxiety, suicidality, PTSD, substance use and cardiovascular disease.
• Discrimination is linked to health harms even for those who are not directly exposed to it, because the presence of discrimination, stigma and prejudice creates a hostile social climate that taxes individuals’ coping resources and contributes to minority stress.
• Minority stress – including internalized stigma, low self-esteem, expectations of rejection and fear of discrimination – helps explain the health disparities seen in LGBT populations.
• Discrimination on the basis of intersecting identities such as gender, race or socioeconomic status can exacerbate the harms of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Protective factors against the harms of discrimination include community and family support; access to affirming health care and social services; and the establishment of positive social climates, inclusive practices and anti-discrimination policies.

The report is relevant to debates currently unfolding nationally about whether to ban discrimination or, alternatively, allow a “license to discriminate” through religious exemptions from discrimination law, Frank said. The data also offer guidance on what policies and practices can help mitigate the consequences of anti-LGBT discrimination, prejudice and stigma, he said.

“Sometimes research really humanizes a policy debate, and this is one of those times,” said Kellan Baker of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, co-lead of the study. “Whatever you think of what the law should say about anti-LGBT discrimination, this research makes indisputable that it inflicts great harm on the LGBT population, and gives policymakers and individuals tools to reduce those harms.”

Focusing on public policy debates around inequality, the What We Know Project connects scholarship, public policy and new media technology.

“The goal is to bring together in one place scholarly evidence that informs LGBT debates, so that policymakers, journalists, researchers and the public can make truly informed decisions about what policies best serve the public interest,” Frank said. “We don’t call ‘balls and strikes’ in our analysis, but simply describe what conclusions the studies reach so visitors may evaluate the research themselves.”

The full research analysis and methodology can be viewed on the project website.

Media Contact

Gillian smith.

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like

Gallery Heading

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

House Passes The Equality Act: Here's What It Would Do

Danielle Kurtzleben

Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington where the Court on Oct. 8, 2019, as the court heard arguments in the first case of LGBT rights since the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Susan Walsh/AP hide caption

Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington where the Court on Oct. 8, 2019, as the court heard arguments in the first case of LGBT rights since the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Updated Feb. 25, 4:39 p.m. ET

The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to pass the Equality Act, a bill that would ban discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It would also substantially expand the areas to which those discrimination protections apply.

It's a bill that President Biden said on the campaign trail would be one of his top legislative priorities for the first 100 days of his presidency. The House vote was largely along party lines, passing with the support of all Democrats and just three Republicans. The bill now goes to the Senate, where its fate is unclear.

When House Democrats introduced the bill last week, Biden reiterated his support in a statement: "I urge Congress to swiftly pass this historic legislation," he wrote. "Every person should be treated with dignity and respect, and this bill represents a critical step toward ensuring that America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all."

But it's also controversial — while the Equality Act has broad support among Democrats, many Republicans oppose it, fearing that it would infringe upon religious objections.

Here's a quick rundown of what the bill would do, and what chance it has of becoming law.

What would the Equality Act do?

The Equality Act would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The bill has been introduced multiple times before and previously passed the House in 2019. However, the law's impact would be different in practical terms now than it was then.

That's because the Supreme Court ruled in June of last year , in Bostock v. Clayton County , that the protections guaranteed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the basis of sex also extend to discrimination against lesbian, gay, and transgender Americans. The logic was that a man who, for example, loses his job because he has a same-sex partner is facing discrimination on the basis of sex — that, were he a woman, he wouldn't have faced that discrimination.

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees

This act would explicitly enshrine those nondiscrimination protections into law for sexual orientation and gender identity, rather than those protections being looped in under the umbrella of "sex." However, the Equality Act would also substantially expand those protections.

The Civil Rights Act covered discrimination in certain areas, like employment and housing. The Equality Act would expand that to cover federally funded programs, as well as "public accommodations" — a broad category including retail stores and stadiums, for example.

("Public accommodations" is also a category that the bill broadens, to include online retailers and transportation providers, for example. Because of that, many types of discrimination the Civil Rights Act currently prohibits — like racial or religious discrimination — would now also be explicitly covered at those types of establishments.)

One upshot of all of this, then, is that the Equality Act would affect businesses like flower shops and bakeries that have been at the center of discrimination court cases in recent years — for example, a baker who doesn't want to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding .

In Narrow Opinion, Supreme Court Rules For Baker In Gay-Rights Case

Importantly, the bill also explicitly says that it trumps the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (commonly known by its acronym RFRA). The law, passed in 1993, set a higher bar for the government to defend laws if people argued those laws infringed upon religious freedom.

Under the Equality Act, an entity couldn't use RFRA to challenge the act's provisions, nor could it use RFRA as a defense to a claim made under the act.

What proponents say

Supporters say that the Equality Act simply extends basic, broadly accepted tenets of the Civil Rights Act to classes of people that the bill doesn't explicitly protect.

"Just as [a business] would not be able to turn away somebody for any other prohibited reason in the law, they would not be able to do that for LGBTQ people either. And we think that's a really important principle to maintain," said Ian Thompson, senior legislative representative at the ACLU.

The bill also would be national, covering states that do not have LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws. According to the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, 27 states do not have those laws.

Supporters additionally say the bill would cement protections that could otherwise be left up to interpretation.

Biden Signs Most Far-Reaching Federal Protections For LGBTQ People Yet

"President Biden issued an executive order directing agencies to appropriately interpret the Bostock ruling to apply not just to employment discrimination, but to other areas of law where sex discrimination is prohibited, including education, housing, and health care," the Human Rights Campaign wrote in support of the bill . "However, a future administration may refuse to interpret the law this way, leaving these protections vulnerable."

And with regard to RFRA, proponents argue that the bill would keep entities from using that law as a "license to discriminate," wording echoed by Human Rights Watch and many other Equality Act supporters.

What opponents say

The question of religious freedom is the main issue animating people against the Equality Act.

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia, has criticized the Equality Act since its 2019 introduction. He told NPR in an email that the law is "less necessary" now, after the Bostock decision.

Furthermore, while he supports adding sexual orientation and gender identity to federal anti-discrimination statutes, Laycock believes that this bill goes too far in limiting people's ability to defend themselves against discrimination claims.

"It protects the rights of one side, but attempts to destroy the rights of the other side," he said. "We ought to protect the liberty of both sides to live their own lives by their own identities and their own values."

How The Fight For Religious Freedom Has Fallen Victim To The Culture Wars

Another key fear among opponents of the Equality Act is that it would threaten businesses or organizations that have religious objections to serving LGBTQ people, forcing them to choose between operating or following their beliefs.

Could it pass?

The Democratic-led House passed the Equality Act in 2019 with unanimous support from Democrats (as well as support from eight Republicans), and it passed in similar fashion in the current Democratic House.

The Senate is more uncertain. Democrats in the Senate broadly support the bill. Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, among the most moderate Democratic senators, signed a letter in support of it last year .

But the bill would need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins cosponsored the bill in 2019, but not all of her fellow, more moderate Republicans are on board. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, for example, told the Washington Blade that he won't support the act, citing religious liberty.

"Sen. Romney believes that strong religious liberty protections are essential to any legislation on this issue, and since those provisions are absent from this particular bill, he is not able to support it," his spokesperson told the Blade.

It's uncertain how other moderate Republicans might vote. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who supported the narrower Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) in 2013, has yet to respond to NPR's questions about her support of the Equality Act.

And while Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, who likewise supported ENDA, didn't give a definitive answer on his support, his response made it clear that he could object to it on religious grounds.

"Rob opposes discrimination of any kind, and he also believes that it's important that Congress does not undermine protections for religious freedom," his office said in a statement. "He will review any legislation when and if it comes up for a vote in the Senate."

Chapter 7: Prejudice and Discrimination against LGBTQ people

Sean g. massey, sarah r. young, & ann merriwether.

Although progress in terms of LGBTQ rights has been made, and attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people have changed in the past few decades, the implications of anti-LGBTQ prejudice and discrimination remain serious. It is critical that efforts to change these attitudes continue, and that LGBTQ-affirmative social scientists, educators, and practitioners continue to develop a robust knowledge base to guide these efforts. In addition, there is a related literature that highlights the strength and resilience found in the LGBTQ community, even in the face of this adversity.

LGBTQ historians and anthropologists like Chauncey (1995), D’Emilio (1983), Stryker (2008), and Kennedy and Davis (1993) have helped make visible the courage and perseverance of LGBTQ individuals and communities who faced legal risks, social stigma, overt discrimination, and violence across the 20th century. These are the voices and struggles of a resilient community: the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis who organized and built networks of LGBTQ people in the shadow of McCarthyism and anti-homosexual witch hunts; the transwomen and transmen, drag queens, queer youth of color, street hustlers, butch dykes, and gay men who took a stand at the Stonewall Inn, throwing pennies, nickels, high heeled shoes, and bricksin protest against police harassment; the LGBTQ people who, amid unimaginable death and sadness brought about by the AIDS epidemic, built organizations, took care of each other, acted up, and fought back against government disdain and neglect; the people with AIDS who, many in midst of the ravages of the disease, still found meaning in helping others. These stories of resilience aren’t meant to minimize the dangers or potential for harm. In the words of Harvey Milk, they are simply stories of hope:

“Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be alright…. and you and you and you, you have to give people hope.” (Milk, 1973).

• Authored by : Sean G. Massey, Sarah R. Young, & Ann Merriwether. License : CC BY: Attribution

Privacy Policy

LGBT People’s Experiences of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

• Full Report

Using survey data collected in May 2021, this report examines the lifetime, five-year, and past-year experiences of discrimination among LGBT employees. It is one of the first studies to look at LGBT employment discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the year following Bostock v. Clayton County.

• Brad Sears Founding Executive Director
• Christy Mallory Legal Director
• Andrew R. Flores Affiliated Scholar
• Kerith J. Conron Research Director

Executive Summary

Over 8 million workers in the U.S. identify as LGBT. 1 Employment discrimination and harassment against LGBT people has been documented in a variety of sources and found to negatively impact employees’ health and wellbeing and to reduce job commitment and satisfaction.  

This report examines experiences of employment discrimination and harassment against LGBT adults using a survey of 935 LGBT adults conducted in May of 2021. Lifetime, five-year, and past-year discrimination were assessed among adults employed as of March 2020—just before many workplaces were forced to shut down because of COVID-19.  

Accordingly, this survey is one of the first to gather in formation about experiences of sexual orientation and gender identity employment discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the year following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County , 2   which held that employment discrimination against LGBT people is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3

Our analysis indicates that employment discrimination against LGBT people continues to be persistent and widespread. Over 40% of LGBT workers (45.5%) reported experiencing unfair treatment at work, including being fired, not hired, or harassed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity at some point in their lives. This discrimination and harassment is ongoing: nearly one-third (31.1%) of LGBT respondents reported that they experienced discrimination or harassment within the past five years.  

Overall, 8.9% of employed LGBT people reported that they were fired or not hired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in the past year, including 11.3% of LGBT employees of color and 6.5% of white LGBT employees. The percentage was five times as high for those who were out as LGBT to at least some people at work as compared to those who were not out (10.9% compared to 2.2%).  

Over half (57.0%) of LGBT employees who experienced discrimination or harassment at work reported that their employer or co-workers did or said something to indicate that the unfair treatment that they experienced was motivated by religious beliefs. Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) of LGBT employees of color said that religion was a motivating factor in their experiences of workplace discrimination compared to 49.4% of white LGBT employees.  

Many employees also reported engaging in behaviors to avoid discrimination and harassment, including hiding their LGBT identity and changing their physical appearance, and many left their jobs or considered leaving their jobs because of unfair treatment.  

While the key findings of the report are summarized below, the full report includes several quotes from respondents providing more detail about their experiences of discrimination and harassment in the workplace.  

Key Findings

• One-third (33.2%) of LGBT employees of color and one-quarter (26.3%) of white LGBT employees reported experiencing employment discrimination (being fired or not hired) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
• LGBT employees of color were significantly more likely to report not being hired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity than white LGBT employees: 29.0% of LGBT employees of color reported not being hired based on their LGBT status compared to 18.3% of white LGBT employees.  

Transgender 4   employees were also significantly more likely to experience discrimination based on their LGBT status than cisgender LGB employees: Nearly half (48.8%) of transgender employees reported experiencing discrimination (being fired or not hired) based on their LGBT status compared to 27.8% of cisgender LGB employees. More specifically, over twice as many transgender employees reported not being hired (43.9%) because of their LGBT status compared to LGB employees (21.5%).  

• Beyond being fired or not being hired, respondents also reported other types of unfair treatment based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, including not being promoted, not receiving raises, being treated differently than those with different-sex partners, having their schedules changed or reduced, and being excluded from company events.
• One in five (20.8%) LGBT employees reported experiencing physical harassment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Reports of physical harassment included being “punched,” “hit,” and ‘beaten up” in the workplace.  
• LGBT employees of color were significantly more likely to report experiencing verbal harassment (35.6% compared to 25.9%) at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity than white LGBT employees. In addition, transgender employees were significantly more likely to report experiencing verbal harassment over the course of their careers than cisgender LGB employees (43.8% compared to 29.3%). In many cases, the verbal harassment came from employees’ supervisors and co-workers, as well as customers.  
• One in four (25.9%) LGBT employees reported experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace because of their sexual orientation and gender identity at some point in their careers. Although transgender employees were not more likely than cisgender employees to report sexual harassment over the course of their careers, they were twice as likely to report recent experiences of sexual harassment: 22.4% reported sexual harassment in the past five years compared to 11.9% of cisgender LGB employees.  
• Workplace culture: Two-thirds (67.5%) of LGBT employees reported that they have heard negative comments, slurs, or jokes about LGBTQ people at work. Many LGBT people reported being called or hearing words like “f****t,” “queer,” “sissy,” “tranny,” and “dyke” in the workplace.  
• LGBT people continue to experience workplace discrimination even after the U.S. Supreme Court extended non-discrimination protections to LGBT people nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County . Nine percent (8.9%) of LGBT employees reported that they were fired or not hired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in the past year.  
• One in ten (11.3%) LGBT employees of color reported experiencing some form of employment discrimination (including being fired or not hired) based on their sexual orientation or gender identity within the past year.
• Of those employees who experienced discrimination or harassment at some point in their lives, 63.5% of LGBT employees of color said that religion was a motivating factor compared to 49.4% of white LGBT employees.  
• Those who are out to at least some people in the workplace were three times more likely to report experiences of discrimination or harassment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity than those who are not out to anyone in the workplace (53.3% compared to 17.9%).  
• While approximately 7% of those who are not out to anyone in the workplace reported experiencing verbal (7.4%) or physical (7.4%) harassment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, of those who are out to at least some people in the workplace, about one in three reported experiencing verbal harassment (37.8%) and one in four (25.0%) reported experiencing physical harassment.  
• In terms of discrimination in the past year—post- Bostock —those who are out to at least some people in the workplace were five times more likely to report experiencing discrimination (including being fired or not hired) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity than those who are not out to anyone (10.9% compared to 2.2%).  
• Transgender employees were significantly more likely to engage in covering behaviors than cisgender LGB employees. For example, 36.4% of transgender employees said that they changed their physical appearance and 27.5% said they changed their bathroom use at work compared to 23.3% and 14.9% of cisgender LGB employees.  
• Retention: One-third (34.2%) of LGBT employees said that they have left a job because of how they were treated by their employer based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  

Download the full report

Related Publications

Lgbt discrimination, subnational public policy, and law in the united states, title vii cases: amicus briefs, legal protections for lgbt people after bostock v. clayton county.

Kerith J. Conron & Shoshana K. Goldberg, Williams Inst., LGBT People in the US Not Protected by State NonDiscrimination Statutes 1 (2020) , https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-nondiscrimination-statutes.

