By Md Hamim Mahdie and Ama C. Ndukwe
Research Question: How Does Sexual Orientation Impact Employment, Earnings, and Job Satisfaction, and to What Extent Does Intersectionality with Racial Identity Amplify These Effects?
Introduction
The general issue of sexual orientation within the scope of employment, job satisfaction, and earnings is incredibly multifaceted and complicated. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) employees have faced profound workplace discrimination and barriers to equal treatment historically in the United States and other parts of the world. While legislative protections have increased over time, their implementation is inadequate to this day. Significant gaps persist when it comes to equitable hiring practices, wages, job satisfaction, and advancement opportunities across sexual orientations. Moreover, LGBTQ people of color disproportionately bear the brunt of compounded discrimination. This paper discusses how workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity persists, disproportionately impacting employment, earnings, and job satisfaction for LGBTQ individuals, with intersectional biases related to race further amplifying barriers for LGBTQ people of color.
Summary of the issue
The literature around LGBTQ, while limited, portrays astounding evidence of discrimination in multiple areas. LGBTQ+ individuals are at a higher risk of experiencing job dissatisfaction as compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Bayrakdar, 2022). Research done by Bayrakdar, collected from a 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS), found that British men who identified as bisexual experienced much less job satisfaction in comparison to heterosexual men (Bayrakdar, 2022). Analyzing data from the 1990 US Census, Allegretto and Arthur (2001) found bisexual employees had nearly 2 lower job satisfaction “levels” compared to heterosexual men. Further, heterosexual men and women reported higher satisfaction than their LGBTQ colleagues generally. The research suggests a “bisexual penalty” wherein workplace environments and policies fail to curb heteronormativity. Delving deeper into the economic impacts, Baumle and Poston (2011) used multilevel modeling to uncover a 12.5% earnings deduction for partnered gay men compared to married heterosexual males. This effect shrinks but holds even after controlling for productivity indicators, implying a clear discrimination component. Moreover, Whitfield, Daniel L., et al. (2014) examines anti-LGBTQ discrimination, with a focus on differences by race. It looks specifically at housing and employment discrimination and finds that LGBTQ people of color experience higher rates of anti-LGBTQ discrimination compared to white LGBTQ people. In terms of employment, 33.6% of black, 40.3% of Asian, 44.4% of Latino, and 49.2% of multiracial LGBTQ individuals reported workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This compares to 37.7% of white LGBTQ individuals. The type of workplace discrimination includes lower salaries, fewer promotions, etc.
Policy Interventions
There are a plethora of policy interventions to be implemented in hopes of limiting and eventually stopping economic LGBTQ-related discrimination. Firstly, one could enact legal protections such as including LGBTQ+ identity as a protected class in the 1969 Civil Rights Act. This could make way for a plethora of anti-discrimination laws that could ensure the defense of such individuals. Additionally, implementing workforce training could subset the amount of bias perpetrated within the physical workplace. By introducing LGBTQ-related diversity training, employers can ensure a safer space for all individuals. Continually, within universities and companies, providing support and help to those who identify. This could potentially present as an affinity group for trans black women that teaches self-advocacy, amongst other valuable tools. Finally, within all these different interventions, it is vital to keep in mind intersectionality and its importance in ensuring the safety of LGBTQ+ identifying individuals.
Effects of No Policy Intervention
According to a 2019 report by McKinsey & Company, companies with diverse demographics are 25% more likely to experience above-average profitability (McKinsey & Company, 2020). Besides, the authors of Mallory, Christy, et al.(2017) found that there was a significant cost derived from anti-LGBTQ+ practices, costing a yearly revenue of $47-$238 billion in Texas alone. Therefore, the economic impact on the US and the rest of the world is beyond our imagination. Moreover, without concerted efforts to enact policies protecting the LGBTQ community, toxic workplace environments will persist. This risks further mental distress for LGBTQ-identifying staff and stagnated diversity. Ultimately, unequal treatment will hinder companies and the broader economy by depriving talent based on non-job-related factors. Everyone loses when discrimination pervades the workplace.
Infographic
References
Whitfield, D. L., Y Voice, T., & Kalvan, M. (2014). Queer is the new Black? Not so much: Racial disparities in anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 26(4). https://doi-org.ezproxy.trincoll.edu/10.1080/10538720.2014.955556
Bayrakdar, S., & King, A. (2022). Job Satisfaction and Sexual Orientation in Britain. Work, Employment and Society, 36(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020980997
Baumle, A. K., & Poston, D. L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89(3), 1005–1031. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41290098
Allegretto, S. A., & Arthur, M. M. (2001). An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male earnings differentials: Unmarried and unequal? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(3), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695994
Mallory, C., & Sears, B. (2015). Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Michigan. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep34925
Badgett, M. V. L., Nezhad, S., Waaldijk, K., & van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2019). The relationship between LGBT inclusion and economic development: Macro-level evidence. World Development, 120, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.011
Mallory, C., et al. (2017). Economic Impact of Stigma and Discrimination against LGBT People. In The Impact of Stigma and Discrimination Against LGBT People in Texas (pp. 54–72). The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep35061.7
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%20inclusion/diversity%20wins%20how%20inclusion%20matters/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters-vf.pdf