———— @&éovxX<«: °° | ARE WE EQUAL YET? MAKING SENSE OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER IsSUES IN THE WORKPLACE Gerald Hunt Ryerson University, Toronta, Canada GOALS «To understand the legal, social, and political situation for lesbian, g2Y+ bisexual, and trans- gender (LGBT) persons «Tp enplore the nature of opposition to LGBT equality in genera and in the workplace in particular «parte the initatives employers tke to accommodate LGBT minorities ‘Many Amterican cities have an annual Jsbian, go, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) Pride event. aearvewburg Forda is no etception: “St. Pte Pride’ as it ales hheld at the end of June, beginning wih a parade down Central Avenue at 0 am followed by 8 daylong street festival with food, nmusc, and dancing in the street. At the 2009 Pride, the newspape estimated a crowd of over $0,000, including thousands of heterosexuals, participated in he event. Noticeable by their presence ae umber of people with banners proclaiming the alleged evils and dangers of the “homosex- Tat lifsyet along with several church delegations suggesting darnnation for this minority was ae pe cornet Equally noticeable by hisabsnee was the mayor the city Even hough Pride gen- crepe othe city the mayor refused to endorse, recognize or attend the event, i i trad erupted at the city hall about whether banners highlighting “gry : amps in the ston and a newspaper blog about the even unleashed a forentofanti-g3) EE “the ponte and negative exchanges that occured in reaton to. es ride illustrate som eared messages that continue to surround lesbians, gays bisexuals an She transgendered in Americ. St, Pete's has significant LGBT popalation, including many people em other sates verl it tends to havea live-and tive 4 tude appropriate to its hus Pera on tourism. ts neighbor cy, Tampa, has inthe ast ew years marketed itself asa"gay” sean oc some of this marketing ls benefits St Fee's since the best beaches are 0 itsside “ump bay. At the same time theres an easly exposed degre of Host and anger towards LGB} people by some segments ofthe population that can be aie explosive and disturbing. sn ay Se, Petes a microcosm of America, On one hand througho®t the count there ae many signs of aceptance with important and supportive shifts in the Tegal and in publiand trans pockplace in irpresence “homosex- norty was ‘Are We Equal Yet? Making Sense of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in the Workplace opinion sectors, LGBT characters have become a common and accepted part of mainstream tele- vision programs and Hollywood films. More and more Americans consider discrimination against this group in the same league as discrimination against any other minority. On December 22, 2010, President Obama signed the legislation ending the “don't ask, don’t tel!” policy for gays and lesbians in the United States military. Jn @ few jurisdictions, same-sex marriage is possible. More and more organizations fally embrace issues related to sexual and gender diversity, and have removed as many discriminatory Policies and procedures as possible. On the other hand, many institutions continue to discriminate openly and many individu- als continue to hold extremely negative or hateful atitudes towards the LGBT minority popula- tion, Its stl legally possible to discriminate based on sexual orientation in 29 states, and gender identity in 38 states. Throughout much of the country antigay bias remains inlaw, housing, and the media. Some churches and media pundits are very vocal in their opposition, declaring homo- sexuals to be “sick” and “perverse” and not worthy of support of any kind. The American Boy Scouts legally exclude gay men from their midst. Unfortunately, in some situations, discrimina- tion and hate escalate to bashing and even murder. To the casual observer, itis confusing. Are LGBT minorities equal to other Americans? Are organizations legally and/ot morally required to accommodate sexual and gender identity diversity? Is it stil okay to discriminate against this minority group? LGBT: WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY WANT? Lesbian and gay people are sexually and emotionally attracted to people of the same sex. Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, but may function primarily as homosexuals or heterosexu. als at different points in their life. Transgenderism is an umbrella term referring to a person who does not conform to traditional gender norms. It includes those who are inter-sexed (people ‘whose biological sex does not conform to either male or female), and people who live substantial portions of lives as other than their birth gender. This minority often challenges gender roles related to dress codes, use of cosmetics, and “normal” gender appropriate behavior. Some people in this group feel so deeply drawn to the gender opposite to their birth sex that they undergo sur- gical procedures to change their status. Transgender issues are often grouped under the term “gender identity” LGBT people come from all racial, religious, class, and ethnic backgrounds. AS a group, LGBT people can be thought of as “sexual minorities” Some LGBT use the term “queen” an appropriation of what historically has been a derogatory term. It would be inappropriate for those outside of the LGBT identity structure to use the term queer. Estimates of the LGBT population vary. [nthe late 1940s, in his pioneering work on human sexuality, Kinsey (1948) found upwards of 10 percent of the American population to be engaged in homosexual activity: Recent studies teport 5-6 percent of the population to be predominately homosexual, identifying exclusively as gay or lesbian. This percentage rises to as high as 13-15 percent when bisexuals and transgendered people are included (Bagley and Tremblay, 1998). These figures mean that the LGBT population may be larger than the number of Asian Americans (estimated at 3.6 percent) and greater than the number of Jewish people living in the United States (estimated at 3 percent) Unlike most minority groups however, LGBT people are not always readily visible. Many have chosen to remain invisible, especially at work, because they fear the negative consequences that might result from revealing their identity. As the murder of Matthew Sheppard illustrated, being openly and visibly gay can stil cost you your life, Matthew was an openly gay 21-year-old 153154 Section 3 + Understanding Primary Diversity student at the University of Wyoming who was savagely murdered to make the point thet homo- sexuals deserve to die. Throughout history there are many examples of organizations harassing and dismissing employees when they learned, or just suspected, that they were homosexual. In recent years, more and more LGBT people have come-out (revealed their sexuality). ‘They have done this in order to declare their right to be who they are publically, and to fight for ‘equal rights, They find living in the closet too demeaning a price to pay for “protection” from dis- crimination. As a result, equality for LGBT people is now an issue of concern and an important rallying point for all people (straight and gay) who are concerned about equity in society gener- ally and at work in particular. ‘Spokesperson for this group offer a clear message: the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community is discriminated against and treated inequitably at work. Change is demanded in hhuman resources policies and practices concerned with recruiting, hiring, promotion, discipline, and benefits. Activists call for organizational leaders to foster and promote an environment that is positive and supportive of all buman difference and diversity, These demands closely parallel those made by women and Afro-Americans, and reflect the fact that the LGBT movement has ‘caught up with other human rights movements. All of these minority groups come together in desiring equal treatment, not special or exceptional treatment, and they want the social and insti- tutional barriers that prevent them from gaining full equality eradicated. “The overwhelming difference between sexual minorities and other minority groups is that for some people sexual diversity is more controversial. Homosexuality and gender nonconformity ‘make some people extremely uncomfortable and/or angry. Some conservative thinkers portray the LGBT minority as immoral and degenerate. Others feel that homosexuality is “private” issue and should not be exposed in the public domain, even though heterosexuality is never reduced to being merely a bedroom activity. Some, guided by Christian teachings, quote from the Bible to defend their views (Leviticus 18:22 states that homosexuality is an abomination). These people fil to note that Leviticus 10:10 also indicates that eating shellfish is an abomination and that Exodus 35:2 clearly states that a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath should be put to death, “The polarization around homosexuality creates some work situations characterized by @ lack of consensus regarding the merit of appeals for equal treatment and justice made by the LGBT community. Ths results in range of organizational responses. Some organizations make extensive efforts to ensure that policies and benefits are equal for everyone and value their LGBT ‘employees equally with other workers. Other organizations show little if any accommodation with afew employers going so far as to dismiss these minorities if their identity becomes known