LGBTQ Employment Discrimination

LGBTQ Employment Discrimination
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
LGBTQ Employment Discrimination
Introduction
In 2015, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that marriage is a right guaranteed to same-sex couples. Many individuals thought that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGTBQ) community had won the largest battle in history. There is no doubt that the ruling in favor of the LGBTQ was significant. However, that alone did not solve various outstanding issues facing the community, especially workplace-related matters. A study by the Human Rights Campaign (2014) demonstrated that most LGTBQ workers are U.S. closeted in the workplace. Since 2014, little progress has been made regarding the issue. While the Fortune 500 and other businesses in the U.S. have made strides towards inclusivity in the workplace, legal protections have not been afforded to the LGTBQ individuals from state to state. More corporates in the U.S. have LGTBQ inclusive policies. Despite such measures, such workers continue to face a patchwork of legal protections, causing many to hide their sexual orientation for fear of facing discrimination in their workplace and society. The fear of discrimination has adverse effects on the productivity of LGTBQ workers (Steffens, Niedlich & Ehrke, 2016). Some fear that disclosing their sexual identity would deny them job opportunities and promotions. It could also subject some to unfair treatment from their colleagues and seniors.
In the U.S., most of the LGTBQ workplace problems emerge due to the absence of a federal law that explicitly protects workers from discrimination because of their sexual identity and gender expression. The protections that exist are majorly from individual states, leaving federal laws to interpret the law meant to protect the group. The lack of a legal framework that explicitly protects LGBTQ people from discrimination in the workplace leaves many vulnerable (Mallory & Sears, 2020). For instance, only 22 states and the District of Columbia prohibit LGTBQ discrimination in the workplace, both in the public and private workforce. The remaining 28 states have not yet enacted legislation to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender expression.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender expression in the workplace is a social problem. Legislation alone is not sufficient to address the issue. Even with progressive legislation, workers sometimes lack access to legal redress due to lengthy legal procedures or inadequate resources for representation. Some LGTBQ workers are reluctant to file discrimination complaints because they fear losing their jobs if their employers discovered (De Shutter et al., 2009). Others do not have adequate confidence in the complaint’s procedures. It is common for LGTBQ respondents to be denied job opportunities because of their sexual orientation, which is sometimes done straightforwardly in job interviews. Others have missed opportunities due to their gender expression. Some employers may term some form of clothing and mannerism as not matching a particular legal gender identity. It is common for LGTBQ workers to be dismissed unfairly or denied promotions (Sears, Mallory & Hunter, 2009). Overcoming such biases requires more than legislation. Like other social and political movements, creating significant change requires multiple approaches.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling on June 15, 2020, gaps still exist that the workplace should be equal for LGTBQ individuals. The Supreme Court held that one could not be fired because of sexual orientation and gender identity. However, gaps still exist which subject LGTBQ to discrimination in their places of work. Firstly, the federal law does not protect individuals working in a business with less than 15 workers (Cisternino & Jones, 2020). Secondly, the court did not explicitly prohibit the firing of LGTBQ persons for religious reasons. Thirdly, the ruling did not address the apparent gaps in employee benefits, especially in healthcare. Employers can fail to pay medical care for transgender persons or leave out their families. For instance, employers may support insurance plans that cater to hormone treatments for women in menopause but fail to cover hormone treatment for transgender patients as prescribed by a doctor. Fourthly, dress codes remain a challenge for transgender workers (Cisternino & Jones, 2020). Further, there is still a problem with same-sex bathrooms and locker rooms. Employers have leeway in how they treat transgender people who want to use the facilities. A transgender individual can be singled out and asked to use a different facility. Lastly, LGTBQ persons face discrimination regarding parental leave. For the companies that offer paid leave to families, the policies favor birth mothers. For a gay couple, it would be difficult to access the same benefit in case of child adoption.
