Sexual Orientation Diversity Management At Small And Large Organizations

Federal law and corporate governance prohibit discrimination and harassment, and Maalick, a minority with a unique religion, encountered inappropriate behaviors in the workplace. It is clear that the Treton office in Chenworth, Kansas had a prolonged atmosphere of ridicule, mistreatment, racial harassment, and religious discrimination. Contrary to protections afforded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, office personnel openly displayed inappropriate workplace behaviors and defied corporate policy and federal law (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2016). With Title VII regulating adverse actions against a person based on race and religion, workers perpetuated religious mocking and ridicule with head nodding and laughter to Maalick’s new religion.

Since the beginning of their existence and in today’s society, the community of LGBT workers are not being treated fairly or getting their fair share that they deserve in the workplace. They are victims to high rates of workplace discrimination. Instead of being judged as workers and what they bring to their jobs and how they work, they are being judged by their sexual preferences and appearance. Being a gay or transgender worker causes them to be mistreated, not judged for the actual workers they are, and most importantly, halts a majority of them in better career and job opportunities. Although under federal law it is illegal to fire someone who is either gay or transgender, they are still either being denied employment or being terminated from their jobs because of their gender category or sexual orientation.

Prior to Cracker Barrel’s evaluation and termination of lesbian and gay employees, the company frequently denied them promotional opportunities, applicants being rejected, employees fired and decision makers became bias; nevertheless, both heterosexual and same-sex were employed with the company. The difficulties of implementing discrimination rules against sexual orientation, originates from these main factors: “employers view homosexuality as somehow detrimental to job performance or harmful to the company’s public profile;” more importantly, the company hasn’t established a nondiscriminatory policy against homosexuals; hence, it is “difficult to trace” (Harvey & Allard, 2015, p. 166). Seeing the rapid growth of the company being unfazed by the boycott and other movements in the media, Dan Evins felt empowered to continue rejecting homosexuals; hence, he did. The upward trending of the company’s profit, proves the vast support for Cracker Barrel’s actions.

Although, an employee’s sexual orientation/identity isn’t a visible characteristic, it should be considered an important of diversity management. Bower and Blackmon (2003) states that managing diversity, particularly when it comes to sexual orientation diversity, may be just as significant as managing visible diversity (as cited in Ozeren, 2014, p. 1203). Research of those who identify as LGB (not T), indicates that they’re a sizeable population. Gates (2015) states that “it is generally thought that between 8.2 to 8.7 million United States citizens identity as LGB citizens (transgender number are less well-known), or between 3.5 to 3.7 percent of the population” (as cited in Shrader, 2016, p. 181). For my term paper, I will explore the following questions: How is the U.S. currently responding to complaints filled by LGBT employees? What is the government doing to improve policies, laws, initiatives or statutes to protect this population? I will answer these question by performing

Because of this many of them arrive to work in fear of rejection or being ‘outed’ causing them to lose their job. As discovered by expert Cosby Burns “Discrimination and unequal treatment on the job inflicts significant economic harm on gay and transgender public-sector employees and their families.” (http://www.americanprogress.org) Many open homosexuals will be turned down for employment just because of their sexual orientation despite qualifications, even though it is completely irrelevant to their skills and no one’s business but their own.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion. In fact, the law “requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee when that employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observance conflict with a work requirement unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship to the employer” (Fowler-Hermes & Gierbolini, 2014, p. 34).

Oppression and discrimination has plagued our society since early times. As a collective society one would think that over time oppression and discrimination would turn into acceptance and equality. Conversely, our society has taken sluggish steps towards diversity, acceptance and equality. Our society is focused on labeling people and putting them into limiting boxes. Oppression occurs across various groups of people based on gender, sex, race, religion, and disability. Members of these diverse groups are discriminated among work places, schools, and other places. Work places and schools promote diversity and non-discrimination, however little seems to be practiced. Oppression across generation leaves damaging consequences hindering society in the growth towards a more accepting environment.

Since our country has a great diversity, employers may decide to hire their employees from a great variety of countries and different religious backgrounds. In an ideal work environment, the religious beliefs of a given employee, or the employer, do not have a conflict. Each individual is free to believe as he or she chooses and, as the work gets done right, neither of them will encounter difficulty with religion. However, in the real world, a good bit of issues can arise to create problems. An employee and employer may discuss, or even argue over, religious principles. What is more, religion is not always simply a matter of belief. The faithful practice their religion through various actions – styles of dres, manner of keeping or wearing one’s hair, follow certain diets, trying to recruit others to their faith, fasting, praying, avoiding certain language or behavior, and observing certain religious holidays.