SOCIAL, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS 1n spite of controversies and differing perspectives, more and more LGBT people are open about their identities and vocal about their desire for change. This, when combined with a changing social, legal, and economic environment, has convinced more and more organizations to rethink and overhaul policies and practice in order to be inclusive of theit LGBT employees. Social Forces Public opinion polls show a steadily increasing tolerance toward homosexuals in general, and theit ‘workplace rights in particular. Wilcox and Wolpert (2000), in a summary of polling data from throughout the 1990s, found attitudes moving in a positive direction since 1992. Yang (1999) reports that by 1998 a majority of Americans supported the idea of gays and lesbians having equ ity in employment (84%), housing (8196), inheritance rights (62%), social security benefits (57%that homo- pnimportant jely gener= sransgender Jy parallel ement as together in land inst- ous is that conformity portray the pPisue and reduced t0 the Bible to people fal that Exodus to death ions make heir LGBT smodation, ‘Ace We Equal Yet? Making Sense of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexusl, and Transgender Isues in the Workplace and the military (6696). Since then, public opinion has shifted steadily toward increased acceptance. Gallup polls in 2008 and 2009 found that 89% of Americans believed gays and lesbians should have equal rights in job opportunities, 76% thought homosexuals should be allowed in the armed forces, and 62% believed they should be hired as high school teachers (Gallup, 2009). Public opinion data also point to a large generational divide, with younger people tending to be much more favorable ‘toward gay rights than older Americans, In other words, while there may not be widespread public involvement in the fight for LGBT rights, and some people continue to be extremely vocal in their ‘opposition, there is no basis for believing that the majority of citizens in the United States support either overt or covert discrimination in the workplace onthe bass of sexual orientation, Legal Change ‘The increased visibility of LGBT people, combined with more assertive demands for equal rights, generates considerable legel action. In recent years, federal, state, and municipal legislators debated changes in legislation affecting LGBT minorities in almost every aspect of their lives, including violence and harassment, employment and housing discrimination, adoption and child care, domestic partner benefits, and the freedom to marry. In some jurisdictions, the legal changes are wide-spread; in others there has been little or no change; and in other situations, pro- sressive change has subsequently been overturned. At one time, all states had laws regulating and criminalizing consensual sexual activity between adults ofthe same sex. The beginning of 2003 found “sodomy” laws still on the books in 13 states, However, in a landmark casein June 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas, effectively eliminating discriminatory sodomy laws throughout the country. Governments at all levels have now passed bills to include sexual orientation as a pro- tected class, particularly in employment and housing. As of 2010, twenty-one states, along with the District of Columbia, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, lowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode |sland, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin). Of this group, twelve states and the District of Columbia also prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (California, Colorado, Illinois, lowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington). In addition, many cities such as Boulder, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston prohibit ‘employment discrimination based on gender identity (HRC, 2009) In December 1999, Vermont made history by becoming the first American jurisdiction to formalize same-sex, civil unions. As a result for the first time in American history, lesbians and f2y8 who entered civil unions automatically became eligible to receive the same protections and benefits that Vermont provided to heterosexual, married couples. Since then, a growing ist of states offer same-sex couples the possibility of civil unions, and a few have marriage equality. As of 2010, six states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Connecticut, [owa, Maine, Massachusets, New Hampshite, and Vermont). In addition, New York and D. C. recognize mar- rlages by same-sex couples thet occur in other jurisdictions. Five additional states, as well as D.C. legally provide the equivalent of state-level spousal rights to gay and lesbian couples. Economic Forces The LGBT community represents an important market segment and a group with considerable clout if it decides to boycotta product, service, or organization. Badgett (2000) argues that gays 8nd lesbians are not as affluent as many believe, and on average earn no more than heterosexuals. 