LGBT Employment Discrimination
Diversity at workplace has been an important agenda to be achieved by most of the organizations. Legally India has taken many steps in this area to identify the rights of LGBT community. Discrimination and the fear of discrimination is an important concern among the minorities at workplace. They get ignored and ill-treated by the other employees for their sexual preference. Nevertheless progress have been made in this sector and organizations have developed many policies to protect the rights of LGBT employees at workplace. There are many ways by which this discrimination can be avoided at workplaces. By educating the employees about diversity inclusion can motivate other employees to accept the gender preference of LGBT employees.
In today’s fast-changing environment, the companies best positioned to outperform their competitors are those that consistently recruit and retain top talent. With an estimated 7 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees in America’s private sector, employers that are slow to create LGBT-friendly workplaces risk missing out on a substantial pool of skilled talent. Moreover, the consequences of alienating workers are significant. Losing and replacing the more than 2 million American workers who leave jobs due to unfair treatment and discrimination costs employers an estimated $64 billion each yea. Hence a research has been conducted to find out what are the policies organisations are adopting to provide a better working environment for the LGBT employees and for the purpose different publications have been referred to reach a general conclusion.
To analyze the problems faced by LGBT employees at workplace and the policies and program adopted by various organisations, we have gone through an explanatory articles and journals. The articles were taken from J-store. Research gate google scholar and various other links. The articles were selected on the basis of problems faced by LGBT employees in different organization and the policies taken by HR managers in order to improve the working conditions for these employees.
Need for the Study
There has been a constant discrimination faced by the minority groups at workplace. Though different policies and programs have been introduced by HR managers to provide a better working conditions for the minority group, yet it has been found that these policies have not brought a better change in the organization. There are many such employees who are leaving the workplace due to ill-treatment and ignorance from other employees. This study was necessary to find out the reasons why LGBT employees are leaving the workplace and what are some things that can sustain their stay at the organization. As a result the organizations can come to a conclusion as to what are the different steps that can be adopted so that the minority groups can enjoy an all together a better environment to work.
Review of Literature
(RILEY, january 2008) in his study stated that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-genders are everywhere. For about more than a century, LGBT scientist have been organizing to provide visibility and support for LGBT community at workplaces in the field of technology and engineering. In every workplace, individuals can be proactive in generating an LGBT-friendly environment, and management can act to create policies supportive of LGBT employees. On a basic level, co-workers need to dispense with stereotypes and misconceptions about sexual orientation and gender identity; some of these include gay men as effeminate or lesbians as masculine, ideas that lesbians haven’t met the right man yet, gay men as predatory, the notion that the entire LGBT community consists of rich white men and fear of HIV/AIDS as a gay disease. Stereotypes about gender and engineering can also affect LGBT individuals. When professions are strongly identified with maleness, homophobia can result in the exclusion of gay men. Gay men may be perceived as less effective engineers, in the same way that women can be prejudicially perceived as less technically adept. It should also be noted that for some LGBT people there are positive associations with the choice of engineering as a profession—especially when individuals perceive it as a “good fit” between professional and gender or sexual identity. It is important for diversity and human resources officers to make their support for LGBT employees clear so that they feel comfortable approaching diversity officers with concerns or needs. Everyone should participate in creating a workplace culture that is LGBT-friendly, making it comfortable for everyone to be who they are and bring their full selves and creativity to the workplace. Workplace culture greatly affects an employee’s perception of LGBT-friendliness. Banishing stereotypes, becoming aware of heterosexual privilege, avoiding assumptions, and learning transgender etiquette are critical steps individuals can take to create a productive LGBT-friendly workplace. Focusing on LGBT issues is an essential component of a diversity strategy that fosters a supportive workplace for all—it ultimately builds a stronger organization in which employees have the necessary tools and support to realize their full potential.
(Edwards, 2009) His study provides an important view into the work of LGBT American workplace. However LGBT rights internationally are very dramatic. In countries like Germany and Netherlands have legal protection for LGBT workers at workplace. A formal interviews with eight LGBT identified individuals in work organizations. Four were members of Employee Resource Groups in Fortune 500 companies, two were employed by small companies, and two worked in educational settings. Each LGBT individual was then asked to name a person who had been an ally to them. We were able to contact five of those straight allies and interview them as well. The 10 women and 3 men in the study were all White and held advanced degrees from the study it was found that safety inclusion and equity are the three basic needs of LGBT employees at workplace. As a result both LGBT and straight allies used education as a changed strategy.