Dr. Adair brought up a fascinating point that most workplaces would tell you that religion and politics don’t belong in the work force. This is something even my employer emphasizes to all employees. In everything, I do in my life I center it on my religion. Catholicism makes up my beliefs in how others should be treated, ethics, and helping or looking out for others who may be less fortunate. In ten, twenty, or thirty years from now this would always be an aspect I would chose, because it is the very core of how I chose to live my life. There are also biases when people hear I am a Catholic. It’s not uncommon especially in the GLAD community that Catholics believe being gay/lesbian is a sin against God. Therefore, because I am Catholic I “hate” all gay/lesbian individuals. This is actually something far from the truth. Being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with the core traits I feel might make up a person. If someone is an honest, trustworthy, and hardworking individual that promotes inclusion (like many of my coworkers); why would their sexual preference, have any significance? I find these recognizable conversations ones I do have to address; however, can be tricky when in an environment where religion shouldn’t be

I feel employment discrimination concerns can be addressed quite simply in the religious workplace by implementing an organizational policy addressing ministerial exceptions and first amendment rights in relation to respecting an establishment of religion with state. Through ongoing training with staff covering religious rights in the workplace I would give detail and clear guidance on how to notify individuals and supervisor to make a discrimination complaint without retaliation.

workforce must learn to work together regardless of religious differences (Flake, 2015). Accordingly, employers and workers must adapt to the changing religious landscape and increase accommodations and tolerance of unique beliefs and practices. From a corporate perspective, Dixon can conduct a confidential diversity study to determine awareness of biases (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2016). With this data, Dixon can then develop and guide diversity awareness training across the entire company to foster an atmosphere of religious inclusion and initiate support groups to counteract feelings of

In the U.S, the transgender unemployment rate is three times bigger than the general populations unemployment rate(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Workplace Issues, Catalyst.org). Even while trying to find a job the people part of the LGBT community that are looking for a job, are still feeling discriminated due to their sexual orientation. In the European Union(EU), 13% of LGBT people felt discrimination while job hunting due to their sexual orientation(lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workplace issues, catalyst.org). Even if LGBT people do finally get a job, they still have so much fear of being fired that they closet themselves. Over 27% of the transgender population were not hired, were fired or were nor promoted because of their gender identity in 2015( Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Workplace Issues, Catalyst.org). While working, people part of the LGBT community can hear jokes about their community, whether it be directed toward them specifically or not. Nearly 62% of LGBT employees hear LGBT jokes at

The last protected class discriminated against within the hospitality industry that will be examined is religion. Everyone has their own beliefs, and practices their own faith, but at times these practices can interfere with one’s job opportunities and livelihood. In the case, Christian Emergency Services Supervisory Officer Denied Religious Accommodation and Subjected to Harassment at Keystone Resort, the victim, Lisa Marie Cornwell, an emergency services supervisor at the Keystone Resort, was subjected to harassment for not only her Christian religion but for her gender as well. She was denied religious accommodation and treated less favorably than her male counterparts. The EEOC said that Cornwell’s supervisor, Rick Garcia, banned her and another Christian employee from discussing their Christian beliefs and would not allow them to listen to Christian music while on duty. Moreover, according to the EEOC, Garcia ridiculed Cornwell for asking for scheduling accommodation so that she could attend her desired religious services, and denied her requests while scheduling lower ranking officers for the shifts she requested. On top of that, Cornwall was also sexually harassed, so she went through a lot.

LGBTI as a pillar of a holistic diversity management is increasingly being taken up with the market leaders in the US and Australia. This development is the result of social changes, the key words such as "social responsibility", "Corporate Responsibility" and "diversity management" in focus and at the show also employers of society towards a sense of responsibility. 299 of the 500 largest companies in the US have voluntarily subjected to the ranking on the Corporate Equality Index of the Human Rights Campaign last year. Among the companies which have achieved full marks (100/100), included, inter alia, General Motors Co., Bank of America Corp., Apple Inc. This proves on the one hand that companies of their social responsibility are aware and increasingly on respect and inclusion instead rely on only acceptance and tolerance.

Today there are over 900 religious employee resource groups, according to the International Coalition of Workplace Ministries (Cañas & Sondak, 2010). These affinity groups can help encourage religious understanding by offering panel discussions that educate employees on their beliefs. By allowing open discussion, answering religious questions and creating an open, welcoming religious environment in the workplace employees can better relate to one another through shared religious principles (Cañas & Sondak, 2010). When looking at the business case for diversity, not asking employees to hide their faith at work allows for greater productivity, and time and energy focused on business results (Cañas