155eee | ws section 3 + Understanding Primary Divesity However thisisa group (expecially gay men) tats Jes key to have children, probably making “Meeretionazy income levels higher than =Nerae ‘ind spending with moore political sensi) Shas mast other groups. Buford (2000) pois O° pe dering fr these o called ey olan” the rneia generally and the “gay media” #0 8 Fulani big business. Like Badgett he arg sa pat mater aut his group fom 2 mae point of view, isnot aftuences but slightly higher disereionary income, combined aa rare ee ime ad desire to patronize and suPPOr LGBT-positive companies. Posy ean also affect the bottomline of anticLGBT cosporations in a variety of ways, “They wage proxy contests agnnst homophobie Companies, urge public institutions 10 uy the ert companies that prohibit atgay daca er wpa to sell the shares of companies that sro (Gee Cracker Bartel ase.) ta the exh Topbs, the Coors organization went s0 fit 36 0 require ie detector texts to sreen Out PPOSPEETT tay o lesbian employees: Tis prompted co trywide boycotts, lading to a significa Pee eo in the company's market share, Since then, ‘Coors has taken steps to positon itself as 2 more LGBT: postive company, even sponsoring $57 Pride events. Best Practices Companies such as Starbucks and IKEA 18980 the economic impact of sexual minori- tea in several ways. [REA uses advertisements rowing same-sex shoppers and runs ads We ewepapers ane magazines that amped! { LOBT audiences, Starbucks signals its suP- por in the same wa, and actively rar ami the LGBT talent pools Many large cities old an annual Pride Days with events sponsored by high profile corporations: such as breweries and clothing manufacturers ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE More and more organizations are responding positively o discrimination concerns raised by the LGBT community. State and local governments, alleges, and niverstes were among the 55! srganizations to institote nondiscriminstOn policies and to oer benefits packages et include sree sex partners. In 1988, President Clinton Signed an exceutie order banning dsetino td on sexual orientation throughout the Tera ivi service. Even though most of che federal govern row enefis, al cabine-level departments and 74 independ ent agencies have no soe ven the Employment Non-Discrimination A sar before Congress moves foratd it wil provide further protections aginst discrimination qh the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Another bil currents ‘before Congress The Domestic Parnership Benefits gd Obligations Act, would open the door to equal fam benefit packages toall federal cian employers, regardles of sexual orientaon reteasng numbers of public and private organize have adopted antidiscrimination policies and instituted domestic pasenet Tae oie packages inclusive of same-sex pariness poteding to one survey ewer than 24 employers + Pied same-sex domestic parte benells the beginning ofthe 1990s but his number ter peal 1,000 bythe yea 2007 and contin to grow (HRC, 2008a). One of the large LGBT rights organizations (The Haman Rights Ccapaign) reports that by 2008, 423 ofthe Pune 300 companies hid nondiseriminsiotly making sensitivity sydollars” he argues x slightly ‘Are We Equal Yet? Making Sense of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, nd Transgender Isues in the Workplace policies thet included sexual orientation and 176 also had anti-discrimination policies related to sgender identity (IRC, 2009) As a result, most of the well known brand names such as Ford, eBay, AT&T, Boeing, Home Depot, Walt Disney, McDonale’s, Xerox, Gap, Nike, Verizon, and Starbucks, offer equal benefits to their LGBT and straight workforce. CORPORATE EQUALITY INDEX ‘The Coxporate Equality Index (CEI) is a set of standards and benchmarks established by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation Workplace Project to examine and evaluate corporate policies affecting LGBT employees throughout the country (HRC, 2009b). Among the items measured by the CET ar: + Official recognition of a LGBT group + Sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy + Health and other benefits for domestic and same-sex partners ‘Training aimed at increasing the understanding of sexual orientation andlor gender identity Coverage for domestic partner health insurance, transgender wellness benefits, and/or other domestic partner benefits, unrelated to health ‘Many companies now realize that a positive CEI score is a good