140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).  

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

Participants who selected gender identity response options, including male, female, transgender, and nonbinary, that differed from their sex assigned at birth, were classified as transgender.  

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Sociology

Essay Samples on LGBTQ

Lgbtq rights: navigating equality and inclusivity.

LGBTQ rights have emerged as a significant social and legal issue, challenging societies worldwide to confront questions of equality, discrimination, and inclusivity. This essay delves into the multifaceted landscape of LGBTQ rights, examining the historical context, legal advancements, challenges, and the ongoing journey towards achieving...

• Human Rights

LGBTQ Rights: An Argumentative Landscape

The rights of the LGBTQ community have emerged as a crucial and contentious issue in today's society. This essay undertakes an in-depth analysis of the argumentative discourse surrounding LGBTQ rights, scrutinizing the diverse perspectives, presenting evidence, and providing critical commentary on this complex matter. By...

Persuading for Equality: Embracing LGBTQ Rights

LGBTQ rights have become a pivotal social issue, demanding our collective attention and action. This persuasive essay aims to advocate for the full acceptance and legal protection of LGBTQ individuals, emphasizing the importance of equality, the negative consequences of discrimination, and the societal benefits of...

The Complexity of LGBTQ Identities: A Personal Opinion

LGBTQ identities constitute a rich tapestry of human diversity that has gained significant visibility and recognition in recent times. This opinion essay aims to provide a personal perspective on the multifaceted nature of LGBTQ identities, acknowledging their significance, challenges, and the evolving societal attitudes that...

LGBTQ Discrimination: Overcoming Prejudice and Fostering Inclusion

LGBTQ discrimination has been a persistent issue, characterized by inequality, prejudice, and systemic biases. This essay delves into the multifaceted nature of LGBTQ discrimination, exploring its origins, manifestations, impact on individuals and society, as well as the efforts to combat it and foster a more...

• Discrimination

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

The Argumentative Discourse Surrounding LGBTQ

The discourse surrounding LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) rights has been a prominent and contentious topic in contemporary society. This essay aims to delve into the argumentative nature of discussions about LGBTQ issues, examining the diverse perspectives and providing an analysis of the...

The Argument for LGBTQ Community Empowerment

The LGBTQ community has been at the forefront of a societal revolution, advocating for rights, recognition, and acceptance. This argumentative essay delves into the essential reasons behind supporting and empowering the LGBTQ community, exploring the quest for equality, the promotion of diversity, and the imperative...

Accepting the LGBTQ+ Community: Inclusivity and Equality

In today's global society, acceptance and understanding of diverse identities, particularly those of the LGBTQ+ community, are vital to fostering environments where every individual feels valued and safe. Historically, LGBTQ+ individuals have faced prejudice, discrimination, and significant challenges, but a shift towards inclusivity and equality...

Best topics on LGBTQ

1. LGBTQ Rights: Navigating Equality and Inclusivity

2. LGBTQ Rights: An Argumentative Landscape

3. Persuading for Equality: Embracing LGBTQ Rights

4. The Complexity of LGBTQ Identities: A Personal Opinion

5. LGBTQ Discrimination: Overcoming Prejudice and Fostering Inclusion

6. The Argumentative Discourse Surrounding LGBTQ

7. The Argument for LGBTQ Community Empowerment

8. Accepting the LGBTQ+ Community: Inclusivity and Equality

• Cultural Identity
• National Honor Society
• Social Media
• Communication in Relationships
• American Values
• Ethnocentrism

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Better together: a model for women and lgbtq equality in the workplace.

• Faculty of Psychology, Work and Organizational Psychology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Much has been achieved in terms of human rights for women and people of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer (LGBTQ) community. However, human resources management (HRM) initiatives for gender equality in the workplace focus almost exclusively on white, heterosexual, cisgender women, leaving the problems of other gender, and social minorities out of the analysis. This article develops an integrative model of gender equality in the workplace for HRM academics and practitioners. First, it analyzes relevant antecedents and consequences of gender-based discrimination and harassment (GBDH) in the workplace. Second, it incorporates the feminist, queer, and intersectional perspectives in the analysis. Third, it integrates literature findings about women and the LGBTQ at work, making the case for an inclusive HRM. The authors underscore the importance of industry-university collaboration and offer a starters' toolkit that includes suggestions for diagnosis, intervention, and applied research on GBDH. Finally, avenues for future research are identified to explore gendered practices that hinder the career development of women and the LGBTQ in the workplace.

Introduction

Gender has diversified itself. More than four decades have passed since Bem (1974) published her groundbreaking article on psychological androgyny. With her work, she challenged the binary conception of gender in the western academia, calling for the disposal of gender as a stable trait consistent of discrete categories ( Mehta and Keener, 2017 ). Nowadays, people from the LGBTQ community find safe spaces to express their gender in most developed countries (see ILGA-Europe, 2017 ). Also, women-rights movements have impulsed changes for the emancipation and integration of women at every social level, enabling them to achieve things barely imaginable before (see Hooks, 2000 ).

However, there is still a lot to do to improve the situation of women and people from the LGBTQ community ( International Labour Office, 2016 ; ILGA-Europe, 2017 ). Some actions to increase gender inclusion in organizations actually conceal inequality against women, and many problems faced by the LGBTQ originate within frameworks that anti-discrimination policy reinforce (see Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 , 2012 ; Verloo, 2006 ). For example, the gender equality, gender management, and gender mainstreaming approaches overlook most problems faced by people from the LGBTQ community and from women of color, framing their target stakeholders as white, cisgender, and heterosexual (see Tomic, 2011 ; Hanappi-Egger, 2013 ; Klein, 2016 ). These problems seem to originate in the neoliberalization of former radical movements when adopted by the mainstream (see Cho et al., 2013 ). This translates into actions addressing sexism and heterosexism that overlook other forms of discrimination (e.g., racism, ableism), resisting an intersectional approach that would question white, able-bodied, and other forms of privilege (see Crenshaw, 1991 ; Cho et al., 2013 ; Liasidou, 2013 ; van Amsterdam, 2013 ).

The purpose of this paper is to support the claim that gender equality shall be done within a queer, feminist, and intersectional framework. This argument is developed by integrating available evidence on the antecedents and consequences of GBDH against women and people from the LGBTQ community in the workplace. The authors believe that GBDH against these groups has its origin in the different manifestations of sexism in organizations. A model with the antecedents and consequences of GBDH in the workplace is proposed. It considers an inclusive definition of gender and integrates the queer-feminist approach to HRM ( Gedro and Mizzi, 2014 ) with the intersectional perspective ( Crenshaw, 1991 ; McCall, 2005 ; Verloo, 2006 ). In this way, it provides a framework for HRM scholars and practitioners working to counteract sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination in organizations.

GBDH in the Workplace

GBDH is the umbrella term we propose to refer to the different manifestations of sexism and heterosexism in the workplace. The roots of GBDH are beyond the forms that discriminatory acts and behaviors take, being rather “about the power relations that are brought into play in the act of harassing” ( Connell, 2006 , p. 838). This requires acknowledging that gender harassment is a technology of sexism, that “perpetuates, enforces, and polices a set of gender roles that seek to feminize women and masculinize men” ( Franke, 1997 , p. 696). Harassment against the LGBTQ is rooted in a heterosexist ideology that establishes heterosexuality as the superior, valid, and natural form of expressing sexuality (see Wright and Wegner, 2012 ; Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ). Furthermore, women and the LGBTQ are oppressed by the institutionalized sexism that underscores the supremacy of hegemonic masculinity (male, white, heterosexual, strong, objective, rational) over femininity (female, non-white, non-heterosexual, weak, emotional, irrational; Wright, 2013 ; Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). In addition, GBDH overlaps with other frameworks (e.g., racism, ableism, anti-fat discrimination) that concurrently work to maintain white, able-bodied, and thin privilege, impeding changes in the broader social structure (see Yoder, 1991 ; Yoder and Aniakudo, 1997 ; Buchanan and Ormerod, 2002 ; Acker, 2006 ; Liasidou, 2013 ; van Amsterdam, 2013 ). The next paragraphs offer a definition of some of the most studied forms of GBDH in the workplace.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment was first defined in its different dimensions as gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion ( Gelfand et al., 1995 ). Later, Leskinen and Cortina (2013) focused on the gender-harassment subcomponent of sexual harassment and developed a broadened taxonomy of the term. This was motivated by the fact that legal practices gave little importance to gender-harassment forms of sexual harassment, despite of the negative impact they have on the targets' well-being ( Leskinen et al., 2011 ). Gender harassment consists of rejection or “put down” forms of sexual harassment such as sexist remarks, sexually crude/offensive behavior, infantilization, work/family policing, and gender policing ( Leskinen and Cortina, 2013 ). The concepts of sexual harassment and gender harassment were initially developed to refer to the experiences of women in the workplace, but there is also evidence of sexual and gender harassment against LGBTQ individuals ( Lombardi et al., 2002 ; Silverschanz et al., 2008 ; Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ). In addition, studies have shown how gender harassment and heterosexist harassment are complementary and frequently simultaneous phenomena accounting for mistreatment against members of the LGBTQ community ( Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ).

Gender Microaggressions

Gender microaggressions account for GBDH against women and people from the LGBTQ community that presents itself in ways that are subtle and troublesome to notice ( Basford et al., 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Following the taxonomy on racial microaggressions developed by Sue et al. (2007) , the construct was adapted to account for gender-based forms of discrimination ( Basford et al., 2014 ). Gender microaggressions consist of microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations, and although they may appear to be innocent, they exert considerably negative effects in the targets' well-being ( Sue et al., 2007 ; Basford et al., 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). As an example of microassault imagine an individual commenting their colleague that their way of dressing looks unprofessional (because it is not “masculine enough,” “too” feminine, or not according to traditional gender-binary standards). A microinsult is for example when the supervisor asks the subordinate about who helped them with their work (which was “too good” to be developed by the subordinate alone). An example of microinvalidation would be if in a corporate meeting the CEO dismisses information related to women or the LGBTQ in the company regarding it as unimportant, reinforcing the message that women and LGBTQ issues are inexistent or irrelevant (for more examples see Basford et al., 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Because gender is not explicitly addressed in microaggressions, it can be especially difficult for the victims to address the offense as such and act upon them (see Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Hence, they are not only emotionally distressing, but also tend to be highly ubiquitous, belonging to the daily expressions of a determined context ( Nadal et al., 2011 , 2014 ; Gartner and Sterzing, 2016 ).

Disguised Forms of GBDH

It is also the case that some forms of workplace mistreatment constitute disguised forms of GBDH. Rospenda et al. (2008) found in their US study that women presented higher rates of generalized workplace abuse (i.e., workplace bullying or mobbing). In the UK, a representative study detected that a high proportion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents have faced workplace bullying ( Hoel et al., 2017 ). Specifically, the results indicated that while the bullying rate for heterosexuals over a six-months period was of 6.4%, this number was tripled for bisexuals (19.2%), and more than doubled for lesbians (16.9%) and gay (13.7%) individuals ( Hoel et al., 2017 ). Moreover, 90% of the transgender sample in a US study reported experiencing “harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job” ( Grant et al., 2011 , p. 3). These findings suggest that many of the individuals facing workplace harassment that appears to be gender neutral are actually targets of GBDH. Hence, they experience “ disguised gender-based harassment and discrimination” ( Rospenda et al., 2009 , p. 837) that should not be addressed as a gender-neutral issue.

Intersectional, Queer, and Feminist Approaches in Organizations

In this section, a short introduction to the feminist, queer, and intersectional approaches is given, as they are applied to the analyses throughout this article.

Feminist Approaches

In the beginning there was feminism.

In the words of bell hooks, “[f]eminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” ( Hooks, 2000 , viii). However, feminism can be a movement, a methodology, or a theoretical approach, and it is probably better to talk about feminisms than considering it a unitary concept. In this paper, different feminist approaches (see Bendl, 2000 ) are applied to the analysis. Gender as a variable takes gender as a politically neutral, uncontested variable; the feminist standpoint focuses on women as a group; and the feminist poststructuralist approach searches to deconstruct hegemonic discourses that perpetuate inequality (for the complete definitions see Bendl, 2000 ).

Gender Subtext

The gender subtext refers to an approach to the managerial discourse that brings attention to how official speeches of inclusion work to conceal inequalities ( Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ). Its methodology -subtext analysis- brings discourse analysis and feminist deconstruction together to scrutiny the managerial discourse and practices in organizations ( Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ; Bendl, 2000 ; Bendl, 2008 ; Benschop and Doorewaard, 2012 ).

Integration and Applications of Feminist Approaches and the Gender Subtext

The gender subtext serves to understand the role that organizational factors play in the occurrence of GBDH. Gender as a variable serves to underscore how the hegemonic definition of gender excludes and otherizes the LGBTQ from HRM approaches to gender equality. The feminist standpoint is applied in this paper as a framework in which two groups—women and the LGBTQ—are recognized in their heterogeneity, and still brought together to search for synergies to counteract sexism as a common source of institutionalized oppression (see Oliver, 1992 ; Franke, 1997 ). Finally, the feminist-poststructuralist approach enables conceiving gender as deconstructed and reconstructed, and to apply the subtext analysis to the organizational discourse (see Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ; Monro, 2005 ).

Queer Approach

Queer theory and politics.

The origins of the queer movement can be traced to the late eighties, when lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and the transgender took distance from the LGBT community as a sign of disconformity with the depoliticization of its agenda ( Woltersdorff, 2003 ). However, the “Queer” label was later incorporated in the broader movement ( Woltersdorff, 2003 ). In terms of queer theory, the most recognized scholar is Judith Butler, whose work Gender Trouble (1990) was revolutionary because it made visible the oppressive character of the categories used to signify gender, and insisted in its performative nature (see Butler, 1990 ; Woltersdorff, 2003 ).

Queer Standpoint, the LGBTQ, and HRM

In the presented model, queer theory brings attention to the exclusion of the LGBTQ community from the organizational and HRM speech. This exclusion is observed in the policies and politics supported by the HRM literature and practitioners, as well as in the way the LGBTQ are otherized by their discursive practices (e.g., validating only a binary vision of gender, Carrotte et al., 2016 ). Although the categories that the queer theory criticizes are applied in this model, its constructed nature is acknowledged (see Monro, 2005 ). In this way, McCall's (2005) argument in favor of the strategic use of categories for the intersectional analysis of oppression is supported. This analysis is conducted adopting a queer-feminist perspective ( Marinucci, 2016 ) and the intersectional approach.

Integration of Intersectionality With the Queer and Feminist Approaches

Origin and approaches.

The concept of intersectionality was initially introduced to frame the problem of double exclusion and discrimination that black women face in the United States ( Crenshaw, 1989 , 1991 ). Crenshaw (1991) analyzed how making visible the specific violence faced by black women conflicted with the political agendas of the feminist and anti-racist movements. This situation left those women devoid of a framework to direct political attention and resources toward ending with the violence they were (and still are) subjected to ( Crenshaw, 1991 ). Intersectionality theory has evolved since then, and different approaches exist within it ( McCall, 2005 ). These approaches range from fully deconstructivist (total rejection of categories), to intracategorical (focused on the differences within groups), to intercategorical (exploring the experiences of groups in the intersections), and are compatible with queer-feminist approaches (see Parker, 2002 ; McCall, 2005 ; Chapman and Gedro, 2009 ; Hill, 2009 ).

The intracategorical approach acknowledges the heterogeneity that exist within repressed groups (see Bendl, 2000 ; McCall, 2005 ). Within this framework (also called intracategorical complexity, see McCall, 2005 ), the intersectional analysis emerges, calling for attention to historically marginalized groups, [as in Crenshaw (1989 , 1991 )]. The deconstructivist view helps to de-essentialize categories as gender, race, and ableness, making visible the power dynamics they contribute to maintain (see Acker, 2006 ). The intercategorical approach takes constructed social categories and analyzes the power dynamics occurring between groups ( McCall, 2005 ).

