{"id":174,"date":"2018-09-26T19:46:05","date_gmt":"2018-09-26T19:46:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/test-hcc-press-wp-multisite.pantheonsite.io\/businessethics\/chapter\/sexual-identification-and-orientation\/"},"modified":"2023-06-29T17:32:44","modified_gmt":"2023-06-29T17:32:44","slug":"sexual-identification-and-orientation","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/chapter\/sexual-identification-and-orientation\/","title":{"raw":"Sexual Identification and Orientation","rendered":"Sexual Identification and Orientation"},"content":{"raw":"<div id=\"fs-idm247971504\" class=\"learning-objectives\">\r\n<h2>Learning Objectives<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm236773728\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-idm253897552\">\r\n \t<li>Explain how sexual identification and orientation are protected by law<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Discuss the ethical issues raised in the workplace by differences in sexual identification and orientation<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm251616608\">As society expands its understanding and appreciation of sexual orientation and identity, companies and managers must adopt a more inclusive perspective that keeps pace with evolving norms. Successful managers are those who willing to create a more welcoming work environment for all employees, given the wide array of sexual orientations and identities evident today.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm199964528\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h3>Legal Protections<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm246082560\">Workplace discrimination in this area means treating someone differently solely because of his or her <span class=\"no-emphasis\">sexual identification<\/span> or <span class=\"no-emphasis\">sexual orientation<\/span>, which can include, but is not limited to, identification as gay or lesbian (homosexual), bisexual, transsexual, or straight (heterosexual). Discrimination may also be based on an individual\u2019s association with someone of a different sexual orientation. Forms that such discrimination may take in the workplace include denial of opportunities, termination, and sexual assault, as well as the use of offensive terms, stereotyping, and other harassment.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm253259840\">Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <em>United States v. Windsor<\/em> (2013) that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which had restricted the federal interpretations of \u201cmarriage\u201d and \u201cspouse\u201d to opposite-sex unions) was unconstitutional, and guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em> (2015),<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\r\nmarital status has little or no direct applicability to the circumstances of someone\u2019s employment. In terms of legal protections at work, the LGBTQ community is at a disadvantage because Title VII of the CRA does not address sexual orientation and federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on this characteristic. As of January 2018, twenty states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private and public workplaces and five more states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination only in public workplaces, not private (<a class=\"autogenerated-content\" href=\"#OSX_Ethics_08_03_Map\">(Figure)<\/a>).\r\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div id=\"OSX_Ethics_08_03_Map\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n<div class=\"bc-figcaption figcaption\">State law in the United States varies in terms of protections and guarantees extended to LGBTQ employees of private companies. The geographic locations granting protection are clustered around the states that tend to vote for the Democratic party in national elections, with very little protection in the Great Plains or South. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)<\/div>\r\n<span id=\"fs-idm206420640\">\r\n<img src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2018\/09\/OSX_Ethics_08_03_Map.jpg\" alt=\"A map of the United States is titled \u201cStates the Prohibit Sexual Orientation Discrimination.\u201d The states are colored in to show states that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in public and private workplaces. States that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both private and public workplaces are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. States that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces are Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.\" \/><\/span>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm208059968\">In those states that do not have applicable state laws, employees risk adverse employment action simply for their LGBTQ status or for being married to a same-sex partner. Although legislation to address these circumstances has been introduced in Congress in previous sessions, none of the bills has yet passed. For example, a proposed law named the Equality Act is a federal LGBTQ nondiscrimination bill that would provide protections for LGBTQ individuals in employment, housing, credit, and education. But unless and until it passes, it remains up to the business community to provide protections consistent with those provided under federal law for other employees or applicants.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm214705472\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h3>Ethical Considerations<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm236059216\">In the absence of a specific law, LGBTQ issues present a unique opportunity for ethical leadership. Many companies choose to do the ethically and socially responsible thing and treat all workers equally, for example, by extending the same benefits to same-sex partners that they extend to heterosexual spouses. Ethical leaders are also willing to listen and be considerate when dealing with employees who may still be coming to an understanding of their sexual identification.