Antidiscrimination Policies for Sexual Orientation

Marieka KlawitterEvans School of Public AffairsUniversity of Washingtonmarieka@u.washington.edu

Antidiscrimination Policies for Sexual orientation:

Adopted beginning in the 1970s by Cities, Counties, and States usually added sexual orientation to existing protections

Provide a process for addressing discrimination and could prevent discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, and wages

Could increase average earnings for sexual minorities by creating penalties or by increasing salience or changing norms

Policies covering only government workers may be less effective because of the preexisting civil service processes, they cover fewer workers, and may create less salience.

Policies covering private sector workers are likely to cover many more people in jobs with more discrimination

Antidiscrimination Policies for Sexual Orientation:

How many state and local policies are there?

Where have the policies been passed?

What factors help explain their passage?

What do we know about their impact?

Local policies adopted over time (cumulative)

State policies adopted over time (cumulative)

Percentage of the US population covered over time

What makes them more likely to pass?:Political factors: Limited scope of debate and salience, framing as an incremental change to existing policy, policy entrepreneurs, advocacy resources all affect passage

Demographics: Policies more likely in local areas with more highly educated, more urban, less religious populations.

Adopted in places with higher average earnings for all workers

Adopted by states with local policies within, by local governments with nearby localities with policies.

Policy Impacts:

Complaints are brought under laws at slightly lower rates than for other minority groups.

State but not local policies are associated with higher average earnings for gay men in private sector employment, but no evidence of policy effects for lesbians

Evidence of impact of policies was greatest for white men working in private sector, for weeks of employment (not hourly earnings), and those in upper half of earnings distribution

Conclusions:

State and local antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation continue to be adopted and continue to be used by many seeking fair treatment in employment

Effects on average earnings are small and limited to men in the private sector

State laws are more effective than are local laws

Passage of federal protections are likely to be even more effective given enforcement mechanisms and coverage expanded to less tolerant places

Other types of policies are required to improve labor market outcomes for people of color, women, those with lower education and pay