Integration: Queer-Feminist Intersectional Synergy

Applying these complementary approaches helps to analyze how women and people from the LGBTQ community are defined (e.g., deconstructivist approach), essentialized (e.g., deconstructivist and intracategorical approaches), and oppressed by social actors (e.g., intercategorical approach) and institutionalized sexism (e.g., Oliver, 1992 ; Franke, 1997 ). It also allows the analysis of the oppression reinforced by members of the dominant group (intercategorical approach), as well as by minority members that enjoy other forms of privilege (e.g., white privilege), and endorse hegemonic values (deconstructivist and intracategorical approaches). In addition, the analyses within the inter- and intra-categorical framework allow approaching the problems faced by individuals in the intersections between sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, and monosexism (e.g., transgender women, lesbians, bisexuals), as well as considering the way classism, racism, ableism, and ethnocentrism shape their experiences (e.g., disabled women, transgender men of color).

Support for an Integrative HRM Model of GBDH in the Workplace

This section describes an integrative model of GBDH in the workplace ( Figure 1 ). First, the effects of GBDH on the health and occupational well-being of targeted individuals are illustrated (P1 and P2). Afterwards, the model deals with the direct and moderation effects of organizational climate, culture, policy, and politics (OCCPP) on GBDH in the workplace. OCCPP acts as a “switch” that enables or disables the other paths to GBDH. OCCPP's effects on GBDH are described as: a direct effect on GBDH (P3), the moderation of the relationship between gender diversity and GBDH (P3a), the moderation of the relationship between individual characteristics and GBDH (P3b), and the moderation (P3c) of the moderation effect of gender diversity on the relationship between individual's characteristics and GBDH (P4). In other words, when OCCPP produce environments that are adverse for gender minorities, gender diversity and gender characteristics become relevant to explain GBDH. When OCCPP generate respectful and integrative environments, gender diversity, and gender characteristics are no longer relevant predictors of harassment.

Figure 1 . Integrative model of GBDH in the workplace. Continuous paths represent direct relationships. Dashed paths represent fully moderated relationships. The double-ended arrow signals the relationship between gender diversity and OCCPP, which follows a circular causation logic.

Consequences of GBDH in the Workplace

Gbdh and individuals' health.

Evidence suggests that exposure to sexist discrimination and harassment in the workplace negatively affects women's well-being ( Yoder and McDonald, 2016 ; Manuel et al., 2017 ), and that different forms of sexual harassment can constitute trauma and lead to posttraumatic stress disorder ( Avina and O'Donohue, 2002 ). In their meta-analysis ( N = 89.382), Chan et al. (2008) found a negative relationship between workplace sexual harassment, psychological health, and physical health conditions. Regarding the LGBTQ at work, Flanders (2015) found a positive relationship between negative identity events, microaggressions, and feelings of stress and anxiety among a sample of bisexual individuals in the US. This is consistent with Galupo and Resnick's (2016) results about the negative effects of microaggressions for the well-being of lesbian, bisexual, and gay workers. In another study, Seelman et al. (2017) found that microaggressions and other forms of gender discrimination relate to lowered self-esteem and increased stress and anxiety in LGBTQ individuals, with the most negative effects reported by the transgender. In a study among gay, lesbian, and bisexual emerging adults in the US, exposure to the phrase “that's so gay” related to feelings of isolation and physical health symptoms as headaches, poor appetite, and eating problems ( Woodford et al., 2012 ). In the literature on gender discrimination, Khan et al. (2017) found that harassment relates to depression risk factors among the LGBTQ. Finally, according to Chan et al. (2008) meta-analysis, targets of workplace sexual harassment suffer its detrimental job-related, psychological, and physical consequences regardless of their gender.

Proposition P1: GBDH negatively affects women and LGBTQ individuals' health in the workplace .

GBDH and Occupational Well-Being

Occupational well-being refers to the relationship between job characteristics and individuals' well-being ( Warr, 1990 ). It is defined “as a positive evaluation of various aspects of one's job, including affective, motivational, behavioral, cognitive, and psychosomatic dimensions” ( Horn et al., 2004 , p. 366). It has a positive relationship with general well-being ( Warr, 1990 ) and work-related outcomes like task performance ( Devonish, 2013 ; Taris and Schaufeli, 2015 ).

There is robust evidence on the negative effects of GBDH on indicators of occupational well-being, such as overall job satisfaction, engagement, commitment, performance, job withdrawal, and job-related stress ( Stedham and Mitchell, 1998 ; Lapierre et al., 2005 ; Chan et al., 2008 ; Cogin and Fish, 2009 ; Sojo et al., 2016 ). Its negative effects have been reported among women ( Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ), gay and heterosexual men ( Stockdale et al., 1999 ), lesbians ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ), and transgender individuals ( Lombardi et al., 2002 ), to name some.

Proposition P2: GBDH negatively affects the occupational well-being of women and people from the LGBTQ community in the workplace .

Antecedents of GBDH in the Workplace

Direct effect of occpp on gbdh.

In the next lines, the direct effects of OCCPP on GBDH against women and people from the LGBTQ community are explored, supporting the next proposition of this model.

Proposition P3: OCCPP affect the incidence of GBDH against women and the LGBTQ .

Organizational Culture and GBDH

Organizational culture refers to the shared norms, values, and assumptions that are relatively stable and greatly affect the functioning of organizations ( Schein, 1996 ). The most plausible link between organizational culture and GBDH seems to be the endorsement of sexist beliefs and attitudes. This is supported by evidence that sexism endorsement encourages GBDH attitudes and behavior (see Pryor et al., 1993 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ; Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Stoll et al., 2016 ). The literature on sexism has mainly adopted a binary conception of gender (see Carrotte et al., 2016 ). However, the last decade more research has focused on heterosexism and anti-LGBTQ attitudes, uncovering their negative effects in the lives of LGBTQ individuals.

Sexism Against Women

Scholars focusing on sexism against women have categorized it in different ways. Old-fashioned sexism refers to the explicit endorsement of traditional beliefs about women's inferiority ( Morrison et al., 1999 ). Modern and neo sexism define the denial of gender inequality in society and resentment against measures that support women as a group ( Campbell et al., 1997 ; Morrison et al., 1999 ). Gender-blind sexism refers to the denial of the existence of sexism against women ( Stoll et al., 2016 ). Benevolent sexism defines the endorsement of an idealized vision of women that is used to reinforce their submission ( Glick et al., 2000 ). Finally, ambivalent sexism is the term for the endorsement of both hostile and “benevolent” sexist attitudes ( Glick and Fiske, 1997 , 2001 , 2011 ).

Sexism Against the LGBTQ

Sexism directed against the LGBTQ takes different forms, that can be also held by members of the LGBTQ community, as the evidence about biphobia and transphobia points out (see Vernallis, 1999 ; Weiss, 2011 ). Heterosexism is the endorsement of beliefs stating that heterosexuality is the normal and desirable manifestation of sexuality, while framing other sexual orientations as deviant, inferior, or flawed (see Habarth, 2013 ; Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ). Monosexism and biphobia refer to negative beliefs toward people that are not monosexual , namely, whose sexual orientation is not defined by the attraction to people from only one gender (see Vernallis, 1999 ). Cissexism (also transphobia ) refers to “an ideology that denigrates and subordinates trans* people because their sex and gender identities exist outside the gender binary. Transgender people are thus positioned as less authentic and inferior to cisgender people” ( Yavorsky, 2016 , p. 950). Hence, transgender individuals experience concurrently sexism, heterosexism, and cissexism/transphobia in their workplaces (see Yavorsky, 2016 ).

Organizational Climate and GBDH

Organizational climate reflects the “social perceptions of the appropriateness of particular behaviors and attitudes [in an organization]” ( Sliter et al., 2014 ). There is evidence linking organizational climate with workplace harassment ( Bowling and Beehr, 2006 ), sexual harassment ( Fitzgerald et al., 1997 , p. 578), and gender microaggressions ( Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ).

Diversity climate is “the extent to which employees perceive their organization to be supportive of underrepresented groups, both in terms of policy implementation and social integration” ( Sliter et al., 2014 ). Hence, a gender-diversity climate reflects the employees' perceptions of their workplace as welcoming and positively appreciating gender differences ( Jansen et al., 2015 ). It has been associated with an increased perception of inclusion by members of an organization, buffering the negative effects of gender dissimilarity (i.e., gender diversity) between individuals in a group ( Jansen et al., 2015 ). Sliter et al. (2014) found a negative relationship between diversity climate perceptions and conflict at work. Also, it has been suggested that it plays a crucial role for workers' active support of diversity initiatives, which is determinant for their successful implementation ( Avery, 2011 ). A similar construct, climate for inclusion has also shown to be a positive factor in gender-diverse groups, protecting against the negative effects of group conflict over unit-level satisfaction ( Nishii, 2013 ).

Heterosexist climate refers to an organizational climate in which heterosexist attitudes and behaviors are accepted and reinforced, propitiating GBDH against the LGBTQ (see Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). For example, Burn et al. (2005) conducted a study using hypothethical scenarios to test the effects of indirect heterosexism on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The participants of their study reported that hearing heterosexist comments would be experienced as an offense, affecting their decision to share information about their sexual orientation ( Burn et al., 2005 ). In addition, it has been found that LGBTQ-friendly climates (hence, low in heterosexism), can have a positive impact on the individual and organizational level ( Eliason et al., 2011 ). Examples of positive outcomes are reduced discrimination, better health, increased job satisfaction, job commitment ( Badgett et al., 2013 ), perceived organizational support ( Pichler et al., 2017 ), and feelings of validation for lesbians that become mothers ( Hennekam and Ladge, 2017 ).

Workplace Policy and GBDH

Workplace policy plays an important role in the incidence of GBDH. Finally, evidence shows that policy affects the extent to which the work environment presents itself as LGBTQ-friendly, influencing the experience of LGBTQ individuals at work ( Riger, 1991 ; Eliason et al., 2011 ; Döring, 2013 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ; Gruber, 2016 ). Eliason et al. (2011) found that inclusive language, domestic partner benefits, child-care solutions, and hiring policies are relevant for the constitution of a gender-inclusive work environment for the LGBTQ. Calafell (2014) wrote about how the absence of policy addressing discrimination against people with simultaneous minority identities (e.g., queer Latina) contributes to cover harassment against them. Galupo and Resnick (2016) found that weak policy contributes to the incidence of microaggressions against people from the LGBTQ community. Some of the situations they found include refusal of policy reinforcement, leak of confidential information, and refusal to acknowledge the gender identity of a worker ( Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Moreover, existent policy may serve to reinforce inequalities if its discourse is based on power binaries (e.g., rational/masculine vs. emotional/feminine) that discredit, oppress, and marginalize minority groups ( Riger, 1991 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). For example, Peterson and Albrecht (1999) analyzed maternity-policy and found how discourse is shaped to protect organizational interest at the cost of the precarization of women's conditions in organizations. Finally, it is very important to address the mishandling of processes and backlash after GBDH complaints are filed, since they keep targets of harassment from seeking help within their organizations (see Vijayasiri, 2008 ).

Organizational Politics and GBDH

Organizations are political entities ( Mayes and Allen, 1977 ). In the workplace, power, conceived as access to information and resources, is negotiated through political networks embedded in communication practices ( Mayes and Allen, 1977 ; Mumby, 2001 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). These communication practices operate within power dynamics in which the majority group sets the terms of the discussion and frames what is thematized ( Mumby, 1987 , 2001 ). Since gender affects the nature of these power relations, the effects of politics in gender issues and of gender issues in politics must be considered.

Full Moderation of OCCPP of the Relationship Between Gender Diversity and GBDH

Gender diversity refers to heterogeneity regarding gender characteristics of individuals in an organization. Broadly, an organization in which most workers are cisgender, male, and heterosexual would be low in gender diversity, and one in which individuals are evenly distributed in terms of their gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, would be high on gender diversity. In this section, the moderation effect of OCCPP on the relationship between gender diversity and GBDH is discussed to support the next proposition of the model.

Proposition P3a: The relationship between gender diversity and GBDH is fully moderated by OCCPP. When OCCPP propitiate a hostile environment for gender minorities, low gender diversity will lead to high GBDH. When OCCPP propitiate a context of respect and integration of gender minorities, low gender diversity will not lead to higher GBDH .

Male-Dominated Workplace

In male-dominated organizations, a hypermasculine culture is predominant, male workers represent a numerical majority, and most positions of power are occupied by men (e.g., Carrington et al., 2010 ). These organizations present an increased frequency and intensity of GBDH against women, men who do not do gender in a hypermasculine form, and individuals from the LGBTQ community ( Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Street et al., 2007 ; Chan, 2013 ; Wright, 2013 ). Women in a male-dominated workplace may be confronted with misogyny at work ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ), becoming targets of more intense and frequent GBDH as they depart from the policed gender-rule that demands them to behave feminine, submissive, and heterosexual ( Berdahl, 2007 ). Women refusing sexual objectification in these contexts may become targets of serious forms of mistreatment, with the case that certain women “—including lesbians and those who present as butch, large, or black—may be less able to access emphasized femininity as a resource and thus [become] more subject to open hostility” ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 , p. 383). In other words, the more they depart from the sexist and heteronormative standard, the worse is the mistreatment they will face. At the same time, the strategies some women apply to avoid hostility have a high cost for their identity and validation at work, as pointed by Denissen and Saguy (2014 , p. 383),

the presence of lesbians threatens heteronormativity and men's sexual subordination of women […] [b]y sexually objectifying tradeswomen, tradesmen, in effect, attempt to neutralize this threat. While tradeswomen, in turn, are sometimes able to deploy femininity to manage men's conduct and gain some measure of acceptance as women, it often comes at the cost of their perceived professional competence and sexual autonomy and—in the case of lesbians—sexual identity.

However, GBDH is not only directed to women in hypermasculine contexts, as suggested by Denissen and Saguy (2014) , who observed that “tradesmen unapologetically use homophobic slurs to repudiate both homosexuality and femininity (in men)” ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 , p. 388). Hence, men working in a male-dominated context are also expected to perform hegemonic masculinity, being punished when they do not comply. This leaves men who do not present dominant traits, that are feminine, or that are not heterosexual, at risk of becoming targets of GBDH ( Franke, 1997 ; Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Carrington et al., (2010) .

Female-Dominated Workplace

Female-dominated workplaces are those where women represent a numeric majority. It has been suggested that in these contexts (e.g., nursing) women with care responsibilities can find more tools to balance work-family schedules ( Caroly, 2011 ), and face less harassment ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). However, evidence about heterosexism and harassment against people from the LGBTQ community uncovers heteronormativity in female-dominated workplaces (e.g., among nurses, see Eliason et al., 2011 ). For example, an experiment about discrimination of gays and lesbians in recruitment processes showed that while gay males were discriminated in male-dominated occupations, lesbians were discriminated in female-dominated ones ( Ahmed et al., 2013 ).

Representation of the LGBTQ in the Workplace

At the moment this paper is being written, the authors have not found research that specifically targets LGBTQ-dominated organizations. There is evidence suggesting that having more lesbian, gay, and non-binary coworkers contributes to the development of LGBTQ-friendly workplaces ( Eliason et al., 2011 ). In addition, evidence supports the positive effects of having LGBTQ leaders that advocate for the respect and integration of LGBTQ individuals in organizations ( Moore, 2017 ).