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm233572384\">Financial and performance-related considerations come into play as well. Denver Investments recently analyzed the stock performance of companies before and after their adoption of LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\r\nThe number of companies outperforming their peers in various industries increased after companies adopted LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies. Once again, being ethical does not mean losing money or performing poorly.\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm206947728\">In fact, states that have passed legislation considered anti-LGBTQ by the wider U.S. community, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana or North Carolina\u2019s H.B. 2, the infamous \u201cbathroom bill\u201d that would require transgender individuals to use the restroom corresponding with their birth certificate, have experienced significant economic pushback. These states have seen statewide and targeted boycotts by consumers, major corporations, national organizations such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and even other cities and states.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\r\nIn 2016, in response to H.B. 2, nearly seventy large U.S. companies, including American Airlines, Apple, DuPont, General Electric, IBM, Morgan Stanley, and Wal-Mart, signed an amicus (\u201cfriend of the court\u201d) brief in opposition to the unpopular North Carolina bill.\r\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\r\nIndiana\u2019s Religious Freedom Restoration Act evoked a similar backlash in 2015 and public criticism from U.S. businesses.\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm228506912\">To assess LGBTQ equality policies at a corporate level, the Human Rights Campaign foundation publishes an annual <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Corporate Equality Index<\/span> (CEI) of approximately one thousand large U.S. companies and scores each on a scale of 0 to 100 on the basis of how LGBTW-friendly its benefits and employment policies are (<a class=\"autogenerated-content\" href=\"#OSX_Ethics_08_03_CEI100\">(Figure)<\/a>). More than six hundred companies recently earned a perfect score in the 2018 CEI, including such household names as AT&amp;T, Boeing, Coca-Cola, Gap Inc., General Motors, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Kellogg, United Parcel Service, and Xerox.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\r\n<div id=\"OSX_Ethics_08_03_CEI100\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n<div class=\"bc-figcaption figcaption\">The Human Rights Campaign Foundation publishes an annual Corporate Equality Index to assess the LGBTQ equality policies of major U.S. corporations. A perfect score on the index is 100. These are the ten states with the highest percentages of \u201c100 score\u201d companies as of 2014\u20132015. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)<\/div>\r\n<span id=\"fs-idm205616432\">\r\n<img src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2022\/12\/OSX_Ethics_08_03_CEI100.jpg\" alt=\"This chart is a bar chart titled \u201cStates with the Most Corporate Equality Index (CEI) Companies.\u201d The bars show the percentage of companies scoring 100 within the states listed. States are listed along the left side and the bars extend out to the right. From top to bottom, the chart shows Maryland with 67 percent, Massachusetts with 65 percent, Nevada with 57 percent, Minnesota with 55 percent, New York with 53 percent, Washington with 53 percent, Illinois with 51 percent, California with 49 percent, Connecticut with 43 percent, and Kentucky with 43 percent.\" \/><\/span>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm246192480\" class=\"link-to-learning\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm210864688\">Read the <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/53HRC\">Human Rights Campaign\u2019s 2018 report<\/a> for more on the Human Rights Campaign\u2019s CEI and its criteria.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm251674000\">Another organization tracking LGBTQ equality and inclusion in the workplace is the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, which issues third-party certification for businesses that are majority-owned by LGBT individuals. There are currently more than one thousand LGBT-certified business enterprises across the country, although California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Georgia account for approximately 50 percent of them. Although these are all top-ranked states for new business startups in general, they are also home to multiple Fortune 500 companies whose diversity programs encourage LGBT-certified businesses to become part of their supply chains. Examples of large LGBT-friendly companies with headquarters in these states are American Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust Bank, and Pacific Gas &amp; Electric.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm250485168\" class=\"section-summary\">\r\n<h3>Summary<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm248875568\">Although about half the states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private and public workplaces and a few do so in public workplaces only, federal law does not. Successful companies will not only follow the applicable law but also develop ethical policies to send a clear message that they are interested in job skills and abilities, not sexual orientation or personal life choices.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm251997008\" class=\"assessment-questions\">\r\n<h3>Assessment Questions<\/h3>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm265752848\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm248889760\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm247840112\">Are individual states allowed to have laws protecting LGBTQ applicant or employee rights?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ol id=\"fs-idm247358512\" type=\"A\">\r\n \t<li>Yes, but it is not really necessary because federal law already protects them.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>No, because it would violate federal law, which prohibits it.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Yes, some states extend this protection because there is no law at the federal level.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>No, because the Supreme Court ruling in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em> now protects these rights.