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
5% in last year
21% ever
Report being treated
unfairly by an employer
PewResearch.org 2013 Survey of LGBT Americans
Discrimination and Harassment found
in 2012 FRA EU LGBT Survey
Report being treated
unfairly by an employer
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
% Receiving Interview
Not Gay Applicant
Gay Applicant
11.6
11.5
11.3
8.7
7.2
5.3
Total Sample*
Has non-discrimination
ordinance*
No non-discrimination ordinance*
* 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)
52
51
42
41
32
26
Same-sex
Different-sex
12 11
All civilian
Union
Lowest 25%
wages
Highest 25%
wages
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
Estimated number of SOGI complaints is less than
the average variation in the number of complaints
filed each year
1053
570
154
202
Florida
SOGI Complaints
315
Across states, estimated
SOGI complaints account
for less than 4% of
discrimination complaints
filed annually
82
Texas
Pennsylvania
Average Annual Variation in Complaints
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
The Case of Florida, continued
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 New York
Home to an estimated 58,000 transgender
residents, 23,800 not covered by local nondiscrimination 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
Low costs of providing transitionrelated health care coverage
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 transitionrelated 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.
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
A majority of every state supports
sexual orientation non-discrimination
On average, there needs
to be a super-majority of
66% before states are
likely to have a nondiscrimination law.
Support is nine percent greater in
states with Non-Discrimination Laws
A majority of every state supports
gender identity non-discrimination
On average, there needs
to be a super-majority of
68% before states are
likely to have a nondiscrimination law.
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.
Gary J. Gates (moderator)
[email protected]M.V. Lee Badgett
[email protected]Contact us
Christy Mallory
[email protected]
Email
[email protected]
Jody Herman
[email protected]
Website
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu
Andrew Flores
[email protected]
Twitter
@williamspolicy
Adam Romero
[email protected]
Facebook
facebook.com/williamsinstitute
Douglas NeJaime
[email protected]
