Discrimination of gays in the workplace

Discrimination in the workplace has long been a topic of debate. Most employers agree that discrimination of any kind is unacceptable in the workplace however as it relates to homosexuals discrimination is often overlooked or not handled appropriately. The purpose of this investigation is to examine discrimination in the workplace as it relates to homosexuals. The research will also include a survey of questions related to homosexual discrimination in the workplace. Let us begin our discussion by defining this issue.

Defining discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace

According to a book entitled

Discrimination at Work: The psychological and Organizational Bases discrimination involving sexual orientation is somewhat difficult to define and combat when it occurs. In many cases, discrimination against homosexuals is referred to as homophobia, however the authors of the aforementioned book asserts that discrimination against gays can also be referred to as heterosexism. Heterosexism is the belief that heterosexual attraction is the only appropriate type of sexuality and any "alternative lifestyle" is wrong (Colella and Dipboye).

This ideology often spills over into the workplace and results in discrimination against homosexuals.

Discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace

Many companies have policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, such discrimination continues to occur and its effects can be devastating. According to an article found in Sex Roles: A journal of research such discrimination this type of discrimination has adverse effects including limited opportunities for investment and high levels of stress (Horvath & Ryan 2003). In addition the authors report that organizations also report that this type of discrimination can have a negative effect on the organization that tolerates such actions (Horvath & Ryan 2003). Indeed discrimination of any kind can have a lasting effect on the individual or group that is discriminated against. These effects can also be seen in the individuals personal life and effect every aspect of how a person operates.

As it relates more specifically to the workplace and hiring practices an article found in The Journal of Business Communication asserts that much of the routines and strategies present in the workplace are based on the characteristics of the dominant group. People that are members of this dominant group are less likely experience discrimination on the job when compared with members of the non-dominant group According to the author, the combination of dominant and non-dominant groups within a single workplace can create uneasiness and even discrimination.

Even when blatant sexism and racism are absent, undertones of sexism, racism, or homophobia prompt discriminatory behaviors toward non-dominant members (see Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995) or create tensions because discriminatory behaviors could occur (see Hecht et al., 1993; Woods, 1994). At other times, non-dominant members may feel uncomfortable because they apparently are the only members of their groups at organizational functions or they feel pressure in being different (for token status, see Allen, 1998; Kanter, 1977; Keene, in Tucker, 1994; Morrison, White, Van Velsor, & The Center for Creative Leadership, 1987). It is not only "emotionally draining... To exist in a near constant state of adapting to another culture's view of the world" (Thomas & Wetlaufer, 1997, p. 125), but also detrimental to long-term relationship formation and positive self-regard (Buzzanell)."

This dominant group/non-dominant group dynamic has caused many problems for human resource managers and for companies in general. Such problems exist mainly when there exists a group of people that are on the most different from those in the dominant group. This is particularly true when the lifestyle or sexuality of the non-dominant group are contradictory to the religious convictions of the dominant group. This is ripe soul upon which discrimination can form against homosexuals. This type of discrimination has often been overlooked by companies and organizations and continues to be a problem for many homosexuals.

Combating the issue of sexual orientation discrimination has been somewhat difficult as it relates to implementing policies within the workplace. An article found in The Advocate asserts that even as late as 2004 many of the fortune 500 companies did not have sexual orientation language as a part of their nondiscrimination policies (Caldwell).

Additionally, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) found that 320 of all Fortune 500 Companies have implemented anti-discrimination policies that encompass sexual orientation ("Workplace Discrimination"). A total of 2,295 employers of both large and small companies have anti-discrimination policies in place ("Workplace Discrimination").

According to an article entitled "Workplace Discrimination" activists for gay and lesbian rights have been attempting to secure antidiscrimination on two fronts; private businesses and statutory protections. The article explains that as it relates to private companies activists are persuading private employers to develop and implement antidiscrimination policies that contain sexual orientation language ("Workplace Discrimination"). According to the article activists have been successful with this approach and the business world has readily adopted many of these policies. Such implementation in the business world has occurred at a faster pace than federal and/or state policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation ("Workplace Discrimination").

The article also reports that companies that implement such anti-discrimination policies often have training sessions that educate employees as it relates to workplace discrimination and the type of behavior that is unacceptable in the workplace. These training sessions are also important because they can serve as a basis for breach of contract if employees ever allege discrimination in the court of law. In fact some courts have used companies' anti-discrimination policies in employee handbooks as a promise of protection in a court of law ("Workplace Discrimination").

The article also asserts that Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in America has added sexual orientation to its antidiscrimination policy.

The article asserts that this policy change was implemented following an advocacy program from both internal and external programs. For instance The Pride Foundation a gay rights organization from Seattle, Washington bought shares in Wal-Mart and actually lobbied Wal-Mart for two years to encourage the company to change its policy related to sexual orientation discrimination. The article asserts that in Wal-Mart's adoption of this policy the company acknowledged how instrumental The Pride Foundation and other activists were in the implementation of such a policy. In addition, Wal-Mart also acknowledged that one of the most compelling reasons for the change in policy came from homosexual employees that wrote top managers and explained that they did not feel they were part of the company. The article further explains that Wal-Mart became the ninth of the top ten Fortune 500 Companies to adopt a policy protecting lesbian and gay employees. The only top ten company not to have such a policy is ExxonMobil. Exxon had an anti-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation, but when it merged with Mobil, the newly formed company rescinded the policy. Activists continue to pressure ExxonMobil to re-adopt the policy. In 2001, HRC called for a nationwide boycott of the company until it changes its policy ("Workplace Discrimination")."

Although the federal government has been slow to act regarding federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, there are several state and local governments that have legislation that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. In fact, at least 12 states and Washington, D.C. have laws that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation (Horvath & Ryan 2003). In addition, there is an executive order that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within the federal government (Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace). These laws are designed to combat some of the workplace discrimination that homosexuals often face.

Survey

Demographics: The survey included 40 participants from Human Resources Teams at three medium sized companies that are all privately owned.

Twenty-Five of the participants were Caucasian, 10 were African-American and 5 were Hispanic. There were 15 white males, 10 white females, 6 African-American Females, 4 African-American Males, 3 Hispanic Males, and 2 Hispanic Females. Only two of the respondents acknowledge that they were homosexuals; 1 male and 1 female. The survey questions are as follows.

Do you believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation occurs within the workplace? Yes or Do you believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation occurs at your company? Yes or Do you believe that religious conviction should in any way allow private companies to discriminate against homosexuals. Yes or No

Has any employee at your company ever been accused of discriminating against another employee based on their sexual orientation? Yes or No

Do you believe that your company has done enough to ensure that homosexuals are not discriminated against within the workplace? Yes or No

Does your company currently have an antidiscrimination policy that is inclusive of sexual orientation? Yes or If you answered yes to the above question, does your company have a training session that includes educating employees about what constitutes sexual orientation discrimination? Yes or No

Are there things that your company could do to ensure that homosexuals are not discriminated against? Yes or No

Are there things that you can do to ensure that discrimination against gays does not occur within the company? Yes or No

If you ever receive a complaint of discrimination based on sexual orientation will you report it immediately and follow the appropriate procedures? Yes or No

Findings of this survey

The findings of this survey point out that the majority of those surveyed (90%) believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation does occur in the workplace. Likewise the same percentages of responders assert that discrimination based on sexual orientation occurs at the companies that they work for. Eighty percent of the participants believe that a company's policy concerning discrimination against gays should not be determined by religious convictions. Fifteen participants reported that an employee of their company had been accused of discrimination based on sexual orientation.