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm250040992\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm236652096\">C<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm206466080\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm253887136\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm266215792\">True or false? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm244867728\">False. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not address sexual orientation and federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on this characteristic.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm263193216\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm249353776\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm252123264\">Federal law does not currently protect LGBTQ applicants from discrimination in hiring. Are there any applicable state laws that do so?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm247596720\">Yes. Approximately half of U.S. states have local laws that provide protection even though federal law does not; however, some of those states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination only in public workplaces, not private ones.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm249504720\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm249838480\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm265887568\">Though federal law does not mandate it, do some companies nevertheless allow LGBTQ employees to extend insurance coverage to partners?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm255452800\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm259883504\">Yes. The law does not mandate or prohibit extending benefits to LGBTQ partners; it is up to the company.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm226102928\" class=\"references\">\r\n<h3>Endnotes<\/h3>\r\n<div><a href=\"#rf-001-a\">1<\/a>United States v. Windsor, 570, U.S. 744 (2013); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).<\/div>\r\n<div><a href=\"#rf-002-a\">2<\/a>\u201cSexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace,\u201d <em>FindLaw<\/em>. http:\/\/employment.findlaw.com\/employment-discrimination\/sexual-orientation-discrimination-in-the-workplace.html (accessed January 16, 2018).<\/div>\r\n<div><a href=\"#rf-003-a\">3<\/a>John N. Roberts and Cristian A. Landa, \u201cReturn on Equality\u2122, the Real ROE: The Shareholder Case for LGBT Workplace Equality,\u201d <em>Denver Investments<\/em>, June 2015.<\/div>\r\n<div><a href=\"#rf-004-a\">4<\/a>Jon Schuppe, \u201cCorporate Boycotts Become Key Weapon in Gay Rights Fight,\u201d <em>NBC News<\/em>, March 26, 2016. https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/us-news\/corporate-boycotts-become-key-weapon-gay-rights-fight-n545721.<\/div>\r\n<div><a href=\"#rf-005-a\">5<\/a>United States of America v. State of North Carolina et al., Amicus Curiae Brief by 68 Companies Opposed to H.B. 2 and in Support of Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 1:16-cv-00425 (TDSJEP), July 8, 2016. http:\/\/ftpcontent4.worldnow.com\/wbtv\/pdf\/Legal-brief-filed-by-68-businesses-opposing-HB2.pdf.<\/div>\r\n<div><a href=\"#rf-006-a\">6<\/a>Gretel Kauffman, \u201cRecord Number of Corporations Earn Perfect Score for LGBTQ-Friendly Policies,\u201d <em>Christian Science Monitor<\/em>, December 6, 2016. https:\/\/www.csmonitor.com\/Business\/2016\/1206\/Record-number-of-corporations-earn-perfect-score-for-LGBT-friendly-policies.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div id=\"fs-idm247971504\" class=\"learning-objectives\">\n<h2>Learning Objectives<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-idm236773728\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-idm253897552\">\n<li>Explain how sexual identification and orientation are protected by law<\/li>\n<li>Discuss the ethical issues raised in the workplace by differences in sexual identification and orientation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p id=\"fs-idm251616608\">As society expands its understanding and appreciation of sexual orientation and identity, companies and managers must adopt a more inclusive perspective that keeps pace with evolving norms. Successful managers are those who willing to create a more welcoming work environment for all employees, given the wide array of sexual orientations and identities evident today.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm199964528\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h3>Legal Protections<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-idm246082560\">Workplace discrimination in this area means treating someone differently solely because of his or her <span class=\"no-emphasis\">sexual identification<\/span> or <span class=\"no-emphasis\">sexual orientation<\/span>, which can include, but is not limited to, identification as gay or lesbian (homosexual), bisexual, transsexual, or straight (heterosexual). Discrimination may also be based on an individual\u2019s association with someone of a different sexual orientation. Forms that such discrimination may take in the workplace include denial of opportunities, termination, and sexual assault, as well as the use of offensive terms, stereotyping, and other harassment.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idm253259840\">Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <em>United States v. Windsor<\/em> (2013) that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which had restricted the federal interpretations of \u201cmarriage\u201d and \u201cspouse\u201d to opposite-sex unions) was unconstitutional, and guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em> (2015),<\/p>\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\n<p>marital status has little or no direct applicability to the circumstances of someone\u2019s employment. In terms of legal protections at work, the LGBTQ community is at a disadvantage because Title VII of the CRA does not address sexual orientation and federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on this characteristic. As of January 2018, twenty states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private and public workplaces and five more states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination only in public workplaces, not private (<a class=\"autogenerated-content\" href=\"#OSX_Ethics_08_03_Map\">(Figure)<\/a>).