Gender Diversity, Tokenism, Glass Escalator, and GBDH

When gender-minority individuals are pioneers entering a gender-homogeneous workplace, they face a heightened probability of experiencing tokenism ( Maranto and Griffin, 2011 ). Tokenism refers to the performance pressures, social isolation, and role encapsulation that individuals from social minorities face in organizations in which they are underrepresented numerically ( Yoder, 1991 ). Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) conducted a study comparing the effects of male- and female-dominated work environments on individuals' well-being and tokenism experiences. They found that women, in comparison to men, experience the highest levels of tokenism and discrimination in male-dominated sectors, and that they endure more pressure than men, even in female -dominated contexts ( Gardiner and Tiggemann, 1999 ). There is also an increasing number of reports on the experiences of tokenism by the LGBTQ ( LaSala et al., 2008 ; Colvin, 2015 ) and research on how to hinder the negative consequences of tokenism against them in organizations ( Davis, 2017 ; Nourafshan, 2018 ). The fact that men in female- dominated work settings report less levels of pressure than women in male dominated workplaces is compatible with Yoder's (1991) conception of tokenism as the oppression of social-minority members who are simultaneously a numerical minority. Because white men are a social majority, they do not experience the negative effects of tokenism when they are underrepresented numerically. Actually, evidence on the glass escalator effect shows that white men experience advantages when they enter female-dominated fields ( Williams, 1992 , 2013 , 2015 ; Woodhams et al., 2015 ). However, tokenism might be also present in female-dominated settings, as can be inferred from studies on LGBTQ experiences in women-dominated professions ( Eliason et al., 2011 ; Ahmed et al., 2013 ). Moreover, research in the US suggests that female CEOs tend to advance policies related to domestic-partner benefits and discrimination against women, but not necessarily advocate for a wider range of LGBTQ-inclusion policies ( Cook and Glass, 2016 ).

Gender Diversity, Contradictions, and the Role of OCCPP

The evidence on the effects of gender diversity in organizations is not free of contradictions. It has been found that the integration of male coworkers in female-dominated workplaces increases conflict between women ( Haile, 2012 ), and that as the proportion of male doctors in workgroups increases, the same happens with sexual harassment against female doctors ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). If taken together, it makes sense to consider an interaction of OCCPP and gender diversity to explain GBDH. In other words, it seems that gender diversity alone is not enough to end GBDH in the workplace, but can interact in a positive way with organizational factors to diminish conflict and GBDH (see Nishii, 2013 ). White, middle class, cisgender, heterosexual men would most likely not be targeted for GBDH in female-dominated contexts, since they are not a social minority, rather benefiting from their underrepresentation (see Williams, 1992 ). Finally, it is expected that gender diversity and OCCPP present a circular causation (see double-ended arrow in Figure 1 ), so that a higher representation of a particular minority group will traduce into OCCPP that promote inclusion for that group. At the same time, an organization whose OCCPP invites to respect and integrate gender minorities will attract more women and LGBTQ individuals (see Bajdo and Dickson, 2001 ; Moore, 2017 ).

OCCPP Full Moderation of the Relationship Between Individuals' Characteristics and GBDH

Individuals' gender characteristics intersect with race, class, ethnicity, and disability configuring complex identities and dynamics that affect individuals' experience of inequality in organizations (see Oliver, 1992 ; Acker, 2006 ; Verloo, 2006 ; Cunningham, 2008 ; Ericksen and Schultheiss, 2009 ; Cho et al., 2013 ; Donovan et al., 2013 ; Liasidou, 2013 ; Wright, 2013 ; Calafell, 2014 ; Moodley and Graham, 2015 ; Senyonga, 2017 ). In other words, it is difficult to isolate causes for exclusion, since they derive from complex power dynamics that shape individuals' experience. It was mentioned above that women and the LGBTQ tend to be more targeted for GBDH than white heterosexual men. However, it is in sexist organizational contexts that gender characteristics are made salient to propitiate GBDH.

Proposition P3b: The link between individuals' gender characteristics and GBDH in the workplace is fully moderated by OCCPP. This means that in a context of sexist OCCPP, individuals with gender-minority status will experience more GBDH. In contexts in which OCCPP propitiate respect and integration of gender minorities, GBDH will be low .

In other words, if the organizational context is tolerant of GBDH, harassment will occur based on individuals' sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender expression, or an intersection of those ( Crenshaw, 1991 ; Pryor et al., 1993 ; Franke, 1997 ; Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Some examples of how gender characteristics are used as grounds for GBDH are described in the following lines.

Sex assigned at birth refers to the gender category assigned to individuals according to their physical characteristics at birth ( ILGA-Europe, 2016 ). At the moment, the intersex category for those whose physical characteristics do not match the binary conception of gender at birth is not officially recognized in many countries ( ILGA-Europe, 2016 ).

Gender identity is the “deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth” ( International Commission of Jurists, 2009 , p. 6). Despite the claims to adopt inclusive conceptions of gender, organizations continue to direct their gender-equality programs to white cisgender women, excluding the transgender and genderqueer (see Carrotte et al., 2016 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ).

Gender expression is the way people handle their physical or external appearance so that it reflects their gender identity ( European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014 ). In highly sexist organizations, gender policing and harassment is directed against less gender-conforming individuals (e.g., Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Wright, 2013 ).

Sexual orientation refers to the “person's capacity for profound affection, emotional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender” ( ILGA-Europe, 2016 , p. 180). It is often the case that family policy in organizations consider only workers whose families are conformed by heterosexual couples and their children (e.g., Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). This excludes those who are in same-sex or non-monosexual partnerships and families, sending the message that they are “different,” abnormal, or unnatural (see Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). There is evidence that gender-exclusive language (using he and his instead of gender-inclusive forms) negatively affects the sense of belongingness, identification, and motivation of women in work settings ( Stout and Dasgupta, 2011 ). In the same way, the exclusion of people with non-binary or non-heterosexual gender characteristics in the organizational discourse makes them experience feelings of exclusion and otherization ( Carrotte et al., 2016 ).

Double Moderation of OCCPP: Its Effects on the Moderation of Gender Diversity of the Relationship Between Individuals' Characteristics and GBDH

Considering the literature on tokenism, gender characteristics (e.g., transgender) are expected to be a relevant predictor of GBDH if there is a reduced number of people with those characteristics in the organization (i.e., low gender diversity). Also, it is expected that this relationship will only take place in those situations in which the OCCPP propitiate a discriminatory and harassing environment for gender minorities.

Proposition P3c and P4: When OCCPP propitiate a discriminatory and harassing environment for gender minorities, women and the LGBTQ will experience more GBDH in a context low in gender diversity. If the OCCPP configure an environment that is inclusive and respectful of gender minorities, a low gender diversity will not lead to GBDH against women and the LGBTQ in that organization .

Recommendations for Academics and Practitioners

Need for industry-university collaborations: from the lab to the field.

Research that emerges from industry-university collaboration (IUC) is needed to better understand and counteract GBDH. Porter and Birdi (2018) identified twenty-two factors for a successful IUC. Some of these factors are: capacity of the stakeholders to enact change, a clear and shared vision, trust between the actors, and effective communication ( Porter and Birdi, 2018 ). Rajalo and Vadi (2017) developed a model of IUC, according to which success is more likely when preconditions from the involved partners (i.e., academics and practitioners) match. These preconditions are explained in terms of absorptive capacity (ability to process and incorporate new information), and motivation to collaborate ( Rajalo and Vadi, 2017 ). In other words, those involved in IUC need top management support, economic resources, a shared vision of gender equality, trust in each other, effective communication channels, and high motivation to collaborate. It is not a simple endeavor, but it is a necessary and possible one (see Porter and Birdi, 2018 ).

In collaborations, scholars and practitioners have the opportunity to work together in the design, development, implementation, and follow-up of HRM strategies. This must be done ensuring that projects are appropriate for each organization, and that the raised information is suitable for research purposes. Evidence on IUC spillover points out that firms and academics benefit from these collaborations (see Jensen et al., 2010 ). In the case of HRM, scholars can gain access to samples that are difficult to reach and economic resources to finance their research, while practitioners benefit from the academic expertise (see Jensen et al., 2010 ). In the context of gender equality, this can be useful to develop and implement evidence-based procedures to counteract GBDH (see Briner and Rousseau, 2011 ). To build the networks necessary for such collaborative alliances, public and private initiative must be taken (see Lee, 2018 ). Congresses and events that approach gender issues in organizations and aim to build bridges between the industry and the academia can offer opportunities for collaboration to occur. Finally, practitioners must gain awareness of gender issues in the workplace, and organizational-feminist scholars should write and reach for the practitioner audience as well.

A Small Help to Begin With: The Gender-Equality Starters' Toolkit

We know that for practitioners and researchers that are not familiarized with the poststructuralist, intersectional, queer-feminist theories, our recommendations may sound quite cryptic. For this reason, we developed a very simplified starters' toolkit ( Table 1 ). In its “HRM diagnose” section, we suggest ways to develop a first diagnose of the organization in relation to gender issues. The “HRM interventions” section refers to actions that can be taken in case further intervention is needed. In the “applied-research” section, we provide applied-research ideas to better understand GBDH and develop evidence-based tools for HRM. Finally, in the “references and resources” section we include references that support and complement the suggestions provided. Each row of the toolkit refers to one of the components of our model (health and occupational well-being were grouped together). As mentioned, the aim of this toolkit is to provide material for a first approach to GBDH in organizations, and inspire those interested in conducting applied research on GBDH in the workplace.

Table 1 . Recommendations for HRM practitioners and applied researchers: a starters' toolkit.

A Change of Perspective: Looking at the Organization with Queer-Feminist Lens

Change organizational politics, change the organization.

Organizational politics result from the interplay of discursive practices and power negotiations, and refer to who and how is determining the terms of these negotiations ( Mumby, 1987 , 2001 ). To understand organizational politics, the hegemonic discourse has to be analyzed utilizing deconstructive lens that uncover the operating power dynamics (e.g., Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). In other words, when deconstructing the organizational discourse, the researcher or practitioner analyzes both the content and structural elements of the particular text (see Peterson and Albrecht, 1999 ; Buzzanell and Liu, 2005 ). Organizational-text examples are: the sexual harassment policy of the organization, brochures from the last organizational-change campaign, the transcript of interviews on gender issues, the chart of values of the firm. The analysis of this material allows to observe the way gender issues are approached and defined (or not approached nor defined), to develop a first diagnose and lines of action (for an example see Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). Some questions that may help in the analysis are:

How is gender defined? (Whose gender is [not] validated?),

What actions or behaviors are constitutive of GBDH in this organization? (What forms of aggression and discrimination are hence allowed?),

What are the procedures if action is to be taken? (What is left out of procedure leaving space for leaks or inadequacies?), and

What is the organizational history in relation to GBDH claims? (Who has enjoyed impunity? Whose claims are [not] listened to?).

For example, the researcher or practitioner may realize that the sexual-harassment policy of a particular organization refers to cisgender individuals only. Moreover, it may be that this policy defines GBDH as harassment of men against women, excluding same-sex sexual harassment (see Stockdale et al., 1999 ). Furthermore, it may become evident that this policy is framed in a discourse of binary logics that serve to blame the victims and victimize harassers (see Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). Finally, after a follow-up of archived organization's processes, it may come out that harassers have historically enjoyed impunity (see Calafell, 2014 ). This initial analysis might be useful to develop a plan for change. Continuing with the example, this policy may be redefined so that it adopts an integrative conception of gender. In addition, it can be adapted to include cases of same-sex sexual harassment. It can be also reframed using a discourse that allows fairness for all parties involved. Finally, cases from the past may be analyzed to avoid committing old mistakes in the future, and if some of these cases are recent, rectification may be considered.

Reading Between the Lines: Disguised Forms of GBDH

Bullying and mobbing as disguised gbdh.

We argue that at least some workplace mistreatment that appears as “gender neutral” is actually gendered. Available evidence points to a higher frequency of bullying/mobbing against women and the LGBTQ in the workplace ( Rospenda et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Grant et al., 2011 ; Hoel et al., 2017 ). Hence, once data on workplace mistreatment is raised, it is advisable to evaluate gender disparities (e.g., statistically comparing means) that may point to cases of disguised GBDH. The importance of addressing disguised GBDH (i.e., “sexist” mobbing and bullying) lies on solving the problem (i.e., mistreatment) at its roots. According to our model, if sexist OCCPP are intervened and changed, their consequences (i.e., overt and disguised forms of GBDH) should disappear.

Disguised GBDH at the Task Level

We also believe that disguised GBDH might take place through task allocation processes. In other words, it may be that the processes of task allocation are such that they keep gender minorities away from career-development opportunities. Evidence signaling that women receive less challenging tasks that are relevant for career development suggests that the process of task allocation is not gender neutral ( de Pater et al., 2009 ). There is also research on the effects of illegitimate tasks that suggests that their assignation to individuals in organizations may be gendered ( Omansky et al., 2016 ). Illegitimate tasks are perceived as unreasonable and/or unnecessary by the person that undertakes them, and constitute a task-level stressor ( Semmer et al., 2010 , 2015 ). It was found that illegitimate tasks exert a stronger negative effect on perceptions of effort-reward imbalance (ERI) among male than female professionals ( Omansky et al., 2016 ). One explanation is that women are socialized to undertake these tasks, which is why they feel less disrupted by them ( Omansky et al., 2016 ). However, if this causes women to undertake more illegitimate tasks than men, that might bring negative consequences for their occupational development and well-being. Available evidence shows no gender differences in the reports of illegitimate tasks between women and men (see Semmer et al., 2010 , 2015 ; Omansky et al., 2016 ). However, it is unclear if this is because women do not perceive the tasks they undertake to be illegitimate, or if there is no difference de facto . To our knowledge, there is no evidence on illegitimate tasks assigned to LGBTQ individuals. We think that the findings on task-allocation and illegitimate-tasks call for more research in this subject, especially regarding the role of illegitimate tasks and task-allocation processes for the career development of women and the LGBTQ.

Lavender Over the Glass Ceiling

It is important to evaluate if, when, and what kind of leadership positions are available for gender minorities in organizations. This includes spotting cases when a single person or a small group is tokenized and expected to compensate for a lack of diversity of the whole organization (see Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ). The glass ceiling in the case of women and lavender ceiling in the case of LGBTQ individuals refer to the burdens faced by these groups to reach leadership positions as a consequence of sexism in organizations ( Hill, 2009 ; Ezzedeen et al., 2015 ). There is also evidence that female executives are appointed to leadership positions when odds of failing are high ( Ryan and Haslam, 2005 ). Regarding the LGBTQ, it is necessary to raise more evidence on the factors that make it possible for them to break through the lavender ceiling ( Gedro, 2010 ).

Limitations of This Study and Future Research

Our model was developed based on the review of available literature. The fact that it is based on secondary sources leaves space for bias and calls for its empirical testing. The mediation path that links the antecedents and consequences of GBDH should be tested in longitudinal studies, and the moderations proposed can be better assessed utilizing experimental designs. In this paper we argued for an integrative conception of gender in the HRM approach to GBDH. Nevertheless, data on the experiences of the LGBTQ in the workplace are mostly based on small samples, especially for the transgender. In addition, although we discussed the constructed nature of categories and pointed to their limitations, we considered women and the LGBTQ as relatively stable concepts. The experience of women and the LGBTQ greatly differs when looking to the heterogeneity between and within these groups. We thematized intersectionality mostly referring to sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and thus acknowledge our difficulty to account for exclusion dynamics involving identities in the intersection of race, gender, ableness, body form, and class. More research that focuses on these groups (e.g., transgender people of color) is needed. Finally, we made conjectures on the role that task-allocation processes may play as disguised GBDH that needs to be tested empirically as well. We think that since overt expressions of GBDH are in the decline in western workplaces, it is necessary to reach for gendered practices that disadvantage women and the LGBTQ in organizations.