idea. It often equates to a ‘more inclusive work environment overall sinc it sends a strong message about valuing diversity in all its forms. The CEL is now in its seventh year, and in 2009, 260 businesses received the top rating cof 100%, compared to 195 in 2008. This significant jump can be attributed to the double-digit increase of companies adhering to CEI criteria, and @ domino effect, whereby an initial company institutes standards and others within the industry ealize they need to catch up. Some of the well- {known companies who scored 100% are Ford, Gap, Google, Shel, and US Airways (HRC, 20095). GENDER IDENTITY AND TRANSGENDER ISSUES In recent years, workplace issues related to gender identity gained a much higher profile. The transgendered minority pose a number of unique issues in the workplace, ranging from restroom tse to dress codes, The response to this minority and the issues they raise is often hostile, but some companies do go out of theit way to accommodate. American Ailines, for example, was cone the fist organizations to expand its equal opportunities statement to include gender identity, with policies and guidelines specifically addressing transgendered issues. Employees must use restrooms appropriate to their current gender, but have the right to access different restrooms if they alter their gender identity. Americans policy stipulates that thatthe attte ofa transitioning ‘employee should reflect the appropriate dress codes of the job they hold and the office where they ‘work, underscoring that all employees are held to the same uniform appearance standards within their gender identity status. Recently, openly gay Congressman, Barney Frank, hired the first out transgender congressional aide. BACKLASH: THE STING OF DISCRIMINATION CONTINUES. Not all people and organizations are committed to confronting sexual orientation discrimination, ‘Some conservatives fel such gains have happened too quickly, gone too fat, and representa threat to their sense of identity and well being. The shifts in atituces, policies, and legislation related to LGBT ‘minorities, especially in elation to relationship recognition, have in fact become rallying points for ‘uniting conservative thinkers. In 1996, Congress passed the “Defense of Marriage Act” which, among 157Cee Te 158 section 3 Understanding Primary Divenity other things defined mariage a8 between one "8 sand one woman, and allowed states refuse fo hr ame-sex mareages performed in anothes Soe By 2008, twenty-nine jurisdtions bad ao conaittional amendment to define man gs tpenveen a man and a. women) and eleven ca gg enated stautry “defense of mariage ae Eleven states have kas that are amendments hat go so far ast ban all forms of sme ss PATA ecogition, including marrage vil unions snd domestic partnerships. Another interest wrample of bactash happened in Calfraia 2 S28 thought by many to be one ofthe most he in May 2008 the California Supreme Fao down ban on aes TATBEE HAWES ‘highly contested November 2008 ref- ‘Gnd, voters overturned the ruling, As Bat Fe publicity surrounding the evens Peo Wes crane ofthe fact hat tad taken 2 1948 Spree Court ang to overtor aban on interracial veins in California,buti thatcase the ing allowed to stand. “Somber of religious and conservative groups Most whose mission seems fo be to-defeat what they term “the gay agenda” The Wed se ereconcerned Women for America” for instane’, Mpalcaes te following: “many of the FESS: orporations in America have bought in} the Prnovenual agenda, Americans should work to or ack these ill-advised polices” (reported im Knight, 2009). Other groups ach as Focus 0 ne Family, and the American Family Association, ora nh major attacks on gainsamade by LB rnimorties in general and inthe workplace in particular, using vitriolic and often raat language to east asprsionson thei radio ‘and TV pro- frame that tract aaience nthe mons, iat aMporaions stay sefuse wo let tel human resources polices and practices oaccommodate LGBT minorities with others 2% qRecinding such protections and benefits after mergers and changes in ownership “FexonMobi isa good exile, Prior tothe merge ‘of Mobile Oil and Exion, Mobile had a nondiseriminatio® policy and offered domestic partner benefits, axon didnot After the merge, alc} Deca OS of allowing same-sex partners of fOr tet Mobile employees to contin et Tyg benoit, but excading former empleyess of Exxon ane employees of ExxonMobil from the same perks, Asa ces, ExxonMobil as th odd Sfatincton of being the only company on the Fortune s500-not to include sexual orientation in its ‘nondiscrimination language. sertyer organization fighting to tes Romophab policies isthe Boy Scouts of America ‘After prolonged cour atte, the Supreme COU ed im July 2000 thatthe Boy