<\/p>\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div id=\"OSX_Ethics_08_03_Map\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div class=\"bc-figcaption figcaption\">State law in the United States varies in terms of protections and guarantees extended to LGBTQ employees of private companies. The geographic locations granting protection are clustered around the states that tend to vote for the Democratic party in national elections, with very little protection in the Great Plains or South. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)<\/div>\n<p><span id=\"fs-idm206420640\"><br \/>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2018\/09\/OSX_Ethics_08_03_Map.jpg\" alt=\"A map of the United States is titled \u201cStates the Prohibit Sexual Orientation Discrimination.\u201d The states are colored in to show states that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in public and private workplaces. States that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both private and public workplaces are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. States that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces are Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idm208059968\">In those states that do not have applicable state laws, employees risk adverse employment action simply for their LGBTQ status or for being married to a same-sex partner. Although legislation to address these circumstances has been introduced in Congress in previous sessions, none of the bills has yet passed. For example, a proposed law named the Equality Act is a federal LGBTQ nondiscrimination bill that would provide protections for LGBTQ individuals in employment, housing, credit, and education. But unless and until it passes, it remains up to the business community to provide protections consistent with those provided under federal law for other employees or applicants.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm214705472\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h3>Ethical Considerations<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-idm236059216\">In the absence of a specific law, LGBTQ issues present a unique opportunity for ethical leadership. Many companies choose to do the ethically and socially responsible thing and treat all workers equally, for example, by extending the same benefits to same-sex partners that they extend to heterosexual spouses. Ethical leaders are also willing to listen and be considerate when dealing with employees who may still be coming to an understanding of their sexual identification.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idm233572384\">Financial and performance-related considerations come into play as well. Denver Investments recently analyzed the stock performance of companies before and after their adoption of LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies.<\/p>\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\n<p>The number of companies outperforming their peers in various industries increased after companies adopted LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies. Once again, being ethical does not mean losing money or performing poorly.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idm206947728\">In fact, states that have passed legislation considered anti-LGBTQ by the wider U.S. community, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana or North Carolina\u2019s H.B. 2, the infamous \u201cbathroom bill\u201d that would require transgender individuals to use the restroom corresponding with their birth certificate, have experienced significant economic pushback. These states have seen statewide and targeted boycotts by consumers, major corporations, national organizations such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and even other cities and states.<\/p>\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\n<p>In 2016, in response to H.B. 2, nearly seventy large U.S. companies, including American Airlines, Apple, DuPont, General Electric, IBM, Morgan Stanley, and Wal-Mart, signed an amicus (\u201cfriend of the court\u201d) brief in opposition to the unpopular North Carolina bill.<\/p>\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\n<p>Indiana\u2019s Religious Freedom Restoration Act evoked a similar backlash in 2015 and public criticism from U.S. businesses.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idm228506912\">To assess LGBTQ equality policies at a corporate level, the Human Rights Campaign foundation publishes an annual <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Corporate Equality Index<\/span> (CEI) of approximately one thousand large U.S. companies and scores each on a scale of 0 to 100 on the basis of how LGBTW-friendly its benefits and employment policies are (<a class=\"autogenerated-content\" href=\"#OSX_Ethics_08_03_CEI100\">(Figure)<\/a>). More than six hundred companies recently earned a perfect score in the 2018 CEI, including such household names as AT&amp;T, Boeing, Coca-Cola, Gap Inc., General Motors, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Kellogg, United Parcel Service, and Xerox.<\/p>\n<div class=\"delete-me\"><\/div>\n<div id=\"OSX_Ethics_08_03_CEI100\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div class=\"bc-figcaption figcaption\">The Human Rights Campaign Foundation publishes an annual Corporate Equality Index to assess the LGBTQ equality policies of major U.S. corporations. A perfect score on the index is 100. These are the ten states with the highest percentages of \u201c100 score\u201d companies as of 2014\u20132015. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)<\/div>\n<p><span id=\"fs-idm205616432\"><br \/>\n<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2022\/12\/OSX_Ethics_08_03_CEI100.jpg\" alt=\"This chart is a bar chart titled \u201cStates with the Most Corporate Equality Index (CEI) Companies.\u201d The bars show the percentage of companies scoring 100 within the states listed. States are listed along the left side and the bars extend out to the right. From top to bottom, the chart shows Maryland with 67 percent, Massachusetts with 65 percent, Nevada with 57 percent, Minnesota with 55 percent, New York with 53 percent, Washington with 53 percent, Illinois with 51 percent, California with 49 percent, Connecticut with 43 percent, and Kentucky with 43 percent.