Conclusions

There is a potential for synergy when HRM considers the needs of women and people from the LGBTQ community together, especially to propitiate gender equality and counteract gender-based discrimination and harassment. To start, organizational resources can be employed to neutralize the mechanisms through which gender oppression acts against women and members from the LGBTQ community. In this way, actions for gender equality help create safe spaces for both groups. In addition, framing gender and sexuality in inclusive ways helps dismantle heterosexist, cissexist, and monosexist paradigms that contribute to create discriminatory and harassing workplaces. Finally, queer and feminist perspectives should be integrated with the intersectional approach to counteract discrimination against those in the intersection of multiple marginalized identities. Hence, the needs of people of all genders, people of color, disabled people, people with different body shapes, and people with different cultural backgrounds are made visible and addressed. This assists in developing truly inclusive and respectful workplace environments in which workers can feel safe to be themselves and unleash their full potential.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the definition of the subject and the development of the hypotheses and model presented. CG drafted the manuscript and KO provided close support and supervision during the writing process and conducted revisions at all stages of the manuscript development. All authors contributed to the manuscript revision and approved the submitted version.

The authors received no specific funding for this work. CG acknowledges a doctoral scholarship (research grant) from the German Academic Exchange Service (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, DAAD).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes. Gender Soc. 20, 441–464. doi: 10.1177/0891243206289499

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmed, A. M., Andersson, L., and Hammarstedt, M. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against in the hiring process? South. Econ. J. 79, 565–585. doi: 10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317

Ali, S., and Coate, K. (2012). Impeccable advice: supporting women academics through supervision and mentoring. Gend. Educ. 25, 23–36. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2012.742219

Avery, D. R. (2011). Support for diversity in organizations. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 1, 239–256. doi: 10.1177/2041386611402115

Avina, C., and O'Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual harassment and PTSD: is sexual harassment diagnosable trauma? J. Trauma. Stress 15, 69–75. doi: 10.1023/A:1014387429057

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Badgett, M. V. L., Durso, L., Kastanis, A., and Mallory, C. (2013). The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Policies. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.

Google Scholar

Bajdo, L. M., and Dickson, M. W. (2001). Perceptions of organizational culture and women's advancement in organizations: a cross-cultural examination. Sex Roles 45, 399–414. doi: 10.1023/A:1014365716222

Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., and Behrend, T. S. (2014). Do you see what i see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychol. Women Q. 38, 340–349. doi: 10.1177/0361684313511420

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42, 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215

Bendl, R. (2000). Gendering organization studies: a guide for reading gender subtexts in organizational theories. Finish J. Bus. Econ. 373–393.

Bendl, R. (2008). Gender subtexts – reproduction of exclusion in organizational discourse. Br. J. Manage. 19, S50–S64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00571.x

Bendl, R., Fleischmann, A., and Walenta, C. (2008). Diversity management discourse meets queer theory. Gender Manage. 23, 382–394. doi: 10.1108/17542410810897517

Benschop, Y., and Doorewaard, H. (1998). Covered by equality: the gender subtext of organizations. Organ. Stud. 19, 787–805. doi: 10.1177/017084069801900504

Benschop, Y., and Doorewaard, H. (2012). Gender subtext revisited. Equal. Divers. Inclusion Int. J. 31, 225–235. doi: 10.1108/02610151211209081

Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 425–437. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.425

Bowling, N. A., and Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 998–1012. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998

Briner, R. B., and Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I–O psychology: not there yet. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 4, 3–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01287.x

Buchanan, N. T., and Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women Ther. 25, 107–124. doi: 10.1300/J015v25n03_08

Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., and Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays, lesbians, bisexuals. J. Homosex. 49, 23–38. doi: 10.1300/J082v49n02_02

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity . New York, NY; London: Routledge.

Buzzanell, P. M., and Liu, M. (2005). Struggling with maternity leave policies and practices: a poststructuralist feminist analysis of gendered organizing. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 33, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/0090988042000318495

Calafell, B. M. (2014). Did it happen because of your race or sex?: university sexual harassment policies and the move against intersectionality. Front. J. Women Stud. 35, 75–95.doi: 10.1353/fro.2014.0034

Cameron, E., and Green, M. (2009). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change, 2nd Edn. London; Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Campbell, B., Schellenberg, E. G., and Senn, C. Y. (1997). Evaluating measures of contemporary sexism. Psychol. Women Q. 21, 89–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00102.x

Caroly, S. (2011). How police officers and nurses regulate combined domestic and paid workloads to manage schedules: a gender analysis. Work 40(Suppl 1):S71–82. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2011-1269

Carrington, K., Mcintosh, A., and Scott, J. (2010). Globalization, frontier masculinities and violence: booze, blokes and brawls. Br. J. Criminol. 50, 393–413. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azq003

Carrotte, E. R., Vella, A. M., Bowring, A. L., Douglass, C., Hellard, M. E., and Lim, M. S. C. (2016). “I am yet to encounter any survey that actually reflects my life”: a qualitative study of inclusivity in sexual health research. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16:86. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0193-4

Chan, D. K.-S., Chow, S. Y., Lam, C. B., and Cheung, S. F. (2008). Examining the job-related, psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Women Q. 32, 362–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00451.x

Chan, P. W. (2013). Queer eye on a ‘straight’ life: deconstructing masculinities in construction. Construct. Manage. Econ. 31, 816–831. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2013.832028

Chapman, D. D., and Gedro, J. (2009). Queering the HRD curriculum: preparing students for success in the diverse workforce. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 11, 95–108. doi: 10.1177/1523422308329091

Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., and McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: theory, applications, and praxis. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 38, 785–810. doi: 10.1086/669608

Cogin, J. A., and Fish, A. (2009). An empirical investigation of sexual harassment and work engagement: surprising differences between men and women. J. Manage. Organ. 15, 47–61. doi: 10.1017/S183336720000287X

Colvin, R. (2015). Shared workplace experiences of lesbian and gay police officers in the United Kingdom. Policing 38, 333–349. doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-11-2014-0121

Connell, R. (2006). Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 837–849. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00652.x

Cook, A., and Glass, C. (2016). Do women advance equity? The effect of gender leadership composition on LGBT-friendly policies in American firms. Hum. Relat. 69, 1431–1456. doi: 10.1177/0018726715611734

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University Chicago Legal Forum 1989, 139–167.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 43, 1241–1299. doi: 10.2307/1229039

Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles 58, 136–145. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9312-3

Dahlborg-Lyckhage, E., and Pilhammar-Anderson, E. (2009). Predominant discourses in Swedish nursing. Policy Politics Nurs. Pract. 10, 163–171. doi: 10.1177/1527154409338493

Dashper, K. (2018). Challenging the gendered rhetoric of success? The limitations of women-only mentoring for tackling gender inequality in the workplace. Gender Work Organ. 4:139. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12262

Davis, G. K. (2017). Creating a roadmap to a LGBTQ affirmative action scheme: an article on parallel histories, the diversity rationale, and escaping strict scrutiny. Natl. Black Law J. 26, 43–84. Available online at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9925t9sp

de Pater, I. E., van Vianen, A. E. M., and Bechtoldt, M. N. (2009). Gender differences in job challenge: a matter of task allocation. Gender Work Organ. 39:1538. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00477.x

Denissen, A. M., and Saguy, A. C. (2014). Gendered homophobia and the contradictions of workplace discrimination for women in the building trades. Gender Soc. 28, 381–403. doi: 10.1177/0891243213510781

Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors. Empl. Relat. 35, 630–647. doi: 10.1108/ER-01-2013-0004

Donovan, R. A., Galban, D. J., Grace, R. K., Bennett, J. K., and Felicié, S. Z. (2013). Impact of racial macro- and microaggressions in Black women's lives. J. Black Psychol. 39, 185–196. doi: 10.1177/0095798412443259

Döring, N. (2013). Zur operationalisierung von geschlecht im fragebogen : probleme und lösungsansätze aus sicht von mess-, umfrage-, gender- und queer-theorie. Gender 2, 94–113. Available online at: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/39660

Dougherty, D. S., and Goldstein Hode, M. (2016). Binary logics and the discursive interpretation of organizational policy: making meaning of sexual harassment policy. Hum. Relat. 69, 1729–1755. doi: 10.1177/0018726715624956

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., and Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work Stress 23, 24–44. doi: 10.1080/02678370902815673

Eliason, M. J., Dejoseph, J., Dibble, S., Deevey, S., and Chinn, P. (2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning nurses' experiences in the workplace. J. Profession. Nurs. 27, 237–244. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.03.003

Else-Quest, N. M., and Hyde, J. S. (2016a). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 155–170. doi: 10.1177/0361684316629797

Else-Quest, N. M., and Hyde, J. S. (2016b). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 319–336. doi: 10.1177/0361684316647953

Ericksen, J. A., and Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2009). Women pursuing careers in trades and construction. J. Career Dev. 36, 68–89. doi: 10.1177/0894845309340797

Estrada, A. X., Olson, K. J., Harbke, C. R., and Berggren, A. W. (2011). Evaluating a brief scale measuring psychological climate for sexual harassment. Military Psychol. 23, 410–432. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2011.589353

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014). Violence Against Women: An EU-Wide Survey; Results at a Glance. Dignity. Luxembourg: Public Office of the European Union. Available online at http://publications.europa.eu/de/publication-detail/-/publication/42467476-532b-405e-a6f7-a80c5b48babc

Ezzedeen, S. R., Budworth, M.-H., and Baker, S. D. (2015). The Glass ceiling and executive careers: still an issue for pre-career women. J. Career Dev. 42, 355–369. doi: 10.1177/0894845314566943

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., and Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: a test of an integrated model. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 578–589. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.578

Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., and Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: the sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ—DoD). Milit. Psychol. 11, 243–263. doi: 10.1207/s15327876mp1103_3

Flanders, C. E. (2015). Bisexual health: a daily diary analysis of stress and anxiety. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 37, 319–335. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1079202

Franke, K. M. (1997). What's wrong with sexual harassment? Stanford Law Rev. 49, 691–772. doi: 10.2307/1229336

Galupo, M. P., and Resnick, C. A. (2016). “Experiences of LGBT microaggressions in the workplace: implications for policy,” in Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations , eds K. Thomas (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 271–287.

Gardiner, M., and Tiggemann, M. (1999). Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and mental health in male-and female-dominated industries. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 72, 301–315. doi: 10.1348/096317999166699

Gartner, R. E., and Sterzing, P. R. (2016). Gender microaggressions as a gateway to sexual harassment and sexual assault. Affilia 31, 491–503. doi: 10.1177/0886109916654732

Gedro, J. (2010). The lavender ceiling atop the global closet: human resource development and lesbian expatriates. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 9, 385–404. doi: 10.1177/1534484310380242

Gedro, J., and Mizzi, R. C. (2014). Feminist theory and queer theory. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 16, 445–456. doi: 10.1177/1523422314543820

Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., and Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: a confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. J. Vocat. Behav. 47, 164–177. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1995.1033

Gibson, S. K. (2006). Mentoring of women faculty: the role of organizational politics and culture. Innovat. Higher Educ. 31, 63–79. doi: 10.1007/s10755-006-9007-7

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism. Psychol. Women Q. 21, 119–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. Am. Psychol. 56, 109–118. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychol. Women Q. 35, 530–535. doi: 10.1177/0361684311414832

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 763–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763

Goldberg, A. E., and Smith, J. Z. (2013). Work conditions and mental health in lesbian and gay dual-earner parents. Fam. Relat. 62, 727–740. doi: 10.1111/fare.12042

CrossRef Full Text

Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., and Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey . Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Gruber, J. E. (2016). The impact of male work environments and organizational policies on women's experiences of sexual harassment. Gender Soc. 12, 301–320. doi: 10.1177/0891243298012003004

Habarth, J. M. (2013). Development of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Psychol. Sex. 6, 166–188. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2013.876444

Haile, G. A. (2012). Unhappy working with men? Workplace gender diversity and job-related well-being in britain. IZA discussion paper No. 4077. Labour Econ. 19, 329–350. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2012.02.002

Hanappi-Egger, E. (2013). Gender and diversity from a management perspective: synonyms or complements? J. Organ. Transform. Soc. Change 3, 121–134. doi: 10.1386/jots.3.2.121_1

Hennekam, S. A. M., and Ladge, J. J. (2017). When lesbians become mothers: Identity validation and the role of diversity climate. J. Vocat. Behav. 103, 40–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.006

Hill, R. J. (2009). Incorporating queers: blowback, backlash, and other forms of resistance to workplace diversity initiatives that support sexual minorities. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 11, 37–53. doi: 10.1177/1523422308328128

Hirsh, E., and Cha, Y. (2016). Mandating change. Indust. Labor Relat. Rev. 70, 42–72. doi: 10.1177/0019793916668880

Hoel, H., Lewis, D., and Einarsdottir, A. (2017). Debate: bullying and harassment of lesbians, gay men and bisexual employees: findings from a representative british national study. Public Money Manage. 37, 312–314. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2017.1328169

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Horn, J. E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., and Schreurs, P. J. G. (2004). The Structure of Occupational Well-Being: A Study Among Dutch Teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 77, 365–375. doi: 10.1348/0963179041752718

ILGA-Europe (2016). Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe. Available online at https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/2016

ILGA-Europe (2017). Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe. Available online at https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/rainbow-europe-2017

International Commission of Jurists (2009). Yogyakarta principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Rights Law 9, 86–113. doi: 10.1163/157181509789025200

International Labour Office (2016). Women at Work: Trends 2016. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., and Van Der Zee, K. I. (2015). Being different at work: how gender dissimilarity relates to social inclusion and absenteeism. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 879–893. doi: 10.1177/1368430215625783

Jensen, R., Thursby, J., and Thursby, M. (2010). University-Industry Spillovers, Government Funding, and Industrial Consulting . Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Khan, M., Ilcisin, M., and Saxton, K. (2017). Multifactorial discrimination as a fundamental cause of mental health inequities. Int. J. Equity Health 16:43. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0532-z

Khubchandani, J., and Price, J. H. (2015). Workplace harassment and morbidity among US adults: results from the national health interview survey. J. Community Health 40, 555–563. doi: 10.1007/s10900-014-9971-2

Klein, U. (2016). Gender equality and diversity politics in higher education: conflicts, challenges and requirements for collaboration. Women's Stud. Int. Forum 54, 147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2015.06.017

Kleiner, B. H., and Takeyama, D. (1998). How to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Equal Opportunities Int. 17, 6–12. doi: 10.1108/02610159810785539

Konrad, A. M., Cannings, K., and Goldberg, C. B. (2010). Asymmetrical demography effects on psychological climate for gender diversity: differential effects of leader gender and work unit gender composition among Swedish doctors. Hum. Relat. 63, 1661–1685. doi: 10.1177/0018726710369397

Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., and Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and victims' overall job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10, 155–169. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.155

LaSala, M. C., Jenkins, D. A., Wheeler, D. P., and Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. (2008). LGBT faculty, research, and researchers: risks and rewards. J. Gay Lesbian Soc. Services 20, 253–267. doi: 10.1080/10538720802235351

Lee, K.-J. (2018). Strategic human resource management for university-industry collaborations in Korea: financial incentives for academic faculty and employment security of industry liaison offices. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage . 30, 461–472. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2017.1337885

Leskinen, E. A., and Cortina, L. M. (2013). Dimensions of disrespect. Psychol. Women Q. 38, 107–123. doi: 10.1177/0361684313496549

Leskinen, E. A., Cortina, L. M., and Kabat, D. B. (2011). Gender harassment: broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law Hum. Behav. 35, 25–39. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9241-5

Liasidou, A. (2013). Intersectional understandings of disability and implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and practice. Disability Soc. 28, 299–312. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.710012

Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., and Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. J. Career Assessm. 12, 33–50. doi: 10.1177/1069072703257722

Lloren, A., and Parini, L. (2017). How LGBT-supportive workplace policies shape the experience of lesbian, gay men, and bisexual employees. Sexuality Research Soc. Policy 14, 289–299. doi: 10.1007/s13178-016-0253-x

Lombardi, E. L., Wilchins, R. A., Priesing, D., and Malouf, D. (2002). Gender violence: transgender experiences with violence and discrimination. J. Homosex. 42, 89–101. doi: 10.1300/J082v42n01_05

Manuel, S. K., Howansky, K., Chaney, K. E., and Sanchez, D. T. (2017). No rest for the stigmatized: a model of organizational health and workplace sexism (OHWS). Sex Roles 77, 697–708. doi: 10.1007/s11199-017-0755-x

Maranto, C. L., and Griffin, A. E. C. (2011). The antecedents of a ‘chilly climate’ for women faculty in higher education. Human Relat. 64, 139–159. doi: 10.1177/0018726710377932

Marinucci, M. (2016). Feminism is Queer: The Intimate Connection Between Queer and Feminist Theory . Second edition. London: Zed Books.

