Discrimination against Homosexuals in the Workplace - Essay Example

?Discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace The paper deals with the issue of sexual discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace. On the basis of modern sources comprising scholarly journals, books, online articles the paper is focused on the importance of the principle of neutrality in the workplace. Moreover, it is claimed that discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace is the evidence of inadequate and oppressing policy of the company, where it occurs. The paper is mainly focused on legal, social and psychological aspects of discrimination prevention in the workplace. Outline The main argument of the paper concerns a mythic nature of federal acts, prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace. On the one hand, the Acts of 1975 and 2000 are focused on homosexuals’ rights protection in the workplace, but in reality, a few companies have been acting in compliance with the principles propagated by these Acts. Moreover, a straight society is not ready to accept homosexuals to the fullest extent. Social norms, moral underpinnings and stereotypes have always caused a negative impact on homosexuals in different spheres of their activity. Introduction From the historical perspective, the world’s governments were not too much enthusiastic about hiring gays or lesbians. This group of people was restricted from their rights’ protection, the grounds for dismissal were also found in homosexuality and many other negative impacts were caused by homosexuality until 1975. After 1975 a gradual shift of legal policies protecting rights of homosexuals emerged. Further on this tendency was developed in the Acts of 2000 (Dipboye & Colella, 2005). Nevertheless, it is relevant for the government not only to introduce regulations against homosexuals’ discrimination in the workplace, but also implement them in practice. Legal aspects In 1975 the Sex Discrimination Act was approved. Nevertheless, there are many arguments concerning interpretation of this Act: “…the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of ‘sex’ does not include a prohibition against discrimination on grounds of ‘sexual orientation” (Estlund, 2003). Therefore, an intrusion in the sexual life of homosexuals has been practiced by the majority of the companies. A so-called lavender ceiling for homosexuals was invented in some companies. Courts have taken different paths in spite of adopted federal regulations: “Although the courts rejected immorality as grounds for dismissing gay employees, their deference to administrative expertise and administrators' reliance on a common sense standard meant that distaste for homosexuals bolstered national security concerns” (Estlund, 2003). Thus, it is necessary not only to implement Acts against discrimination in the workplace, not only “on the paper”, but also in practice. The government has to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace in accordance with the Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation (27 November 2000). By December 2003 these legal regulations had to be implemented to the fullest extent. Unfortunately, many homosexuals come across oppressing policies in their workplaces. The courts are not much concerned about sexual discrimination in the workplace. Very often legal regulations and rules are not efficient in practice. There is an interesting quotation concerning legal regulations on homosexuals’ discrimination in the workplace: “They [courts] treat discrimination against women with small children as actionable sex discrimination, along with discrimination against aggressive women and effeminate men. Yet, for reasons not fully articulated, they refuse to treat discrimination against men in dresses as actionable” (Yuracko, 2003). It is evident that courts’ actions are full of inconsistencies. These decisions may at first look intricate and unprincipled. There is a need to propagate social policies directed on development of homogenized workplace. Employers’ prejudices It should be noted that a propagation of gender roles and making an emphasis on it in the workplace is a preventing factor for a proper work performance for employees. There is a need to prevent a caste-like sex hierarchy in the workplace: “It should, therefore, prohibit employers from acting, in either an ontological or trait-based way, on gender norms that reinforce such hierarchy. Yet not all gender norms are created equal, and not every gender difference should be equated with gender inequality” (Lewis, 2001). Consequently, it is an interesting perspective to discuss sexual discrimination in the workplace from this perspective. Social aspects A straight society is against homosexuality from the very beginning. Social prejudices, moral violations of straight people’s rights and many their factors have been preventing factors from homosexuals’ performance in the workplace: "fears about disclosing a gay identity at work had an overwhelmingly negative relationship with their career and workplace experiences and with their psychological well-being" (Lewis, 2001). Thus, it is a disturbing matter to fight against their fears for homosexuals. Because of social stereotypes, the majority of employers prevent these people from career promotion and a proper development of career