Scouts could ne a policy excluding gay men fom ning organization, Several organizations such 2 Aa trae and the United Way, discontinued Wee butions to the Sey Scouts as 2 form of Protess nd several churches, such asthe United ‘Methodists, have condemned the policy, but the Boy Scouts aaryain adamant. In coatrst the Git Scouts hes ss pred is inclusive nondscrimiation Poi "walmart, Americas biggest employer with appreximately 1.4 milion workers af 8 glimpse into the contraditions and ryetgh surrounding LGBT discrimination. For Yo Bara ecreged to acd protections for sexual minors ‘te non-discrimination language, Dot th 2008 it finally added sexual orientation 28 Drotecied ground since 2006, Walmart has vol tarly participated in the Corporate Equality ‘Pijex although in 2009 it only scored 4046 ont of tat Pialmart now has a LGBT pride groups and dose mee ply with domestic partership and weet anion provisions i Jocations where these ofHO0. seiet- However, other than these small Steps few initiatives embrace sexta spertes, Walmart sone of ony afew Fortune 5)! ‘compa nies not inclading gender identity in its ort jscriminaton language even though it does off ome benefits fo same-sex partners these dO NO} inelude highly valued items such as exten health care insurance. In 2007, Walmart w do ped it would discontinue its financial sOPPOr LGBT community-based organizationsgro refuse to jctions had jand eleven penments jel unions, 2008 ref people were ‘Are We Equal Yet? Making Sense of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Isues in the Workplace DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD ‘The situation for LGBT people has undergone spectacular change in many other parts of the world. Canada, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and South Africa al allow same-sex marriage. Many other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Denmark have civil union provisions that provide couples, regardless of sex, with the same protections and responsibilities. At the same time however, LGBT minorities continue to confront serious dis- crimination in some parts of the world with sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex carrying the death penalty in five countries and prison terms in seventy-two. ‘Amongst the more progressive countries, Canada stands out. The charter of Rights and Freedoms, roughly equivalent to the American constitution, has been interpreted to include sex- ual orientation. All provinces and territories include sexual orientation in theit provincial human rights codes as a protected ground and recognize same-sex relationships in family law, including the right to adopt children. These legislative changes followed initiatives already underway in ‘many Canadian organizations. As early as the mid-1980s, labor union were fighting nondiserim- ination policies and negotiating same-sex benefit packages in collective agreements and these changes soon became the norm in many unionized and non-unionized organizations (Hunt and Eaton, 2007). Even though Canada has been a leader in challenging sexual orientation bias, it continues to lag in relation to transgender discrimination. Transgendered people have many fewer protections in law, and most organizations have yet to enact policies or other provisions that would extend a mote welcoming environment for this group of workers, CONCLUSIONS Of all the diversity challenges an organization faces, accommodation to sexuality differences remains the most contentious. Although there has been considerable accommodation to the LGBT minority in American organizations over the past two decades, this progress has produced + backlash by people and organizations that do not endorse or support change. As a result there ate contradictions and mixed messages in the response LGBT people receive to their demands for ‘equity resulting in significant variation among states local authorities, cites, and organizations, (On the one hand, significant change has occurred. The majority of Americans, particularly young Americans, support equal rights for LGBT minorities. number of state and local govern- ments prohibit employment discrimination and increasingly, organizations take steps to curb heterosexual bias in their human resource policies and practices, Some companies go out of their way to provide a welcoming environment for their LGBT workers and actively recruit within this community as part of their “finding-the-best-talent” human resource strategy. On the other hand, some people and organizations fight assertively to prevent or overturn LGBT positive ‘measures, Many organizations passively comply with legal changes, but make no effort to create a safe and welcoming environment for LGBT minorities. Jn many ways, accommodating