Mayes, B. T., and Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2, 672–678. doi: 10.5465/amr.1977.4406753

McAllister, C. A., Harold, R. D., Ahmedani, B. K., and Cramer, E. P. (2009). Targeted mentoring: evaluation of a program. J. Soc. Work Educ. 45, 89–104. doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700107

McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs 30, 1771–1800. doi: 10.1086/426800

McDonald, P., Charlesworth, S., and Graham, T. (2015). Developing a framework of effective prevention and response strategies in workplace sexual harassment. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Resour. 53, 41–58. doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12046

Mehta, C. M., and Keener, E. (2017). Oh the places we'll go! where will Sandra Bem's work lead us next? Sex Roles 76, 637–642. doi: 10.1007/s11199-017-0735-1

Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement 42, 34–36. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4930420508

Monro, S. (2005). Beyond male and female: poststructuralism and the spectrum of gender. Int. J. Transgender. 8, 3–22. doi: 10.1300/J485v08n01_02

Moodley, J., and Graham, L. (2015). The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies. Agenda 29, 24–33. doi: 10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

Moore, J. (2017). A Phenomenological Study of Lesbian, and Gay People in Leadership Roles: How Perspectives and Priorities Shift in the Workplace as Sexual Orientation Evolves Through Social Constructs . The Faculty of the School of Education, University of San Francisco. Available online at: https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/405

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., and Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 34, 82–104. doi: 10.1177/0021886398341006

Morrison, M. A., Morrison, T. G., Pope, G. A., and Zumbo, B. D. (1999). An investigation of measures of modern and old-fashioned sexism. Soc. Indic. Res. 48, 39–49. doi: 10.1023/A:1006873203349

Mumby, D. K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Commun. Monogr. 54, 113–127. doi: 10.1080/03637758709390221

Mumby, D. K. (1996). Feminism, postmodernism, and organizational communication studies. Manage. Commun. Quart. 9, 259–295. doi: 10.1177/0893318996009003001

Mumby, D. K. (2001). “Power and politics,” in The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods , eds M. J. Fredric, and L. L. Putnam (Thousand Oaks, CA; London: Sage Publications), 586–624. doi: 10.4135/9781412986243.n15

Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., and Wong, Y. (2014). Emotional, behavioral, and cognitive reactions to microaggressions: transgender perspectives. Psychol. Sex. Orient. Gender Divers. 1, 72–81. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000011

Nadal, K. L., Issa, M.-A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., and Wong, Y. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: death by a thousand cuts for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. J. LGBT Youth 8, 234–259. doi: 10.1080/19361653.2011.584204

Newman, P. K. (2018). Training Must be a Part of Every Employer's Action Plan to Stop Sexual Harassment in Their Workplaces . Columbus, OH: Ohio State Bar Association.

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Acad. Manage. J. 56, 1754–1774. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0823

Nourafshan, A. M. (2018). From the closet to the boardroom: regulating LGBT diversity on corporate boards. Albany Law Rev. 81, 439–487.

Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organ. Stud. 13, 563–588. doi: 10.1177/017084069201300403

Omansky, R., Eatough, E. M., and Fila, M. J. (2016). Illegitimate tasks as an impediment to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation: moderated mediation effects of gender and effort-reward imbalance. Front. Psychol. 7:1818. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01818

Owen, J., Tao, K., and Rodolfa, E. (2010). Microaggressions and women in short-term psychotherapy: initial evidence. Couns. Psychol. 38, 923–946. doi: 10.1177/0011000010376093

Parker, M. (2002). Queering management and organization. Gender Work Org. 9, 146–166. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.00153

Peterson, L. W., and Albrecht, T. L. (1999). Where gender/power/politics collide. J. Manage. Inquiry 8, 168–181. doi: 10.1177/105649269982011

Pichler, S., Ruggs, E., and Trau, R. (2017). Worker outcomes of LGBT-supportive policies: a cross-level model. Equal. Div. Incl. Int. J. 36, 17–32. doi: 10.1108/EDI-07-2016-0058

Porter, J. J., and Birdi, K. (2018). 22 Reasons why collaborations fail: lessons from water innovation research. Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 100–108. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.004

Pryor, J. B., Lavite, C. M., and Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: the person/situation interaction. J. Vocat. Behav. 42, 68–83. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1993.1005

Rabelo, V. C., and Cortina, L. M. (2014). Two sides of the same coin: gender harassment and heterosexist harassment in LGBQ work lives. Law Hum. Behav. 38, 378–391. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000087

Rajalo, S., and Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration: reconceptualization. Technovation 62–63, 42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.04.003

Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. Am. Psychol. 46, 497–505. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.5.497

Rospenda, K. M., Fujishiro, K., Shannon, C. A., and Richman, J. A. (2008). Workplace harassment, stress, and drinking behavior over time: gender differences in a national sample. Addict. Behav. 33, 964–967. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.009

Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., and Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: results from a national study. J. Interpers. Violence 24, 819–843. doi: 10.1177/0886260508317182

Ryan, M. K., and Haslam, S. A. (2005). The Glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. Br. J. Manage. 16, 81–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. Am. Psychol. 45, 109–119. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109

Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: the missing concept in organization studies. Adm. Sci. Q. 41:229. doi: 10.2307/2393715

Seelman, K. L., Woodford, M. R., and Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Victimization and microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: gender identity as a moderator of psychological distress. J. Ethnic Cultural Diversity Soc. Work 26, 112–125. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2016.1263816

Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., Elfering, A., Beehr, T. A., Kälin, W., et al. (2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of work stress. Work Stress 29, 32–56. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.1003996

Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Meier, L. L., Facchin, S., and Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Appl. Psychol. 59, 70–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00416.x

Senyonga, M. (2017). Microaggressions, marginality, and mediation at the intersections: experiences of black fat women in academia. Interactions UCLA J. Edu. Inform. Stud. 13, 1–23. Available online at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9934r39k

Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L. M., Konik, J., and Magley, V. J. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and queer jokes: incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex Roles 58, 179–191. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7

Sliter, M., Boyd, E., Sinclair, R., Cheung, J., and Mcfadden, A. (2014). Inching toward inclusiveness: diversity climate, interpersonal conflict and well-being in women nurses. Sex Roles 71, 43–54. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0337-5

Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., and Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women's occupational well-being. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 10–40. doi: 10.1177/0361684315599346

Stedham, Y., and Mitchell, M. C. (1998). Sexual harassment in casinos: effects on employee attitudes and behaviors. J. Gambling Stud. 14, 381–400. doi: 10.1023/A:1023025110307

Stockdale, M. S., Visio, M., and Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychol. Public Policy Law 5, 630–664. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.630

Stoll, L. C., Lilley, T. G., and Pinter, K. (2016). Gender-blind sexism and rape myth acceptance. Violence Against Women 23, 28–45. doi: 10.1177/1077801216636239

Stout, J. G., and Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn't mean you: gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 757–769. doi: 10.1177/0146167211406434

Street, A. E., Gradus, J. L., Stafford, J., and Kelly, K. (2007). Gender differences in experiences of sexual harassment: data from a male-dominated environment. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 75, 464–474. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.3.464

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., et al. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: implications for clinical practice. Am. Psychol. 62, 271–286. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

Taris, T. W., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). “Individual well-being and performance at work: a conceptual and theoretical overview,” in Well-Being and Performance at Work: The Role of Context , Current Issues in Work and Organizational Psychology. ed M. Van Veldhoven (London UA: Psychology Press), 15–34.

Tomic, M. (2011). Gender Mainstreaming in der EU [Elektronische Ressource]: Wirtschaftlicher Mehrwert oder Soziale Gerechtigkeit? Wiesbaden, Berlin [U.A.]: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Springer

van Amsterdam, N. (2013). Big fat inequalities, thin privilege: an intersectional perspective on ‘body size’. Eur. J. Women's Stud. 20, 155–169. doi: 10.1177/1350506812456461

Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the european union. Eur. J. Women's Stud. 13, 211–228. doi: 10.1177/1350506806065753

Vernallis, K. (1999). Bisexual Monogamy: twice the temptation but half the fun? J. Soc. Philos. 30, 347–368. doi: 10.1111/0047-2786.00022

Vijayasiri, G. (2008). Reporting sexual harassment: the importance of organizational culture and trust. Gender Issues 25, 43–61. doi: 10.1007/s12147-008-9049-5

Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. J. Occupation. Psychol. 63, 193–210. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x

Wegner, R., and Wright, A. J. (2016). A psychometric evaluation of the homonegative microaggressions scale. J. Gay Lesbian Ment. Health 20, 299–318. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2016.1177627

Weiss, J. (2011). Reflective Paper: GL Versus BT: the archaeology of biphobia and transphobia within the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community. J. Bisexual. 11, 498–502. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2011.620848

Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: hidden advantages for men in the “Female” Professions. Soc. Probl. 39, 253–267 doi: 10.2307/3096961

Williams, C. L. (2013). The glass escalator, revisited. Gender Soc. 27, 609–629. doi: 10.1177/0891243213490232

Williams, C. L. (2015). Crossing over: interdisciplinary research on men who do women's work. Sex Roles 72, 390–395. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0477-x

Woltersdorff, V. (2003). “(Lore Logorrhöe).queer theory and queer politics,” in Utopie Kreativ , 156, 914–913. Available online at: https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/156_woltersdorff.pdf

Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Silverschanz, P., and Yu, L. (2012). “That's so gay!”: Examining the covariates of hearing this expression among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students. J. Am. Coll. Health 60, 429–434. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2012.673519

Woodhams, C., Lupton, B., and Cowling, M. (2015). The presence of ethnic minority and disabled men in feminised work: intersectionality, vertical segregation and the glass escalator. Sex Roles 72, 277–293. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0427-z

Wright, A. J., and Wegner, R. (2012). Homonegative microaggressions and their impact on LGB individuals: a measure validity study. J. LGBT Issues Couns. 6, 34–54. doi: 10.1080/15538605.2012.648578

Wright, T. (2013). Uncovering sexuality and gender: an intersectional examination of women's experience in UK construction. Construct. Manage. Econom. 31, 832–844. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2013.794297

Yavorsky, J. E. (2016). Cisgendered organizations: trans women and inequality in the workplace. Sociol Forum 31, 948–969. doi: 10.1111/socf.12291

Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism. Gender Soc. 5, 178–192. doi: 10.1177/089124391005002003

Yoder, J. D., and Aniakudo, P. (1997). “Outsider Within” the firehouse: subordination and difference in the social interactions of african american women firefighters. Gender Soc. 11, 324–341 doi: 10.1177/089124397011003004

Yoder, J. D., and McDonald, T. W. (2016). Measuring sexist discrimination in the workplace. Psychol. Women Q. 22, 487–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00170.x

Keywords: diversity, gender equality, gender management, heteronormativity, heterosexism, human resources, intersectionality, LGBTQ

Citation: García Johnson CP and Otto K (2019) Better Together: A Model for Women and LGBTQ Equality in the Workplace. Front. Psychol. 10:272. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00272

Received: 21 February 2018; Accepted: 28 January 2019; Published: 20 February 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 García Johnson and Otto. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Carolina Pía García Johnson, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Essay on Discrimination Against the LGBTQ

Studies in diversity and inclusion indicate that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community across the United States experience continuous discrimination that adversely affects their well-being (Tilcsik, 2011). Gay, lesbians, and bisexuals are inappropriately discriminated against in terms of employment and representation in public sectors. One in every four LGBT people experiences discrimination as a matter of routine (Dentato, 2014). Despite the prevalent cases of discrimination, little to no progress has been attained in instituting nondiscriminatory statues that protect the LGBT people against discrimination (Employment Non-Discrimination Act, 2013). Neither the federal nor state governments have explicit laws that protect people against sex-based discrimination. Regardless of the lack of detailed nondiscriminatory laws, society has been welcoming towards the ideas of sexual equality. A study by Mallory, Hasenbush, and Sears (2015) found that an overwhelming number of LBGT people viewed society as more accepting. On the part of the general public Mallory, Hasenbush, and Sears (2015) found that opposition was widespread, and religion was indicated as one of the main factors why this is so. Currently, the United States legislation continues to shape the LGBT community as it moves forward into an attack against LGBT people’s rights.

Discrimination Experienced by LGBT

According to Pizer et al. (2011), discrimination is the act of making an unjust distinction between human beings based on class, sex, race, and so on. Discrimination may occur in different settings, including education, employment, health care, among other settings. Employment discrimination and other forms of discrimination, including health care, are too common in the LGBT community. Discrimination against this group occurs in other sectors. Studies indicate that members of the LGBT community experience increased rates of poverty, higher unemployment, increased food insecurity, and most report lower levels of income (Pizer et al., 2011). Gays and lesbians are more likely to experience food insecurity than heterosexual people. This group also lack adequate access to food due to a lack of resources. Research by Pizer et al. (2011) found that LGBT people are 1.5 times more likely to have experienced food insecurity in their lives than heterosexuals.

In addition to experiencing a food shortage, this group also experiences increased discrimination in government-induced healthcare programs such as Medicaid. It is vital to note that the LGBT community faces a wide range of health disparities, such as increased risks of substance abuse and mental illnesses. Despite this instance, many remain uninsured. Studies indicate that the rates of uninsured low-income LGBT people are prevalently high, especially in states with expanded Medicaid (Pizer et al., 2011). In like manner, research shows that there are not enough laws that protect members of this group against instances of discrimination. The shortage of laws that explicitly protect LGBT against discrimination within health care, employment, and other critical areas is also a problem.

The absence of law increases the risks that threaten the members of this group. Many risks being evicted from their houses; they risk being denied credit, and more importantly, they risk being fired from their jobs. Studies conducted by Nourafshan (2016) in major United States industries found that 43 percent of lesbians and gay experience harassment and judgment in their workplaces. Workplace discrimination pushes a significant number of people in this community into low wage jobs that do not allow workplace benefits, including insurance and unemployment benefits (Jansson, 2018). For instance, a recent state-level survey found that 14 percent of all lesbians, gays, and bisexual adults are unemployed compared to ten percent of non-LGBT adults (Jansson, 2018). Unemployment rates for transgender individuals are double the general population rate, increasing to four times the national unemployment rate for transgender African Americans.

When it comes to housing, LGBT people continue to experience discrimination in the allocation of houses; most experience increased homelessness. A study that meant to understand how minority groups are allocated housing found that members of LGBT and their families relied more on public housing assistance at 2.5 times the rate of heterosexuals (Pizer et al., 2011). Even though this study found a disparity in housing allocation, the scholars did not examine the exact programs that helped participants receive assistance. Therefore, more research is necessary to understand the type of housing programs members of the LGBT community depends on. The LGBT experience discrimination in the areas of health care, housing, and food security. These instances impede this group’s ability to reach and maintain social and economic security. Although many forms of discrimination are affiliated to cases of policy, the public and people’s perception regarding the LGBT plays a significant role.

