-
WEBINAR: Cutting-Edge Research on LGBT Discrimination and Workplace Protections
Gary J. Gates (moderator) M.V. Lee Badgett Christy Mallory Jody Herman Andrew Flores Adam Romero Douglas NeJaime
-
Introduction and the LGBT Divide
Gary J. Gates Blachford-Cooper Distinguished Scholar and Research Director The Williams Institute
-
Discrimination against LGBT People
M.V. Lee Badgett Williams Distinguished Scholar The Williams Institute
-
Report being treated unfairly by an employer
5% in last year
21% ever
PewResearch.org 2013 Survey of LGBT Americans
-
Report being treated unfairly by an employer
Discrimination and Harassment found in 2012 FRA EU LGBT Survey
-
Evidence from earnings
11% lower wages for gay/bisexual men Average from studies of US, Netherlands, UK, Sweden, Greece,
France, and Australia Compared to heterosexual men with same qualifications
(Klawitter 2013)
10% Higher wages for lesbians than heterosexual women, but other evidence of discrimination and inequality
Higher poverty rates for LGBTs in U.S.
-
Matched Pairs: gay male applicant less likely to receive an interview
11.5 11.6 11.3
7.2 8.7
5.3
Total Sample* Has non-discriminationordinance*
No non-discrimination ordinance*
% Receiving Interview Not Gay Applicant Gay Applicant
* Indicates statistically significant difference between gay and non-gay application Data from: Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586-626.
-
Discrimination complaints filed with state and local enforcement agencies
-
DP Benefits offered to more employees (% of those with health coverage)
32
51
12
52
26
41
11
42
All civilian Union Lowest 25%wages
Highest 25%wages
Same-sexDifferent-sex
-
State Non-discrimination Laws and their Economic Impact
Christy Mallory Senior Counsel and Anna M. Curren Fellow The Williams Institute
-
Impact of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Estimates of LGBT employees without protection under local ordinances
- Documenting discrimination: survey data, incidents of discrimination, wage
gaps - Public opinion on LGBT protections in the state
- Impact of enforcement on administrative agencies
-
Fiscal Impact of Non-Discrimination Laws
154 202 82
1053
315
570
Florida Texas Pennsylvania
SOGI Complaints Average Annual Variation in Complaints
Estimated number of SOGI complaints is less than the average variation in the number of complaints filed each year
Across states, estimated SOGI complaints account for less than 4% of discrimination complaints filed annually
-
Fiscal & Economic Impacts of Bathroom Access Bills
- Loss of federal contracts - California: $237B total
- $1.2B+ to state & local govt. - Texas: $147B total
- $54M to state & local govt. - Increased public health benefits
expenditures
- Loss of tourism spending
- Loss of state and local sales tax revenues
- Loss of talented employees
- Cost of defending lawsuits & burden on courts
-
Cost of Discrimination
Jody Herman Scholar of Public Policy The Williams Institute
-
Discrimination creates costs for states: just two examples
Employment Discrimination lower incomes loss of employer-provided health benefits need to access public assistance systems for
income and health care
Housing Discrimination housing instability homelessness need to access housing assistance programs and
shelters
-
The Case of Florida
-
No state-wide statute prohibiting gender identity discrimination; 47% of state without protections from local laws
Home to an estimated 46,600 transgender adult residents, 21,900 not covered by local non-discrimination laws
Job loss due to discrimination costs the state nearly $600,000 annually in state Medicaid expenditures
The Case of Florida, continued
-
Home to an estimated 58,000 transgender residents, 23,800 not covered by local non-discrimination laws
Job loss due to discrimination costs the state over $1 million annually in state public health insurance expenditures
Housing discrimination may cost the state up to $6 million annually in housing program expenditures and costs related to homelessness
The Case of New York
-
Study assessed costs and benefits to employers of providing transition-related health care coverage for employees
Surveyed 34 employers who provide transition-related health care coverage
Employers report zero or very low costs and yet substantial benefits, for them and their employees alike, when they provide this coverage for employees.