(kollen, january 2013) in his article stated that bisexuals do face stereotypes and oppressions at workplace and this, together with the tendency to be silenced within organizations, , narrows their general vocational scope. Anticipating these potential negative consequences, bisexual employees have to decide how to deal with their bisexuality in the workplace on a day-to-day basis. The author mad two hypothesis to conduct his study. One was Diversity management actions that specifically target bisexuality affect the working climate for bisexual employees more positively than actions that target bisexuality mixed in with other sexual orientations. And the other one was supportive working climate for bisexual employees is positively related to a more open handling of one’s bisexuality at the workplace. In contrast, it is negatively related to the tendency of concealing one’s bisexuality or pretending to be heterosexual at the workplace. These hypotheses were tested using data from a sample of 77 bisexual employees collected by an online questionnaire. To reach a large number of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals and to avoid a regional bias within Germany, five experts from different regions of Germany were asked to list LGB web forums, associations, and representations of interest. Furthermore, individual-related contact data of all German regional and nationwide LGB journals, newspapers, radio shows, and their Websites were selected. The methods used for analysis were correlation and regressions. The result of the study stated that organizations can positively influence the working climate for bisexual employees by addressing bisexuality through their internal communications. A positive and supporting working climate is a crucial precondition for bisexual employees to be more open and less covert about their bisexuality at work. Bisexual employees have a vital need to be appreciated as bisexuals and not as a part of a so-called LGBT group, because bi-phobic attitudes appear among heterosexual colleagues as well as among homosexual colleagues.
(Resnick, april 2016) in his study stated that though steps have been taken to support the people of LGBT community yet these people do face a lot of discriminations at workplace. A study indicated 42 % of LGB respondents had experienced workplace discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation in their career. The study was conducted among 100 working adults who self-identified themselves as asexual, bisexual, fluid, gay, lesbian, pansexual. The participants were provided with a series of likert-type questions where in the participants had to provide their preference ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The present findings established that the experience of LGBT workplace micro aggressions varies based on the employee’s colleagues and the organizational structure of the workplace. In many of the respondent’s experiences, workplace policy played a role in allowing the micro aggression to occur. Participants described LGBT microaggressions as they contributed to a hostile and/or heterosexist workplace climate, were situated within the organizational structure of the workplace reflecting the power dynamic inherent to the employees’ position, and were specifically related to workplace policy. In many cases these microaggressions revealed a disconnect between an existing workplace policy and the ability or willingness to enforce the policy, the workplace diversity statement and existing policy, and/or state laws and workplace policy. Focusing on LGBT microaggressions in the workplace provides unique insight into the challenges of negotiating LGBT identity within organizations.
(ELIASON, november 2011) in his study stated that LGBT physicians continue to encounter unacceptable levels of discriminatory and sometimes hostile practices at the healthcare institutions where they work, ranging from exclusionary employee and patient policies, lack of referrals from their colleagues, and witnessing derogatory remarks about LGBT individuals. In fact, 65% frequently heard disparaging remarks about LGBT patients at work, and 35% witnessed discriminatory care of an LGBT patient. The study used an online survey to assess a convenience sample of 427 LGBT physicians from a database of a national LGBT healthcare organization, as well as a snowball sample generated from the members of the database. Although rates of discriminatory behaviors had decreased since earlier reports, 10% reported that they were denied referrals from heterosexual colleagues, 15% had been harassed by a colleague, 22% had been socially ostracized, 65% had heard derogatory comments about LGBT individuals, 34% had witnessed discriminatory care of an LGBT patient, 36% had witnessed disrespect toward an LGBT patient’s partner, and 27% had witnessed discriminatory treatment of an LGBT coworker. It was also found that 95% of LGBT students applying for medical school did not disclose their sexuality for fear of discrimination, and 46% did not disclose when applying for a residency. The physicians were asked how much comfortable they are while working with their lesbian or gay patients. Surprisingly it was found that some of them are not at all comfortable while working with their LGBT patients. Yet conditions have improved now and the environment and policies for the LGBT people ha somewhat improved.
(Sears, 2011-10-01) his study evaluates the economic impact of corporate non-discrimination and benefits policy by analyzing the extent to which economic reasons motivate corporations to adopt such policies was also found that the majority of companies (53%) that prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination or extend domestic partner benefits have expressly linked either these specific policies, or diversity that specifically includes LGBT people, to a positive impact on business. Sixty-three percent of the top 50 Fortune 500 companies with these policies have justified them with a business rationale. Similarly, 41% of contractors with such policies have expressly linked these particular policies, or the creation of a diverse workforce that includes LGBT people, to a positive impact on business. Nearly all federal contractors and Fortune 500 companies reviewed in this study have stated that diversity is good for the bottom line. Most of these companies explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity in their non-discrimination policies, and many explicitly state that differences in sexual orientation and gender identity contribute to the diversity of a workforce. In addition to showing that policies that promote diversity in general make good business sense, a number of employers have also expressly linked the inclusion of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, or the extension of domestic partner benefits, to positive business outcomes.