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) gates@law.ucla.edu M.V. Lee Badgett badgett@law.ucla.edu Christy Mallory mallory@law.ucla.edu Jody Herman hermanj@law.ucla.edu Andrew Flores flores@law.ucla.edu Adam Romero romero@law.ucla.edu Douglas NeJaime nejaime@law.ucla.edu

Email williamsinstitute@law.ucla.edu 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