Scope and Consequences
Discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual expression affects individuals who identify themselves as part of the LGTBQ community. The negative attitude of society towards members of LGTBQ makes it hard for them to report discrimination in the workplace. Reporting ranges from confiding in a trusted person, confronting the culprit, involving the management, or undertaking legal action. Discrimination cases cannot come to light if the victim does not report. In most cases, LGTBQ persons weigh the pros and cons of reporting discrimination incidents. According to Bell, Berry, Marquardt & Green (2013), most LGTBQ persons who encounter discrimination never file a formal complaint. The failure to report is due to the costs of reporting the incidence and the fear of the perpetrator retaliating. Where LGTBQ people choose to report discrimination incidences, the move could spread awareness of their sexual orientation and expression. In organizations with a negative attitude towards LGTBQs, this could further damage their reputation and subject them to further discrimination. The fear of belonging to the LGTBQ community prevents most of them from reporting when maltreated (Lombardi, Wilchins, Priesing & Malouf, 2002). Silence works against them because organizations cannot ascertain that discrimination is happening. As a result, LGTBQ people continue to experience harassment because of their sexual orientation and expression without multiple ways of dealing with the offenders.
Additionally, LGTBQs fear unfair treatment from management and colleagues, making them more vulnerable to stress, anxiety, and depression. Sexual minorities continue to face more exposure to discrimination and rejection than heterosexuals. Because of such threats, LGTBQs engage in concealment to avoid problems (Cohen et al., 2016). When growing up, sexual minorities have to bear with childhood maltreatment, bullying, and sometimes physical assault. Due to the challenges LGTBQ people face when growing up, they understand that the workplace is no different. The workplace is more challenging since it can adversely affect their source of income in addition to discrimination. Because of the dangers associated with belonging to the LGTBQ community, concealment becomes a coping mechanism (Pachankis, Cochran & Mays, 2015). The fear of coming out and making their sexual orientation and behavior known subjects the LGTBQ members to mental health issues. According to Schrimshaw, Siegel, Downing & Parsons (2013), sexual concealment is responsible for worse mental health. The workplace can be difficult for sexual minorities, which causes them to remain silent about the issue. Being associated with the LGTBQ community has adverse effects on the career of an individual. Concealing sexual orientation and behavior denies the individuals an opportunity to be themselves. The rate of mental health illness hence is more among members of the LGTBQ community than among heterosexuals. Mental health illness as a result of concealment has negative implications on their ability to work effectively.
Furthermore, workplace discrimination affects an employee’s labor prospects negatively. Qualified members of the LGTBQ community may shy off from applying for job opportunities in organizations with a history of discriminating against them. And even where they apply to such organizations, sexual minorities are likely to hide their identity to increase their chances of being selected for the position. During interviews, they may not expressly state their sexual orientation and behavior to the panelists for fear of being victimized and rejected (Goffman, 2009). Despite their qualifications, sexual minorities may feel that their chances of securing jobs in some organizations are lower than their heterosexual counterparts. The victims are also less likely to receive good references from previous employers, mainly where they left because of discrimination. They may fear indicating that discrimination was the main reason for leaving a previous workplace, for the fear that the prospective employer will deny them an opportunity. Consequently, LGTBQ individuals are likely to experience prolonged unemployment compared to their straight counterparts (Schneebaum & Badgett, 2019). The long period of unemployment is a sign to potential employers that there is “something wrong” with the LGTBQ applicant. The inability to secure employment opportunities subjects the LGTBQ members to economic problems where they cannot meet their basic needs. It also prevents their upward mobility in society because of access to limited job opportunities.
Where LGTBQ people eventually secure employment opportunities, they are more likely to experience a toxic working environment. Employers may create an unfavorable environment for such individuals. Harassment from managers and colleagues may be the order of the day. In 2016, a survey at Kent State University indicated that LGTBQ faculty were more likely than heterosexuals to indicate that they were uncomfortable with th...