Sexual Orientation Hiringi Discrimination Essay

You would think that today’s society would not discriminate against someone based on their race, color, or national origin. With the changes in lifestyle, people continue to discriminate against those, but also someone’s sexual orientation. Even with laws and regulations, it continues in all parts of the country. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, more specifically Title VI, stated that you could not discriminate against anyone in programs and activities receiving federal

A great amount of problems still exist in LGBT workplaces, rights in the sphere have evolved and there are signs for a better and brighter future for the community. “The government has announced that it will be advancing legislation to amend section 37.1 of the employment equality act, which currently allows religious—run institutions, such as schools and hospitals to discriminate against LGBT employees. But the amendment will not protect every worker, as Rob Buchanan reports.” (BUCHANAN)

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.

To start this article Mays and Cochran discuss how recently there have been surveys that have looked for a correlation between mental health disorders and sexual orientation. They then state that their survey will expand upon this idea to try and discover if perceived discrimination, sexual orientation, and mental health are related. Mays and Cochran conducted this research through a survey and questionnaire.

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

Twenty states in the U.S currently have laws prohibiting the discrimination based on sexual orientation in public, as well as private jobs. These states include Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Main, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington Wisconsin and California. As found by California lawyers, the number of cases filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or DFEH, pertaining to employment discrimination based on sexual orientation has “increased from 636 in 2001, to 714 in 2005 and to 821 in 2008. In 2011, the number of sexual orientation employment discrimination cases filed with DFEH spiked to 1,104.” This drastic increase may be attributed to the advocacy of equality in marriage laws in California and in other

Common views on homosexuality and how it affects a person’s wealth/income is divided into two wholly contrasting opinions. Homosexuals are either seen as impoverished and suffer as a result of their open sexual orientation in a country that is largely Christian influenced and looks down upon them, or they are seen to be slowly becoming advantaged as a result of a growing liberal and LGBT & Feminist sentiments among the younger generations of Americans. With this, common perception of homosexuals and how they fair economically is split in two wholly different parts, and yet both sides are right if at different points in time. With four sources using both unique sources of their own and sharing certain studies to develop educated conclusions, it can be seen that within a period of a year homosexual economic status can somehow go from being called advantaged to suffering from an unfair wage gap and back again. How and why? That would require both examining the article’s conclusions and their sources as follows.

According to the Center for American Progress, “studies show that anywhere from 15% to 43% of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” (Burns & Krehely, 2011) This doesn’t just affect the individual, it affects the worker’s productivity and confidence on the job, in some cases it may affect the pay which ultimately throws off the individual’s income for stability within their responsibilities, this can affect the business in a negative way. The list can go on and on of the consequences brought on by employment discrimination. According to USA Today’s Jennifer Calfas, “it is legal to fire someone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. While there is some federal recourse through civil rights and equal employment claims, there's no national anti-discrimination law to protect LGBT workers from state whims. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and nation of origin, but does not extend those protections to LGBT people.” (Calfas, 2015) Luckily, USA Today’s Jennifer Calfas also states that “Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting employers from firing employees due to just their sexual orientation or gender

According to an article published by Workplace Fairness, a non-profit organization that provides information and education on employee rights, sexual orientation discrimination means treating someone differently solely because of his or her sexual orientation whether it be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. This discrimination may occur because of a perception of someone whether the perception is right or wrong. Someone who is discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation may also be discriminated against or harassed on the basis of sex, gender identity, disability, such as actual or perceived HIV status, and/or marital status.

Subtract the opinion polls and the ‘gays function well in the workplace’ add the normalisation of sexual deviancy by the Kinsey report.

NPR/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Discrimination in America: Experiences and Views of LGBTQ Americans, January 26 – April 9, 2017.

Scheiber, N. (2015). U.S. Agency Rules for Gays in Workplace Discrimination. The New York Times.

To test this hypothesis, he uses Pew Research Center for the People and the Press’s 2004 Typology Survey from December 2004 and the late March callback survey, inclusive of 1,090 participants. The author provides a haughty analysis of the survey and how the data is measured. “The callback interviews asked respondents if they have a “friend, colleague, or family member” who is gay, while the main survey asked two separate questions concerning how strongly respondents support same-sex marriage and acceptance of homosexuals ‘as a way of life.’ Contact is measured as a dichotomous or dummy variable indicating whether or not the respondent knew someone who is gay,” (249). The survey also asks questions about race, party identification, and religious affiliation (249-250). Garner then describes how the variables are coded, are applied to the Harvey Multiplicative Heteroskedastic Regression model, and the calculations required to discuss the variables

There are differences between what is considered to be prejudice and what discrimination is. Prejudice is identified as a typically negative attitude that is directed towards an individual 's social status, or group. Discrimination is reported as completing a negative act, or acts, towards a group, or individuals in a group, on the bias of the same reason or reasons. Given what is known, or inferred, about prejudice and discrimination, it can be related back to how LGBT associates are effected within athletic fields. Understanding the terminology, methods of research, development, and corrective/preventive procedures are well discussed in the field of Social Psychology.

The criminal just system should view all people no matter what their race, gender, or social class is. In a world where Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people are being slandered, it is hard for them to get jobs because of their sexual preferences or how they identify. Gays and lesbians who choose to come out around “straight” people they work with will probably face at least some (if not much) discrimination. During work, “discrimination based on sexual orientation must not be tolerated in any form in modern law enforcement. Instead of prejudice and intolerance, police departments and chief executives should embrace a “Do Ask, Do Tell” attitude toward gays and lesbians (Winchell, 2008)”. They will go out of their way to cause harm either (physically/ mentally), professional humiliation, and the refusal of some heterosexual officers to work in close proximity with the LGBT officers. Instead of discriminating on others, officers should begin to judge based on the quality of their work and strength of character.