Public’s Perception of LGBT

People’s opinion regarding members of the LGBT is a popular topic in both the press and academic writings. Nonetheless, studies regarding attitudinal trends are rare. There are mainstream indicators that show that people’s attitudes towards sexual orientations such as homosexuality and lesbianism have become increasingly unbiased than before. A study by Gerhards (2010) found that the American people’s attitudes towards gays and lesbians have changed dramatically over the past ten years, and the LGBT community is accurately aware of this instance. The changing attitudes mean that LGBT adults feel more accepted now than in the past. The gays, lesbians, and bisexuals may currently enjoy this luxury, but it is important to note that this was not the case in the 1700s. Importantly, in the periods before and after the American Revolution, sexual acts, including sodomy, were considered a capital offense.

Cross-dressing or wearing clothes that do not align with one’s sex was considered a felony punishable by imprisonment or other forms of corporal punishment. For instance, a man could be punished for wearing a woman’s cloth. Society, at the same time, did not welcome people who displayed such behaviors. Lord Cornbury, royal governor of New York and New Jersey, was one of the many individuals affronted by the society for dressing in women attires (Gerhards, 2010). Moreover, most of the laws that criminalized such acts were inherited from colonial laws in the 1600s. They often targeted sexual acts between people of the same sex. Their very definitions were also broad enough to outlaw individual sexual acts between people of different sexes and, in most cases, between married individuals. European authorities sought to control the sexual behaviors of people within their countries. The French, British, and Spain enacted laws regarding unmarried sex and sodomy. Sodomy was a capital offense under the English laws, and it was punishable by death. One of the earliest victims of these laws was Richard Cornish, a sea captain executed in Virginia for an alleged sexual assault against another man.

However, it is essential to note that the British colonial authority was not always sure which sexual acts were to be classified as sodomy; in fact, most sodomy laws proscribed a diverse and inconsistent set of sexual acts. Religious authorities debate this point, although the statutes adopted by different colonies differed in the specific actions punishable by death. Most laws only focused on sexual acts between men. The confusion remained until the late 19th century when homosexuality as a distinct category of person emerged. Like in the periods before and after the American Revolution, where colonies used laws to discriminate, states in the 19th century used these terms to enact discriminatory measures (Gerhards, 2010). But these measures reached their peak twenty years after the Second World War when government agencies discriminated against homosexuals. Many states legislated laws that deterred homosexuality. Texas, for instance, enacted homosexuality laws in the 1970s.

But this would change for the best in the early 2000s, particularly with the Lawrence vs. Texas supreme court case. Lawrence vs. Texas was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court rules that the US legislation prohibiting private homosexual activities were unconstitutional (Gerhards, 2010). The Supreme Court reiterated the concept of the right to privacy. The LGBT community welcomed the decision. More importantly, the decision was an indication that civil rights in the United States were evolving. Both supporters and opponents of LGBT rights reacted vocally to the stance; both sides considered the maintenance or the abolition of homosexuality legislation as central. Supporters rejoiced, with some claiming that the decision closed an era of intolerance and welcomed a period of respect and equality for LGBT people in the United States. Those who opposed the move viewed the matter differently; most saw it as a way that allowed immoral behaviors in American society. Despite the different views, all Americans agreed that this case would be the opening wedge in a nationwide campaign to legislate same sex marriage.

Things are much different today, and the LGBT community is slowly but surely being recognized at all society levels. Currently, a record number of LGBT candidates are being elected to Congress, and states like Colorado have experiences leadership under an openly gay governor. Americans have managed to change their perceptions of the LGBT community faster than any other civilization in the world; however, it is less clear why this is so. Some claim that it is a change in human behavior and demographic realities that have made most Americans cozy to the existence of living in a sexually liberated society. A study that meant to investigate patterns of long-term changes in attitude found that people’s explicit attitudes towards certain groups become less biased with time (Nama et al., 2017). In other words, this means that time has helped create a space for the LGBT community in society; time has led to less biased attitudes. The change in social behavior in favor of this community allowed many people, including gays, lesbians, and others, to “come out of the closet.” Another aspect contributed to this instance. In 1978 almost ten years after the Stonewell riots, Harvey Milk, a renowned gay activist, gave an impassionate appeal: “Every gay person must come out.” Adhering to these words, more and more Americans started to come out to their families, some galvanized by the pain AIDS epidemic. In the 1990s and the early 2000s, behaviors associated with the LGBT cultures were prevalent in mainstream cultures. Movies, music, and other forms of art endorsed the LGBT culture.

Social Welfare Legislation

The United States has had social welfare laws since it attained its independence; however, the extent and nature of these laws have changed over the years. Also, the United States constitution does not have an explicitly defined anti-discrimination law that protects LGBT people. Those that exist tend to offer umbrella protection. For instance, the 1866 Civil Protection Act only defines citizenship and affirms that the law equally guards all citizens. The fourteenth amendment also does not offer adequate protection for this group. Like the Civil Protection Act, this also defines citizenship and guarantees all citizens equal protection of the law.

The absence of well-established LGBT legislation makes it hard for this group to fight against perpetual discrimination. There is no single legislation that prevents a member of the LGBT community from being fired or refused a job based on their sexual alignment (Jennifer, Christy, Brad and Nan, 2012). The single largest employer in the United States, the US military does not accept gays and lesbians; in fact, the existence of 1993 Don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) deteriorated this instance. This legislation, which has since been repealed, prevented gay people from lying about their sexuality to join the military. The law also prevented gays and lesbians from openly disclosing their sexuality. In other words, this legislation did more in belittling the LGBT community as opposed to empowering them. The law triggered outrage from many gay and lesbian rights advocates, and many believed that the policy rebranded the idea of disallowing gay and lesbian recruitment in the military (Lennon-Dearing & Delavega, 2015). Nonetheless, the 1964 Civil Rights Act remains the most significant social welfare legislation in the United States.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is revolutionary civil rights and employment law in the United States. The act protects individuals against discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation (Bornstein & Bench, 2015). This act has been fundamental in the protection of employment rights. However, its practicality in preventing discrimination towards LGBT based on sex has been a cause of significant national debate. For instance, in 2019, three cases, which raised the question of whether the Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination against LGBT, were presented before the United States Supreme Court. Among the three cases, two were submitted by men who allegedly lost their jobs on the ground that they were gay. The third case addressed the issue of transgender discrimination. One of the two employees, Gerald Bostock, claimed he was fired for joining a gay recreational softball league. The Supreme Court ruled in their case that it was illegal to dismiss employees from their jobs on the basis of their sexual orientations. According to the court, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gays, lesbians, and transgender employees against discrimination based on gender and sexuality (Tilcsik, 2011). In spite of its effectiveness in the three cases, the Civil Rights Act provides insufficient protection against discrimination.

To overcome this challenge and provide sufficient protection for the LGBT community, Congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment. Murphy (2018) agree that the law will guarantee equal rights for all citizens regardless of sex. The importance of this legislation and the factor that makes it different from other social welfare legislation is that it will legally end the distinction between men and women in matters such as property, employment, and divorce (Tilcsik, 2011). Equal Rights Amendment is in like manner critical because it tends to disregard the mainstream narrative that the Constitution was enacted for men. The Constitution was written by and for white men, which is a factor that affects its principle for equal justice. Likewise, the idea that the law was written by and for white men means that women, transgender, people of color, and other vital groups are openly regarded as less than full citizens and therefore excluded from the protection provided by the Constitution.

Many of the legal protections that aim to encourage women’s equality, even without an explicit mention of sex in the Constitution, are rooted in the ideals of equality in the Constitution and a new definition of equality that has surpassed obsolete biases and stereotypes. Approving the Equal Protection Amendment would ensure that sex-based discrimination is inconsistent; it would send a strong message regarding the nation’s commitment to protecting the inherent rights of all people regardless of their sexual preferences and sex status (Employment Non-Discrimination Act, 2013). More importantly, the legislation would provide additional protection for sex discrimination in areas such as gender-based violence, access to productive health, and the workplace. Nonetheless, critics still believe that this amendment will only provide more protection for women and, in the process, disregarding the group that needs protection the most. According to Murphy (2018), the Equal Rights Amendment would strengthen legislation on matters including pregnancy discrimination, violence against women, equal pay, among other legislation that provide protection for women. The laws that exist, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and proposed legislation such as the Equal Rights Amendment, do not directly address the discrimination faced by LGBT. There is a need for United States legislators to legislate laws that ensure that members of the LGBT are protected while in the workplace and while receiving care in hospitals.

United States laws have done less to protect members of the LGBT community against harm. The laws enacted continue to shape the community in different ways, but none of this legislation directly addresses the issues of the LGBT community. Social welfare legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act has done more to protect this community; however, what makes these laws fall short in dealing with issues facing LGBT is that they were not legislated with this group in mind. Nonetheless, one significant aspect that may change the trajectory of the problems faced by the LGBT and, more importantly, improve the lives of its members is the changing attitudes amongst the members of the public. The attitudes of the American people towards gays and lesbians have changed dramatically over the past ten years, and the LGBT community is accurately aware of this instance. The changing attitudes mean that LGBT adults will, in the coming days, feel more accepted. Likewise, the changing public perception may attract more benefits for the group than legislations. In other words, equality can only be achieved when people themselves see no distinction.

American Civil Liberties Union. 2013.  Employment Non-Discrimination Act . [online] Available at: <https://www.aclu.org/cases/employment-non-discrimination-act

Bornstein, L., & Bench, M. (2015). Married on Sunday, fired on Monday: Approaches to federal LGBT civil rights protections.  Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. ,  22 , 31.

Dentato, M. (2014). Queer Communities (Competency and Positionality).  Encyclopedia of Social Work . https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.881

Employment Non-Discrimination Act . American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.aclu.org/cases/employment-non-discrimination-act

Gerhards, J. (2010). Non-discrimination towards homosexuality: The European Union’s policy and citizens’ attitudes towards homosexuality in 27 European countries.  International Sociology ,  25 (1), 5-28.

Jansson, B. S. (2018).  Empowerment series: the reluctant welfare state  (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Jennifer, P., Christy, M., Brad, S., & Nan, H. (2012). Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against lgbt people: the need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3wf4t3q9

Lennon-Dearing, R., & Delavega, E. (2015). Policies discriminatory of the LGBT community: do social workers endorse respect for the naswcode of ethics?  Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services ,  27 (4), 412-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2015.1087266

Mallory, C., Hasenbush, A., & Sears, B. (2015). Discrimination and harassment by law enforcement officers in the LGBT community.

Murphy, B. L. (2018). The Equal Rights Amendment Revisited.  Notre Dame L. Rev. ,  94 , 937.

Nama, N., MacPherson, P., Sampson, M., & McMillan, H. J. (2017). Medical students’ perception of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) discrimination in their learning environment and their self-reported comfort level for caring for LGBT patients: a survey study.  Medical education online ,  22 (1), 1368850.

Nourafshan, A. M. (2016). The new employment discrimination: Intra-LGBT intersectional invisibility and the marginalization of minority subclasses in antidiscrimination law.  Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y ,  24 , 107.

Pizer, J. C., Sears, B., Mallory, C., & Hunter, N. D. (2011). Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against LGBT people: The need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits.  Loy. LAL Rev. ,  45 , 715.

Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: employment discrimination against openly gay men in the united states.  American Journal of Sociology ,  117 (2), 586-626. https://doi.org/10.1086/66165

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Public Laws vs Private Laws.
• Essay on Legal Reasoning and Common Law System
• Essay on Healthy Literacy and Consumer Information
• Essay on Leadership Development Programmes Must Be Effectively Linked ...
• Essay on CMS and Joint Commission of Healthcare Organizations
• The oil industry in Azerbaijan and the need for forecasting activities

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

This supreme court case is reshaping lgbtq+ rights. you probably haven’t heard about it..

• Legal Issues
• Supreme Court

LGBTQ+ supporters wave a rainbow flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Bostock v. Clayton County on Oct. 8, 2019, in Washington, D.C. (AP)

If Your Time is short

In 2020’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation is a form of “sex discrimination” prohibited in employment. 

Since 2021, the Biden administration has directed federal agencies to incorporate that ruling into their policies. Some people opposed to these changes have sued federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education, questioning whether the Bostock ruling should be applied beyond employment.

Transgender rights advocates have also cited Bostock in their lawsuits challenging state laws they argue discriminate against transgender people. Circuit courts have issued mixed rulings, and a new case addressing transgender discrimination is likely to reach the Supreme Court.

This spring, multiple federal government agencies announced changes to antidiscrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people at work, at the doctor and in the classroom. Around the same time, a federal court ruled that restricting gender-affirming care and barring a West Virginia transgender student from playing girls’ sports violates antidiscrimination law.

Behind these policy and legal shifts is a 2020 Supreme Court case most people likely have never heard of: Bostock v. Clayton County.  

Weighing cases in which employees said they were fired for being gay or transgender, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock that firing people for their sexual orientation or gender identity amounts to "sex discrimination," which is prohibited under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The landmark Bostock ruling’s impact on LGBTQ+ civil rights is proving significant. Here’s a crash course on the case, how it is shaping federal policy and being used to challenge legislation that aims to curb transgender rights.

In June 2020, as the world reeled from the coronavirus pandemic and nationwide protests against police brutality gripped the United States, the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County . The ruling combined three Title VII lawsuits in which employees said they were fired because they were gay or transgender. 

All three cases were "direct evidence" cases, said Jennifer Shinall, Vanderbilt University law professor. That means there was no dispute that the plaintiffs were fired for their LGBTQ+ identities; the question was whether that counted as illegal discrimination. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court found that it did. 

Neil Gorsuch, considered to be a " reliable conservative vote " on the Supreme Court, authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the four liberal justices on the bench at the time.

He gave an example he said shows such discrimination: A woman being attracted to men is tolerated, but a man being attracted to men is not. "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote. "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

@politifact The federal government proposed a bevy of #LGBTQ+ antidiscrimination protections following a 2020 #SCOTUS case, Bostock v. Clayton County. The case could significantly impact states trying to uphold #laws aimed at curbing transgender rights. Here’s what to know. #explained #fyp #learnontiktok ♬ original sound - PolitiFact

This ruling is binding precedent only for Title VII employment cases, and Gorsuch made it clear that it did not address questions beyond those narrow circumstances. Nevertheless, many LGBTQ+ advocates and legal experts saw potential for the same legal logic to be applied to other laws that prohibit "sex discrimination," such as Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded schools; the Affordable Care Act; and even the U.S. Constitution. 

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing each federal agency to review and revise its policies to ensure they reflected the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bostock. 

The Biden administration’s call to expand Bostock’s reasoning to other federal laws and corresponding policy drew criticism . Nevertheless, federal agencies including the Justice Department , Department of Agriculture , Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services responded, releasing guidance, and in some cases, formal regulations clarifying that "sex discrimination" includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The Education Department’s recently released regulations for Title IX are one of the most controversial changes. Title IX, passed in 1972, aims to protect students against sex discrimination and harassment in classrooms and school admissions. But it is best known for changing athletics to require that women and men receive equitable participation opportunities. On April 19, citing the Bostock case, the Education Department updated its regulations to extend protections against sex discrimination to LGBTQ+ students. Although the regulations stopped short of providing guidance on the controversial issue of transgender athletes in school sports, the inclusion of LGBTQ+ identities under the nation’s leading gender-equity law prompted backlash. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., wrote on X about the rule change, "This expansion embraces radical gender theory & erases the protections women fought for."

I applaud Louisiana’s @AGLizMurrill & @LAGovJeffLandry for refusing the Biden Admin’s outrageous Title IX revisions. This expansion embraces radical gender theory & erases the protections women fought for. Every state that seeks to protect women’s sports should follow suit. https://t.co/tpsjZGBJof — Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) April 30, 2024

Twenty-two state attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging the new Title IX regulations. Some of those states have passed laws that potentially violate the new regulations. Interpretations of Title VII and Title IX have often informed one another , said Shinall, the Vanderbilt University law professor. So, it’s not unusual that an interpretation of a term in one statute would affect the other. 

