Ethics Research Paper Updates

Outline

A. Introduction

I. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the workplace face persistent discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

II. An issue that has further complicated the problem is the realization that federal, state and local authorities do not have effective legislation to curb the discriminatory practices in the workplace.

III. The protections offered by the administrative agencies and the courts have not been substantive enough to address the issue.

IV. Currently, no federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in the workplace.

V. There is need to empower ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and other federal, state and local legislations to address the problem

B. Body

BI. Magnitude of the Problem

I. Approximately 4% or 8 million of American workforce identify themselves as LGBT (Pizer, Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2012).

II. Research points out that discrimination against LGBT is still very prevalent, yielding negative consequences for both employers and employees.

III. The National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey (GSS) of 2008 found out that 12% of lesbian and gay people had lost their employment while 37% experienced harassment in the workplace due to their sexual orientation from 2003 to 2008 (Cavico, Muffler, & Mujtaba, 2012).

IV. In 2011, 47% of LGBT experienced discrimination in hiring, job retention and promotion. Discrimination negatively affects the physical and mental health of LGBT as well as their wages (Burns & Krehely, 2011).

V. US Government Accountability Office in 2008 compiled 4788 state administrative complaints on employment discrimination of LGBT between 1993 and 2001. Administrative agencies, legislatures, courts and legal scholars have documented cases and acknowledged that LGBT face pervasive discrimination in workplace (Pizer, Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2012).

VI. Local and state administrative agencies often lack willingness, knowledge or resources to consider complaints regarding gender identity or sexual orientation discrimination.

VII. In addition, judges and courts are often impervious to LGBT plaintiffs, LGBT often reluctant to report their cases due to fear of retaliation. A Transgender Law Center report in 2009 found out that only 15% of LGBT employees who faced harassment or workplace discrimination filed complaints (Mawdsley, 2011).

VIII. The 2009 report also found out that LGBT discriminated against in the workplace experienced higher levels of absenteeism, exhaustion, depression and psychological distress.

B.II Attempts to Tackle the Issue of LGBT Discrimination

I. The Sixth Circuit, California Supreme Court as well as the Ninth Circuit have all found discrimination of LGBT very pervasive and unconstitutional.

II. Provisions such as “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell” and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) deemed unconstitutional because the discriminate against LGBT in governmental and private employment (Pizer, Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2012). Golinski V. U.S. Office of Personnel Management offers a strong background case for understanding the illegality of some of the federal and state regulations that discriminate against LGBT.

III. Title VII prohibits against workplace sexual discrimination or harassment, but only Washington D.C. and sixteen other states include both gender identity and sexual orientation in the non-discriminatory laws. Misinterpretation and lack of uniformity in understanding of Title VII by different courts provide loopholes for continued discrimination against LGBT (Mallory & Sears, 2012). Two cases that can illustrate the misinterpretation of Title VII in dispensing justice to LGBT are Creed v. Family Express Corp. and Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority.

IV. To compound the problem, 29 states lack sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws while 34 lack gender identity antidiscrimination laws against LGBT in the workplace (Yecies, 2011). Limitations for enforcement mainly in enforcement mechanisms, scope of coverage, inadequate resources for implementation.

V. Corporate policies also not comprehensive in their workplace antidiscrimination laws (Burns & Krehely, 2011)

B.III Solution and Way Forward

I. Empowering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that prohibits discrimination on basis of perceived or actual gender identity or sexual orientation

II. ENDA applies to public sector and private sector employers, therefore is a good alternative for guarantying equality for LGBT employees (Pizer, Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2012)

III. Empower provisions of ENDA to address loopholes of Title VII and other federal antidiscrimination regulations such as DOMA

IV. Increase monitoring of corporate policies to adhere to antidiscrimination statutes

V. Improve legal frameworks for persecution of offenders and violators of laid down provisions

C. Conclusion

I. LGBT still face harassment and pervasive discrimination in public and private sectors

II. Effects of the discrimination include wage losses, physical and mental health disturbances

III. Currently, federal, state and local antidiscrimination laws incomplete and inadequate to offer full protection to LGBT

IV. There is need for empowering ENDA legislation to address shortcomings of the other antidiscrimination laws

V. Provisions of ENDA in its current state can help to mitigate persistent discrimination of LGBT

VI. Bolstering corporate policies through improved monitoring efforts by federal agencies

References

Burns, C., & Krehely, J. (2011, June 2). Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment. Retrieved May 19, 2013, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/06/02/9872/gay-and-transgender-people-face-high-rates-of-workplace-discrimination-and-harassment/

Cavico, F. J., Muffler, S. C., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2012). Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination in the American Workplace: Legal and Ethical Considerations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 2 (1), 1-20.

Mallory, C., & Sears, B. (2012). An evaluation of local laws requiring government contractors to adopt LGBT-related workplace policies. Albany Government Law Review , 1-71.

Mawdsley, R. (2011). Employment, Sexual Orientation, and Religious Beliefs: Do Religious Educational Institutions Have a Protected Right to Discriminate in the Selection and Discharge of Employees. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal , 279-327.

Pizer, J. C., Sears, B., Mallory, C., & Hunter, N. D. (2012). Evidence of Persistent and Pervasive Workplace Discrimination Against LGBT People: The Need for Federal Legislation Prohibiting Discrimination and Providing for Equal Employment Benefits. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review , 45 (715), 715-780.

Yecies, S. (2011). Sexual Orientation, Discrimination, and the Universal Declaration of Rights. Chicago Journal of International Law , 11, 789-812.