attitudes. Moreover, discrimination can even lead to physical stress and moral depression. The homosexuals have to pay a great price for their sexual orientation. A chain of challenges in the workplace is evident: a professional role ambiguity, an occurrence of job conflict, a less involvement in the group life in the workplace (Yuracko, 2004). There is a special term for homosexuals who feel a severe psychological oppression: psychological strain. They experience irritation, depression etc. Therefore, there is a need to develop public policies directed on protection of homosexuals in the workplace: “Employees who are not afraid of being fired or held back from promotion because of their same-sex orientations are psychologically freer to put their full creative energies into work. This, in turn, saves employers' time and money. It a win-win for all concerned” (Yuracko, 2004). Unfortunately, there is a few of same-sex employees, who are not afraid of their career halt because of their sexual orientation. It is an incredible fact, but in accordance with data collected for the research, it is seen that 25 to 66 % of homosexuals in the workplace are discriminated (Anitei). As a result of discrimination, they suffered physically, could lose their job or come across verbal harassments. What factors make our society so cruel in relation to homosexuals? In accordance with data from the research conducted by Lewis (2001): "As other recent surveys have shown, the vast majority of Americans think that it is unfair to discriminate against people for personal characteristics that are unrelated to their actual job performance” (Lewis, 2001). A later research by Anitei underlines that “the May 2007 Gallup Poll reported that 89% of Americans believe that employment discrimination against lesbian and gay people should be illegal” (Anitei). Conclusion As far as we can see, there is a gradual shift of negative accents to positive ones in the field of discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace. Fortunately, we may hope that legal regulations and norms of homosexuals’ protection in the workplace would be performed in practice. An adoption of 1975 and 2000 legal regulations against discrimination in the workplace remain only papers, which cannot influence on social perception of the matter/ It is much more efficient to develop public policies and propagate a homogeneous society without sniffing out your neighbor’s sexual orientation. Consequently, the rights of people with same-sex orientation can be protected under condition of humane social attitudes and development of principles of equality in the society. Therefore, it is useful to collect data from modern sources on the matter, because it is interesting to trace a development of social attitudes to homosexuals. Annotated bibliography Lewis, G. B. (2001). Barriers to Security Clearances for Gay Men and Lesbians: Fear of Blackmail or Fear of Homosexuals? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 539+. The article deals with a legal aspect of homosexuality in the workplace. It is claimed by the author that very often federal policies denied security clearances to homosexuals. A critical period between 80s and 90s is discussed in detail. From a modern perspective, it is clearly seen that homosexuals being subjected to discrimination in the workplace could not reveal their creative potential to the fullest extent and suffered from moral losses. The absence of clearances among homosexuals means a prevention from career ladder advancement as well as prevention from obtaining a job position. Yuracko, K. A. (2004). Trait Discrimination as Sex Discrimination: an Argument against Neutrality. Texas Law Review, 83(1), 167+. The article is focused on discussion about the differences between ontological and trait-based discrimination. An interesting approach is chosen by the author, when he talks about ontological discrimination, when women/men are not heterosexuals; sex-specific trait discrimination implies oppression against gender norms focused on appropriate and inappropriate behavior for women (or men). Moreover, a specific emphasis is made on employer’s speculation on discrimination against employees playing on gender roles. The author provides his argument in order to develop specific employment requirements. About annotated bibliography A compilation of annotated bibliography is not an easy process. It is quite difficult to grasp the main idea and describe it in several sentences. It is also important to write concise sentences in order to make readers aware of the core argument of the annotated source. Still, it is a good skill to write an annotated bibliography, because it contributes much for narrative skills development. Works cited 1. Anitei, S. (2007). Discrimination at the Workplace Decreases Productivity. Available from: 2. Dipboye, R. L. & Colella, A. (Eds.). (2005). Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 3. Estlund, C. (2003). Working Together: How Workplace Bonds Strengthen a Diverse Democracy /. New York: Oxford University Press. 4. Lewis, G. B. (2001). Barriers to Security Clearances for Gay Men and Lesbians: Fear of Blackmail or Fear of Homosexuals?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 539+. 5. Yuracko, K. A. (2004). Trait Discrimination as Sex Discrimination: an Argument against Neutrality. Texas Law Review, 83(1), 167+. Read More