But opponents are expected to argue that Bostock applies only in limited circumstances, and these changes overstep agencies’ policymaking authority.

"The bottom line is that the (Biden) Administration is interpreting Bostock more broadly than perhaps the (Supreme) Court will ultimately accept," Duke University law professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman told PolitiFact in an email. 

Title VII is a general nondiscrimination rule, but other statutes, such as Title IX, make exceptions for single-sex accommodations such as sex-segregated living facilities and single-sex sports teams. 

It’s unclear how the Supreme Court will apply Bostock’s logic to those statutory exceptions — such as whether barring a transgender girl from playing on a girls’ sports team is unlawful discrimination. 

Issues of privacy, safety, fairness or equal opportunity could figure in deciding how nondiscrimination rules should apply beyond employment. 

"I think that the margins of Bostock are going to be subject to a tremendous amount of litigation," said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law. "As the Biden administration continues to examine the applicability of Bostock in other contexts, that's going to provide new testing ground for the scope of the ruling."

The Bostock case also has been cited by individual plaintiffs in lawsuits nationwide that challenge laws restricting transgender access to bathrooms, school sports teams and gender-affirming care. Most recently, the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit applied Bostock’s reasoning to a case in which a Houston County, Georgia, sheriff’s department employee alleged discrimination because the health insurance policy would not cover her gender-affirming surgery. The court ruled in her favor, writing, "Applying Bostock’s reasoning to the facts in this case, we conclude that the district court was correct in finding that the (policy) violated Title VII." Other lower courts are also weighing whether Bostock’s reasoning applies to other federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination or the Constitution’s equal protection clause. 

(Source:  U.S. Courts)

Several circuit courts have found that Bostock’s LGBTQ+ protections apply to other federal statutes , and in some cases, the Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled in both a school athletics case and a case about access to gender-affirming care that discrimination against transgender people constituted illegal discrimination under federal law, and in the case of health care, constitutional law.

But some circuit courts have decided differently . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in the case LW v. Skrmetti , said Bostock was limited to Title VII and does not apply to the Constitution.

Most lawsuits make a two-part argument, alleging discrimination under federal laws such as the Affordable Care Act or Title IX, and that certain state laws violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment . "In all of those cases to some degree, the question of Bostock’s applicability beyond Title (VII) is at issue" said Joshua Block, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union‘s LGBTQ & HIV Project. The ACLU is serving as legal representation for transgender plaintiffs in several of these cases.  

The Supreme Court has declined in the past to review cases that wrestle with similar issues. But given the number of cases related to Bostock, and disagreement among the circuit court rulings, experts wonder if the Supreme Court will have to resolve the issue. 

"The court is always more likely to take cases with clean facts that allow the court to only decide one issue and decide as narrowly as possible," Shinall said.

Our Sources

Email interview with Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Duke University law professor, May 6, 2024

Interview with Jennifer Shinall, Vanderbilt University law professor, May 3, 2024

Interview with Heron Greenesmith, deputy policy director at the Transgender Law Center, May 3, 2024

Interview with Rick Rossein, law professor at the City University of New York, May 6, 2024

Interview with Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute, May 6, 2024

Interview with Joshua Block, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, May 7, 2024

Cornell Law School, " Bostock v. Clayton County ," June 15, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court, " Bostock v. Clayton County ," June 15, 2020

U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, " Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ," 1964

American Civil Liberties Union, " This Women’s History Month, Celebrate Title VII for Banning Sex Discrimination in the Workplace ," March 9, 2016

Cornell Law School, " Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ," May 1, 1989

U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, " Examples of Court Decisions Supporting Coverage of LGBT-Related Discrimination Under Title VII ," accessed May 6, 2024

American Civil Liberties Union, " How the Impact of Bostock v. Clayton County on LGBTQ Rights Continues to Expand ," June 15, 2022

White House, " Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation ," Jan. 20, 2021

Heritage Foundation, " Biden’s Executive Order on Gender Discrimination Has Muddied Waters on Title IX. Challenges Could Clear That Up ," Feb. 19, 2021

Wall Street Journal, " Joe Biden’s First Day Began the End of Girls’ Sports ," Jan. 22, 2021

Daily Signal, " Justices’ Title VII ‘on Basis of Sex’ Ruling Wreaking Havoc in Lower Courts ," March 16, 2021

U.S. Department of Agriculture, " USDA Promotes Program Access, Combats Discrimination Against LGBTQI+ Community ," May 5, 2022

U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, " Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace ," April 29, 2024

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, " Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities ," May 6, 2024

PolitiFact, " Here’s how new Title IX regulations could affect LGBTQ+ students ," April 26, 2024

U.S. Department of Justice, " Title Ix Of The Education Amendments Of 1972 ," accessed May 6, 2024

X post, April 30, 2024

ABC News, " More GOP states challenge federal rules protecting transgender students ," May 7, 2024

Movement Advancement Project, " Bans on Transgender People Using Public Bathrooms and Facilities According to their Gender Identity ," accessed May 7, 2024

Movement Advancement Project, " LGBTQ Curricular Laws ," accessed May 7, 2024

Congressional Research Service, " Potential Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to Other Civil Rights Statutes ," July 2, 2021

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, " Grimm v. Gloucester ," Aug. 26, 2020

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, " A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville ," Aug. 1, 2023

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, " B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education ," April 16, 2024

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, " Kadel v. Folwell ," April 29, 2024

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, " Paul Eknes-Tucker, et al. v. Governor of the State of Alabama, et al ," Aug. 21, 2023

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, " Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida ," Dec. 30, 2022

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, " L.W. v. Skrmetti ," Sept. 28, 2023

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, " Hecox v. Little ," Aug. 17, 2023

The 19th, " Where does the Supreme Court stand on gender-affirming care bans? ," May 2, 2024

The Washington Post, " Court says state health-care plans can’t exclude gender-affirming surgery ," April 29, 2024

The Associated Press, " West Virginia's and North Carolina's transgender care coverage policies discriminate, judges rule ," April 29, 2024

The Washington Post, " Biden moves to reinstate health protections for LGBTQ Americans ," July 25, 2022

The Washington Post, " Biden calls for LGBTQ protections in Day 1 executive order, angering conservatives ," July 21, 2021

USA Today, " Fact check: Biden executive order on discrimination in women's sports ," Feb. 14, 2021

CNN, " Biden administration restores protections for gay and transgender Americans seeking health care ," April 27, 2024

NBC News, " EEOC says workplace bias laws cover bathrooms, pronouns and abortion ," April 30, 2024

Ballotpedia, " Neil Gorsuch ," accessed May 9, 2024

Sports Illustrated, " 50 Years of Title IX: How One Law Changed Women's Sports Forever ," May 19, 2022

U.S. Department of Education, " FACT SHEET: U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Title IX Final Rule Overview ," April 19, 2024

Congress.gov, " Fourteenth Amendment ," accessed May 8, 2024

U.S. Department of Education, " U.S. Department of Education Releases Final Title IX Regulations, Providing Vital Protections Against Sex Discrimination ," April 19, 2024

U.S. Department of Justice, " Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ," March 26, 2021

American Civil Liberties Union, " Opening Brief of Plaintiff in B.P.J. v. WV ," March 27, 2023

Reuters, " US Supreme Court sidesteps fight over transgender student bathroom access ," Jan. 16, 2024

American Civil Liberties Union, " U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Title IX Victory for Transgender Rights ," Jan. 16, 2024

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, " Lange v. Houston County, Georgia ," May 13, 2024

NBC News, " Mississippi enacts transgender bathroom ban in public schools ," May 13, 2024

NBC News, " Over 20 GOP-led states sue Biden administration over Title IX rules for LGBTQ students ," May 8, 2024

U.S. District Court Northern District Alabama Western Division, " Title IX regulations complaint - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina ," April 29, 2024

U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division, " Title IX regulations complaint - Texas ," April 29, 2024

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Kentucky Covington Division, " Title IX regulations complaint - Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia ," April 30, 2024

NBC News, " Five Republican-led states sue over Biden's new Title IX transgender protection ," April 29, 2024

U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma, " Title IX regulations complaint - Oklahoma ," May 6, 2024

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri St. Louis Division, " Title IX regulations complaint - Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota ," May 7, 2024

Louisiana attorney general, " Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill Files Lawsuit ," May 3, 2024

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by grace abels.

Workplace discrimination is driving LBGTQI+ employees to quit their jobs. Here’s how companies can step up and support them

Good morning!

Pride Month is right around the corner, and it’s the perfect time for employers to take a hard look at how they’re showing up for their LGBTQI+ employees. Amid a new spate of laws targeting the LGBTQ community and recent backlash to corporate Pride campaigns, many queer people are wondering how to handle the prejudice they are facing in many facets of their lives—including at the office . 

Around 41% of LGBTQI+ employees say they have been discriminated against at work, according to a new report from Randstad , an HR consulting firm. That has serious consequences, as 29% of queer staffers say that discrimination has forced them to quit their jobs, with another 32% saying that it spurred them to pursue alternate career paths. The report notes that these stats show how non-inclusionary company cultures lead to poor retention of LGBTQI+ talent.  

“Unfortunately these statistics aren’t a surprise, discrimination continues to be a reality for many workers around the world,” Sander van’ t Noordende, CEO of Randstad, tells Fortune . 

Overall, around 35% of LGBTQI+ workers say their sexuality or gender identity has negatively impacted their career, remuneration, or progression within their organizations. And this lack of mobility , combined with workplace discrimination , can lead to some serious business complications. 

About 36% of LGBTQI+ employees overall say they are less motivated or productive in their jobs because they can’t be themselves , and the same proportion choose to work remotely because their office isn’t an inclusive space. 

“If people don’t feel like they can be their whole selves at work then they begin to lose their motivation, productivity then takes a hit, and it echoes across the entire workforce,” Noordende says. “Businesses need to make sure they’re creating equitable environments where employees feel like they can be their true selves. If this doesn’t exist, it’s not surprising that workers would prefer to work remotely.”

There might be a glimmer of hope, though— queer inclusion in the workplace has slowly been getting better. Two in five LGBTQI+ workers say they face less discrimination now compared to five years ago, and over half say their bosses have taken meaningful steps to create an equitable workplace, according to the report.

To best support LGBTQI+ employees and foster meaningful inclusion initiatives, Noordende says that employers should publicly show their commitment by participating in Pride events , sponsoring queer charities, and cultivating leadership that is representative of their own queer workers. About 58% of LGBTQI+ workers say that it’s employers’ responsibility to foster an inclusive job environment, and 48% value allyship from their bosses now more than ever. Half of these workers also say companies should take a stance on queer issues internally, and follow through with positive changes. 

“Instilling a culture of respect and empathy by educating leaders and employees on LGBTQI+ issues and providing inclusive benefits ensures authentic allyship year-round, helping build trust and openness,” says Noordende.

But there should be an emphasis on improvements being sincere. While 41% of LGBTQI+ employees say their employer engages with Pride Month, 39% consider their efforts to be tokenistic . 

“There’s been countless examples of when companies have missed the mark, ” says Noordende, citing a general lack of corporate understanding about the LGBTQI+ community. “Many companies still focus on insincere gestures rather than implementing genuine, year-round support and inclusion initiatives. Engagement needs to be authentic, consistent, rooted in change and implemented from the top down.”

Emma Burleigh [email protected]

Around the Table

A round-up of the most important HR headlines.

Following public backlash, OpenAI will no longer force former employees to choose between signing a non-disparagement agreement and keeping their vested equity. Bloomberg

A majority of Americans don’t believe a college degree is necessary to get a high paying job, and nearly half find it less important to get top salaried work compared to 20 years ago, according to a new report. Business Insider

Electric vehicle manufacturer Lucid will cut 400 jobs, as the company cuts costs amid a slumping market for battery-powered cars. Bloomberg

Watercooler

Everything you need to know from Fortune .

Pretty penny. Florida housekeepers are now making upwards of $150,000 a year following a migration of wealthy Americans to the state and increased demand for the profession. —Eleanor Pringle

Glazed over. U.S. workers spend the equivalent of four full weekdays staring at a screen each week, and 43% say their eye health has worsened because of a rise in job hours, according to a report. — Jordyn Bradley

Universal needs. Hilton’s CEO says that Gen Z workers aren’t so different from other generations of staffers—all employees want to bring themselves to work, and many share fundamental desires. — Jane Thier

Latest in Newsletters

Why SAP’s CTO made scale a strategy for generative AI

Sam Altman’s reputation gets dragged further into the mud

How the 100 biggest U.S. companies have changed their DEI messaging

Former FTX executive Ryan Salame is not pleased with his prison sentence

An Expedia exec agreed to take the job ‘nobody wanted.’ That helped her become CEO

Summer slackers are plaguing bosses everywhere but better flexibility may be the solution

Most popular.

Amazon, Walmart, and Target finally realize their colossal pricing mistake—now they’re slashing costs to win back customers

Gen Z really are the hardest to work with—even managers of their own generation say they’re difficult. Instead bosses plan to hire more of their millennial counterparts

Toyota’s bet on hybrids was mocked, then vindicated. Now it’s trying to repeat the trick with an unlikely bet on the combustion engine

Jamie Dimon is right. The number of U.S. public companies is plummeting—and that’s bad news for the democratic component of the economy

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers fighting Russia is 43-45, while the youngest troops remain exempt from front-line combat

The cult of Costco: How one of America’s biggest retailers methodically turns casual shoppers into fanatics

Elton John Launches Campaign Against LGBTQ+ Discrimination, Challenges Fans to Take On ‘Your Song'

Elton John is gearing up to give one of his fans an LGBTQ+ Pride Month for the books. Ahead of next month's festivities, the rock star announced Wednesday (May 29) that he and his Elton John AIDS Foundation are challenging fans to take on his hit "Your Song" as part of a new "Speak Up Sing Out" campaign, giving one entrant the chance to meet him and David Furnish, who is his husband and the foundation's chairman, in June. 

Designed to help end the stigma against LGBTQ folks on social media, the challenge asks participants to post vertical videos of personalized renditions of the icon's 1970 song, which peaked at No. 8 on the Billboard Hot 100 and was written by his longtime collaborator Bernie Taupin. More specifically, the foundation is calling on fans to sing one of the track's final lines - "I hope you don't mind, I hope you don't mind, that I put down in words how wonderful life is while you're in the world" - and mark their clips online with the hashtag #SpeakUpSingOutGiveaway. 

After finishing the song, contestants are to name and tag someone who has inspired them to embrace their authentic selves. Fans should also make sure they're following the Elton John AIDS Foundation on Instagram before entering. 

"Living boldly and fearlessly is what I strive for every day, but I know firsthand the importance of having a support system that empowers you to do so - a privilege I'm immensely grateful for," John said in a statement. "This Pride Month, I extend a heartfelt invitation to stand with me and the Foundation to honor the champion in your life."  

The giveaway ends June 18 at 8 p.m. ET. Afterward, one contestant will be chosen to win a trip to meet John and Furnish later that month. 

"Add your unique touch to one of my songs and spread waves of love and support throughout the LGBTQ+ community," the five-time Grammy winner added. "As a special thank you, one participant and their guest will have the chance to join me and David in New York City during Pride Month - an opportunity to celebrate love, acceptance, and all that makes us who we are!" 

In addition to spreading awareness amid the influx in anti-LGBTQ legislation introduced across the U.S. in the past year, the "Speak Up Sing Out" challenge will support the foundation's Rocket Fund. The $125-million, multiyear initiative was launched in 2023 in response to rising stigma and growing rates of HIV in vulnerable communities, causes for which the organization has already raised $100 million of its goal. 

See John's announcement below. 

More from Billboard

• Billy Porter, Orville Peck & More Will Bring the Party to Your Home With 2024's Can't Cancel Pride