Low costs of providing transition-related health care coverage
-
COST: Our analysis indicated that the cost would be quite small. We price based on past year costs with adjustments for estimated increases. This was too small to adjust for. (~26,000 employees)
BENEFIT: Adding this benefit says: We are socially responsible. We have vision. We are ahead of the curve. We can help you make a difference. We embrace diversity in our employees. Come work for us.
Low costs of providing transition-related health care coverage
-
Public Opinion on Non-Discrimination
Andrew R. Flores Public Opinion and Policy Fellow, The Williams Institute
-
National support for non-discrimination has had a majority since 1976
-
On average, there needs to be a super-majority of 66% before states are likely to have a non-discrimination law.
A majority of every state supports sexual orientation non-discrimination
-
Support is nine percent greater in states with Non-Discrimination Laws
-
On average, there needs to be a super-majority of 68% before states are likely to have a non-discrimination law.
A majority of every state supports gender identity non-discrimination
-
Support is nine percent greater in states with Non-Discrimination Laws
-
Most people already believe that it is currently illegal
Source: HuffPost/YouGov June 16-18 2014
-
Egalitarian values predict support for non-discrimination not traditionalism
-
Expanding non-discrimination protections
Adam P. Romero Senior Counsel and Arnold D. Kassoy Scholar of Law The Williams Institute
-
State-level discrimination protections
17 states (CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, MN, NV, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VT, WA) and DC prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other settings. In addition, 2 states (MA, UT) prohibit such discrimination except gender identity discrimination in public accommodations, and UT does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations.
3 states (NH, NY, WI) prohibit only sexual orientation discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other settings.
5 states (IN, KY, MI, PA, VA) prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination against certain public employees. KS prohibited such discrimination between 2007 and 2015.
6 states (AK, AZ, LA, MO, MT, OH) prohibit only sexual orientation discrimination against certain public employees.
-
Patchwork of Federal Protections against LGBT Discrimination
Executive Orders Federal Civilian Employees Federal Contractors
Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Agriculture Violence Against Women Act
-
Religious Exemptions
Douglas NeJaime Visiting Scholar of Law, The Williams Institute Professor of Law, UC Irvine
-
Federal RFRA
Government shall not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, . . . [unless] it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
-
State RFRAs
-
Learn more about what we know about LGBT Employment Discrimination.
Read our research guide on our new data blog LGBT Stats at williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/lgbtstats.
-
Contact us
Gary J. Gates (moderator) [email protected] M.V. Lee Badgett [email protected] Christy Mallory [email protected] Jody Herman [email protected] Andrew Flores [email protected] Adam Romero [email protected] Douglas NeJaime [email protected]
Email [email protected] Website williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu Twitter @williamspolicy Facebook facebook.com/williamsinstitute
Slide Number 1Slide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Discrimination and Harassment found in 2012 FRA EU LGBT SurveyEvidence from earningsMatched Pairs: gay male applicant less likely to receive an interviewDiscrimination complaints filed with state and local enforcement agenciesDP Benefits offered to more employees (% of those with health coverage)Slide Number 10Impact of Non-Discrimination LawsFiscal Impact of Non-Discrimination LawsFiscal & Economic Impacts of Bathroom Access BillsSlide Number 14Discrimination creates costs for states:just two examplesThe Case of FloridaThe Case of Florida, continuedThe Case of New YorkLow costs of providing transition-related health care coverageLow costs of providing transition-related health care coverageSlide Number 21National support for non-discrimination has had a majority since 1976A majority of every state supportssexual orientation non-discriminationSupport is nine percent greater instates with Non-Discrimination LawsA majority of every state supportsgender identity non-discriminationSupport is nine percent greater instates with Non-Discrimination LawsMost people already believe that it is currently illegalEgalitarian values predict support fornon-discrimination not traditionalismSlide Number 29State-level discrimination protectionsPatchwork of Federal Protections againstLGBT DiscriminationSlide Number 32Federal RFRAState RFRAsSlide Number 35Slide Number 36