sexual diversity in the workplace acts as litmus test for an ‘organization's general acceptance of diversity. An organization that recognizes and acknowledges its sexual minorities is almost certain to do the same for others. Benchmark organizations with a broad based commitment to diversity accept the challenges and opportunities associated with their LGBT employees. They discontinue discriminatory practices and alter human resource ben efit polices to ensure that they are equal and fair for everyone by including sexual diversity in training programs and recruitment strategies, Progressive, pro-civersty orgenizations make clear through their disciplinary policies and cultural messages that anti-LGBT behavior will not be tol- exated any more than sexist or racist behavior. 159460 Section + Understanding Primary Diversity DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What is meant y the term “gender identity”? ay Provide an example of some spe oF event that You neve witnessed in your life that ilus- reste contradictions and mixed messages that surround LGBT people. 4. Develop five key cxiteria that could be use For evaluating how much an organization is “gay-friendly” versus anti-gay” ‘A Discuss the ways in which the challenges an orgoniale! faces in creating an inclusive Pisces ment fr LGBT people fer from the cha enges might face in creating an incht- aoronment for ater diversity categories such #87366 and disability Bibliography sade, L (200). Money, tis an hare: The sno ives of Tesbians and gay ‘Chicago: University of Chicazo Press Bagley, Co and Tremblay, (1998) On the pret Geof homosenality and bisexuality nas wc coramunity survey of 750 men aged T27, journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 36(2) Bovernan Kand Foster, A. (2006) Atitudes about romascxuality and gay marrage: Washingto™ ‘D.C: American Enterprise. Buford, H. (2000), Understanding gay constr “The Gay and Lesbian Reviews Vol V2) Spring: ap (2009), nformation obtained rom hips ‘peevegallup.com in August 2009 HRC 2004), Corporate eit index 2006: report dn gy, sbi ise and rmsgeneer uaityncrparte Americ. Washington, ‘ice Human Rights Campaign Foundation. RC. (20094) -Inforenation obtained from hit! “nadr.org in August 2008 IRC. (2009), Corporate equity index 2009: A report card on gay, lesbias, bisexual a ransenter equa in corporate Aerie ‘Washington,DC: Homan Rights Campaign Foundation. uot, G- and Eaton, J. (2007)-"Weare Family: + Shout Responds to Gay Lesbian Bisextal nd Tranagender Workers ns Hunt, Guand Reysde, D. (eds) Baits Diversity and ‘Connon Labour Toronto: University of Toronto Pres. Kinsey A et al (1948) Sexual Beiavior te “Human Male New York: Saunders eight (200). The Corporate Crain: ew co risa wngvews nkosi 1 Pa reer Chin ployee. (Reteed n-ne Sepeibr 9,2009 from hpi. ylcor Cand Wolpert. (200). Gays in “he publ sphere: bic opin on 20 its ‘hago The University of Chicago Press ang, 1988) Fro rang rghs 1973-1999: ube pinion ox gaya sb: erica roves toward equa. Washington: D.C: Pai Institue of tae National Gy and Lesbo Task Pree,ERE EEE Sy 7 ‘Are We Equal Yet? Making Sense of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Isues inthe Workplace 161 | Diversity on the Web 1, Go to the YouTube site below. Why do you think IBM officially approved this YouTube program? 2, IBM is thought to be a very LGBT-posiive company and has achieved 10086 on the ation is Corporate Equity Index (see http://www.FIRC.org). Do you think all American ps organizations should be as LGBT positive as IBM? Whyi/Why not? ge that ills: httpulwww,youtabecom/ratch2v=alSEaju-rOg ao inclusive | _| Bogan incla- aly Points of Law * Managers should be aware of the laws in their state and city regarding same-sex marriages. + Discrimination based oa sexual orientation is illegal in atleast twenty-one states and in the District of Columbia ‘Twelve or more of these twenty-one states also prohibit discrimination based on gen- der identity * Many cities also prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity + Same-sex unions are now recognized in an increasing number of states “thereby gi ing same sex couples the same rights benefits and protection as heterosexual, mar: ried couples” + The federal “Defense of Marriage Act” allows states the right to refuse to honor same- sex marriages performed in other states. * Many countries, including Canada, recognize same-sex marriages. sin Dr. Gerald Hunt is a Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human resources ee Management at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, He publishes widely on topics related to diversity, including comparisons of American and Canadian response to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues in he workplace y rights