\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm246192480\" class=\"link-to-learning\">\n<p id=\"fs-idm210864688\">Read the <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/53HRC\">Human Rights Campaign\u2019s 2018 report<\/a> for more on the Human Rights Campaign\u2019s CEI and its criteria.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idm251674000\">Another organization tracking LGBTQ equality and inclusion in the workplace is the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, which issues third-party certification for businesses that are majority-owned by LGBT individuals. There are currently more than one thousand LGBT-certified business enterprises across the country, although California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Georgia account for approximately 50 percent of them. Although these are all top-ranked states for new business startups in general, they are also home to multiple Fortune 500 companies whose diversity programs encourage LGBT-certified businesses to become part of their supply chains. Examples of large LGBT-friendly companies with headquarters in these states are American Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, SunTrust Bank, and Pacific Gas &amp; Electric.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm250485168\" class=\"section-summary\">\n<h3>Summary<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-idm248875568\">Although about half the states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private and public workplaces and a few do so in public workplaces only, federal law does not. Successful companies will not only follow the applicable law but also develop ethical policies to send a clear message that they are interested in job skills and abilities, not sexual orientation or personal life choices.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm251997008\" class=\"assessment-questions\">\n<h3>Assessment Questions<\/h3>\n<div id=\"fs-idm265752848\">\n<div id=\"fs-idm248889760\">\n<p id=\"fs-idm247840112\">Are individual states allowed to have laws protecting LGBTQ applicant or employee rights?<\/p>\n<ol id=\"fs-idm247358512\" type=\"A\">\n<li>Yes, but it is not really necessary because federal law already protects them.<\/li>\n<li>No, because it would violate federal law, which prohibits it.<\/li>\n<li>Yes, some states extend this protection because there is no law at the federal level.<\/li>\n<li>No, because the Supreme Court ruling in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em> now protects these rights.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm250040992\">\n<p id=\"fs-idm236652096\">C<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm206466080\">\n<div id=\"fs-idm253887136\">\n<p id=\"fs-idm266215792\">True or false? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<p id=\"fs-idm244867728\">False. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not address sexual orientation and federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on this characteristic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm263193216\">\n<div id=\"fs-idm249353776\">\n<p id=\"fs-idm252123264\">Federal law does not currently protect LGBTQ applicants from discrimination in hiring. Are there any applicable state laws that do so?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<p id=\"fs-idm247596720\">Yes. Approximately half of U.S. states have local laws that provide protection even though federal law does not; however, some of those states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination only in public workplaces, not private ones.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm249504720\">\n<div id=\"fs-idm249838480\">\n<p id=\"fs-idm265887568\">Though federal law does not mandate it, do some companies nevertheless allow LGBTQ employees to extend insurance coverage to partners?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm255452800\">\n<p id=\"fs-idm259883504\">Yes. The law does not mandate or prohibit extending benefits to LGBTQ partners; it is up to the company.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm226102928\" class=\"references\">\n<h3>Endnotes<\/h3>\n<div><a href=\"#rf-001-a\">1<\/a>United States v. Windsor, 570, U.S. 744 (2013); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).<\/div>\n<div><a href=\"#rf-002-a\">2<\/a>\u201cSexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace,\u201d <em>FindLaw<\/em>. http:\/\/employment.findlaw.com\/employment-discrimination\/sexual-orientation-discrimination-in-the-workplace.html (accessed January 16, 2018).<\/div>\n<div><a href=\"#rf-003-a\">3<\/a>John N. Roberts and Cristian A. Landa, \u201cReturn on Equality\u2122, the Real ROE: The Shareholder Case for LGBT Workplace Equality,\u201d <em>Denver Investments<\/em>, June 2015.<\/div>\n<div><a href=\"#rf-004-a\">4<\/a>Jon Schuppe, \u201cCorporate Boycotts Become Key Weapon in Gay Rights Fight,\u201d <em>NBC News<\/em>, March 26, 2016. https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/us-news\/corporate-boycotts-become-key-weapon-gay-rights-fight-n545721.<\/div>\n<div><a href=\"#rf-005-a\">5<\/a>United States of America v. State of North Carolina et al., Amicus Curiae Brief by 68 Companies Opposed to H.B. 2 and in Support of Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 1:16-cv-00425 (TDSJEP), July 8, 2016. http:\/\/ftpcontent4.worldnow.com\/wbtv\/pdf\/Legal-brief-filed-by-68-businesses-opposing-HB2.pdf.<\/div>\n<div><a href=\"#rf-006-a\">6<\/a>Gretel Kauffman, \u201cRecord Number of Corporations Earn Perfect Score for LGBTQ-Friendly Policies,\u201d <em>Christian Science Monitor<\/em>, December 6, 2016. https:\/\/www.csmonitor.com\/Business\/2016\/1206\/Record-number-of-corporations-earn-perfect-score-for-LGBT-friendly-policies.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-174","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":159,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/174","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":347,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/174\/revisions\/347"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/159"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/174\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=174"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=174"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hcfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}