The Workplace Of The Lgbt Community

This newspaper article discusses how more business such as Walmart and the Apple store are beginning to call on office holders to reject the laws designed to give business the right to deny service based on one’s sexuality. This article gives an opposing view of my stance that businesses should be able to deny service. In addition, it justifies my argument that more people are becoming more excepting off the LGBT community, however only a small portion. The information from this site is accurate and had reliable information to support its research and argument. Furthermore, the article is geared toward all American people as its goal is to provide information of what corporations are doing to stop legislation denying service to the LGBT community. The corporations mentioned in the article have a huge voice and can make a large impact on government, as they hope to one day make a

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sex, religion, and national origin” (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2012, p. 24). This law also includes discrimination due to sexual orientation. This was not addressed in the original law, but sexual orientation cases have been won under this law. Such is the case of, Heller v Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002) (Joslin, n.d.). This lawsuit was due to a lesbian 's employer used derogatory comments, toward her, in which the court ruled in her favor. Kate 's allegation of discrimination if proved, can be filed with the company 's Human Resource department. If that does not resolve the issue, she can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Prior to Cracker Barrel’s evaluation and termination of lesbian and gay employees, the company frequently denied them promotional opportunities, applicants being rejected, employees fired and decision makers became bias; nevertheless, both heterosexual and same-sex were employed with the company. The difficulties of implementing discrimination rules against sexual orientation, originates from these main factors: “employers view homosexuality as somehow detrimental to job performance or harmful to the company’s public profile;” more importantly, the company hasn’t established a nondiscriminatory policy against homosexuals; hence, it is “difficult to trace” (Harvey & Allard, 2015, p. 166). Seeing the rapid growth of the company being unfazed by the boycott and other movements in the media, Dan Evins felt empowered to continue rejecting homosexuals; hence, he did. The upward trending of the company’s profit, proves the vast support for Cracker Barrel’s actions.

As defined by the United States' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), "It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex." Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. I also want to point out that it is illegal to discriminate against employees who have an injury or disability, or who file any type of compensation claim.

Discrimination against worker on basis of their sexual orientation and racial discrimination adversely affects the economic performance of companies in the various ways: First, in the business environment the new truth is one that puts a premium on gifted labor. Therefore, companies must make hiring verdicts solely based on an applicant’s qualifications and capabilities that associate to performance on the task if they are to outdo the rivalry. When companies hire persons on the grounds of job-irrelevant aspects such as racial discrimination and sexual orientation businesses are left with an inferior workforce that weakens their capability to produce healthy returns (Oeo.tufts.edu, 2015).

Texas employment protections exclude sexual orientation or gender identity. On June 26,2015 the Supreme Court made it law of the land that same sex couple could marry in all states, so in reality in Texas, you could marry the love of your life, and on Monday lose your job, and get kicked out of your apartment because of that legal action. Federal and state laws cover all protected classes contained in the ordinance in fair housing except sexual orientation and gender identity. Federal Law provides equal access in public accommodation and employment protection for all classes but it does exclude sexual orientation and gender identity (CityZen & NationBuilder,

The 2014 executive order prohibited federal hiring practices from discriminating on the basis of gender identity (the policy already barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation). It also prohibited contractors that do business with the government

The addition of sexual orientation has gone before Congress many times but it has yet to be included as a protected class. There is so much controversy surrounding gay marriage right now that I believe it is only a matter of time before employment discrimination because of sexual orientation will be the reason for the Title VII will be amended once again. The most recent additions to this law have been discriminating based upon pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment. Title VII states that an employer can’t refuse to hire a woman based upon the fact that she is currently pregnant or because of any pregnancy-related conditions. To be safe and to avoid any litigation in the future, an employer should never ask an individual about their marital status or a woman if she is pregnant.

You would think that today’s society would not discriminate against someone based on their race, color, or national origin. With the changes in lifestyle, people continue to discriminate against those, but also someone’s sexual orientation. Even with laws and regulations, it continues in all parts of the country. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, more specifically Title VI, stated that you could not discriminate against anyone in programs and activities receiving federal

Former president of the United States, Obama, approved an executive mandate banning the discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity of federal employees from the governments' contractors. Additionally, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, declared, safeguarding employees on the bases of sex, must also involve the comprehension of the embodiment for the protection of transgender people. However, the association, not recognized by the Court of the United States, have not granted their declared protections in a consistent manner across the nation, producing in an absence of the given freedoms for the working LGBTQ community (Beyond Marriage Equality: A Blueprint for Federal Non-Discrimination Protections,

Title VII states that an employee cannot be treated differently because of sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When used as a defense, bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) allows an organization to hire and employ individuals on the basis of the qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. This paper will discuss the necessary steps employers must take in order to justify using sex as a discriminator when hiring employees and review some known cases where BFOQ was used as a defense.

Muñoz, S. T., & Kalteux, D. M. (2016). LGBT, the EEOC, and the Meaning of "Sex". Florida Bar Journal, 90(3), 43-48.

Twenty states in the U.S currently have laws prohibiting the discrimination based on sexual orientation in public, as well as private jobs. These states include Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Main, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington Wisconsin and California. As found by California lawyers, the number of cases filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or DFEH, pertaining to employment discrimination based on sexual orientation has “increased from 636 in 2001, to 714 in 2005 and to 821 in 2008. In 2011, the number of sexual orientation employment discrimination cases filed with DFEH spiked to 1,104.” This drastic increase may be attributed to the advocacy of equality in marriage laws in California and in other

According to an article published by Workplace Fairness, a non-profit organization that provides information and education on employee rights, sexual orientation discrimination means treating someone differently solely because of his or her sexual orientation whether it be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. This discrimination may occur because of a perception of someone whether the perception is right or wrong. Someone who is discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation may also be discriminated against or harassed on the basis of sex, gender identity, disability, such as actual or perceived HIV status, and/or marital status.

In the recent years since the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer (LGBTQ) community got their rights, there have been many cases of gay discrimination. The most famous of these was “Dale VS. Boyscouts Of America”.