19
CHELSEA J. HUTTO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

CHELSEA J. HUTTO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • Slide 1
  • CHELSEA J. HUTTO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
  • Slide 2
  • SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Gender Identity Transgender Commonly known as LGBT
  • Slide 3
  • LEGISLATURE No current federal law in place protecting LGBT from discrimination in the workplace State law 20 states and district of Columbia and 171 cities ban discrimination of LGBT in workplace 12 states and 88 cities ban discrimination based on gender identity Title 7 does not include sexual orientation as a protected class
  • Slide 4
  • Slide 5
  • COURT CASES Rene v. MGM Grand (2002) Sexual harassment claim Centola v. Potter (2002) Sexual discrimination and retaliation claims Henderson v. Labor Finders of Virginia INC., et al. (2013) Sexual discrimination and hostile work environment claims
  • Slide 6
  • ENDA Employment Non-Discrimination Act Would prohibit covered entities from engaging in employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity Unlawful to Fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment Limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants in any way that would deprive any individual of employment or adversely affect an individual status as an employee Would also prohibit: Discrimination based off association or past experience with litigation Retaliation
  • Slide 7
  • ENDA Covered entities include: Employers with 15 or more employees Employment agencies Labor organizations Joint labor-management committees Litigation Burden of proof lies with plaintiff Would not include disparate treatment claims No double recovery
  • Slide 8
  • ENDA EXCLUSIONS Religious organizations Organizations or schools Applies to specific positions Can require employees to conform to set of religious tenets, which could bar LGBT from position Armed Forces
  • Slide 9
  • BACKLASH Opponents argue ENDA would provide Special rights Gay agenda Endorsement of LGBT lifestyle Increases in litigation What ENDA really provides Workplace equality Ability to succeed without regard to SO or GI Data doesnt show litigation will increase dramatically
  • Slide 10
  • SUPPORT Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness endorses ENDA Fortune 500 and Fortune 50
  • Slide 11
  • Slide 12
  • STATS LESSON (JUST PRETEND IM NATALIE!) 89% of Americans believe lesbian and gay people should have equal rights in work place 58% believe transgender should have equal rights 16-68% lesbians and gay people have experienced discrimination at work 13-57% of transgender individuals 1 in four experience it on a weekly basis
  • Slide 13
  • COST OF DISCRIMINATION Loss in profits due to training and unemployment benefits alone, not including outright terminations $47 million
  • Slide 14
  • EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION Individual Level Threatens the well being and economic survival of American workers and their families Psychological toll of hiding Organizational or societal level Harms the functioning of the workplace and the greater economy Overall loss of worker productivity Waste of valuable resources due to increased unemployment
  • Slide 15
  • WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? Good business practices Promote employee fairness Decrease economic loss due to discrimination AND.. Increase Productivity!
  • Slide 16
  • WHAT CAN YOU DO? Training Safe Space, diversity, or harassment training Anti-Discrimination policy implementation Company culture http://vimeo.com/18581587 Gender neutral dress code
  • Slide 17
  • IMPLICATIONS Social Provides support for movements toward equality in all areas of life Decreases in inaccurate stereotypes Connection to gender roles Ethical Maintenance of equality practices Elimination of discriminatory practices in workplace Legal If ENDA is implemented vs. not implemented Influence over future organizational policies
  • Slide 18
  • QUESTIONS Do we really have a ethical obligation as I/O psychologists to ensure equal treatment of LGBT since it is not currently a federal law? By implementing policies within the organization, are we really preventing anything or will it ultimately take a federal law to increase workplace equality? Based on recent support and visibility of the LGBT community, do you think ENDA will enacted in the near future? How do you think religious companies will react?
  • Slide 19
  • REFERENCES www.seyfarth.com/publications/si051012 www.aclu.org www.hrc.org www.caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1003098.html www.Dockets.justia.com http://www.leagle.com/decision/2002586183FSupp2d40 3_1557 http://www.leagle.com/decision/2002586183FSupp2d40 3_1557 Guerin, L. (2013) Essential Guide to Federal Employment Laws. Retrieved from http://my- ebooks.bookrenter.com/books/9781413318142/epubcfi/ 6/2