Running head: LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
A Comparison of LGBT Workplace Policies and Religiosity by State
Heather Hanna
Mississippi State University
1
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
2
Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees working for the federal government
have anti-discrimination workplace protections; however, there are no uniform laws governing
private and state-level employees. While public attitudes toward LGBT workers are becoming
more accepting, federal policies are seemingly lagging behind. Despite incomplete protections
on the federal level, some LGBT employees are protected by state laws. State-level policies are
varied, however, and range from those that offer full protections for all employees to those that
offer no protections to any employees. Many have noted the impact of religiosity on attitudes
toward LGBT individuals, which may impact state-level policies. This study examines both the
protections for LGBT workers offered by each state, as well as each state's reported religiosity.
Data from a recent Center for American Progress report on state-level LGBT work policies, as
well as a 2009 Gallop survey on state-level religiosity, are used. Findings point to the possible
impacts of religiosity. Additional research is needed to better understand state-level attitudes and
obstacles to LGBT employee rights, as well as the efficacy of LGBT workplace policies.
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
3
Introduction
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory employment practices on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin for organizations that employ over 15 people
(Thompson, 2003). In addition, employees over 40 and individuals with disabilities have been
afforded protections through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and Titles I
and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (EEOC, n.d.-a). However, attention has
been drawn to one group with a history of workplace discrimination (CAP, 2011a; Griffith &
Hebl, 2002) that has not been granted accordant rights: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) workers (HRC, n.d.). Attempts at comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation based
on sexual orientation have been drafted and introduced to Congress repeatedly since 1974,
though no such legislation has been passed (CAP, 2011b).
While federal workers are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under
the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 and Executive Order 13087 passed in 1998
(EEOC, n.d.-b; Lambda legal, 2007), employees working for private employers have received
nonexistent to inconsistent protections from the federal government (Fluke & Hu, 2011). While
some court cases, such as Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in 1989, have demonstrated that sex
stereotyping (not resembling or acting in the manner expected for one's gender) can been viewed
by the courts as sex discrimination (Fluke & Hu, 2011), other cases have been denied based on
the reasoning that sex discrimination does not apply to sexual orientation (Bible, 2000; Clancy,
2011; Reeves & Decker, 2011).
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
4
Since legislation was first introduced to prevent sexual-orientation-based discrimination in the
workplace in the 1970s, attitudes toward LGBT individuals have changed. One national study of
attitudes toward LGBT individuals reported that 86% of respondents agreed that “homosexuals
should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities” in 2002, which was up from 56% in 1977
(Avery et al., 2007). This figure rose to 89% in 2008 (Gallop, 2012). Also in 2008, a survey
conducted by Harris International found that 79% of heterosexuals agreed that “how an
employee does his or her job should be the standard for judging an employee, not their sexual
orientation (OEWA, 2008).” Variation in support for LGBT issues, however, has been linked to
religiosity among respondents, with increases in religiosity being associated with less support
(Herek, 1988; Pew, 2012; Whitley, 2009).
Despite incomplete protections on the federal level, some LGBT employees are protected by
state laws. A patchwork quilt of varying LGBT worker policies exists across the states, however.
While federal policies are not reflective of majority approval of LGBT employee rights, as
demonstrated above, the purpose of this study is to examine state policies in relation to statelevel religiosity, which could account for differences in public sentiment toward LGBT issues
and influence state-level policy.
Methods
Information will be compiled from a 2012 Center for American Progress (CAP) report on statelevel LGBT anti-discrimination policies, as well as a 2009 state-level Gallop poll on religiosity.
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
5
In June of 2012, the Center for American Progress created a report containing current state-bystate data on workplace discrimination laws pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity.
Sexual orientation and gender identity were defined using different language among the states,
but the following definitions from the District of Columbia Code 2-1404.02 succinctly capture
the nature of the terms (CAP, 2012): “'Sexual orientation' means male or female homosexuality,
heterosexuality and bisexuality, by preference or practice,” and “'Gender Identity or expression'
means a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless
of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.”
Using the CAP data, a LGBT Protection Score was created as follows: a score of 1 was given to
states that do not protect LGBT employees; a score of 2 was given if some type of protection is
afforded to state employees only; a score of 3 was given if all employees are protected from at
least one of the two types of LGBT discrimination. Furthermore, using the 2009 Gallop Poll
data, all 50 states plus DC were divided into three categories based on the percentage of their
citizens who state religion is an important part of their lives, with Category 1 representing the top
one-third of states with the highest percentages of respondents stating that religion is an
important part of their lives and Category 3 representing the next lowest one-third of states. Full
percentage differences were used as natural breaks, which placed a higher proportion of states in
the middle one-third.
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
6
Findings
Table 1 lists the types of LGBT employee laws that each state has, if any, as well as who the law
applies to. It also displays each state's LGBT Protection Score and Religiosity Category.
[Insert Table 1]
The following facts on LGBT state-level worker protections can be derived from Table 1:

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia provide some form of protection for some
type of worker from discrimination based on either sexual orientation or gender identity.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia provide protections to all of their citizens
against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; another five states
offer protections based only on sexual orientation (Task Force, 2012).

Nine states offer protections to state employees only: six offer protections for both sexual
orientation and gender identity, and three offer protections based on sexual orientation
only.

Nineteen states offer no protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Examining variation across states, it is anticipated that states reporting lower levels of religiosity
(category 3) would offer more protections for LGBT workers (i.e., they would be more likely to
provide some type of protection for all employees, with a LGBT Protection Score of 3, or at least
state employees, with a Protection Score of a 2). It is also anticipated that states reporting higher
levels religiosity (category 1) would be less likely to cover LGBT employees, giving them a
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
7
Protection Score of 1, or perhaps 2 if they cover state employees only. Therefore, these data are
analyzed to determine which states, if any, deviate from this pattern.
As anticipated, the data reveals similarities between a state's reported religiosity and the
protections it provides LGBT individuals through workplace policies. The only exception is
Wyoming, where low religiosity was reported, but still no worker protections exist for LGBT
employees.
Discussion
Many factors influence LGBT employee-based policies and mediate the relationship between
religiosity and public policy (Whitley, 2009; Wood & Bartkowski, 2004). However, this brief
analysis points to the salience of the hypothesis that LGBT workplace policies are related to a
state's religiosity. Clearly, the tensions that exist on the federal and state levels between having a
bureaucracy that is responsive to public values and one that protects the civil liberties of all
citizens are being played out in the adoption of LGBT workplace policies. While many have and
continue to advocate for uniform protections through federal legislation, in its absence,
additional research is needed to better understand state-level attitudes and obstacles to uniform
LGBT worker protections, as well as the effectiveness of LGBT employee-based policies (Pitts,
2011).
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
8
References
Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvik, S., Montero, D. & Wydra, M. (2007). America's
changing attitudes toward homosexuality, civil unions, and same-gender marriage: 19772004. Social Work, 52(i), 71-79.
Bible, J. D. (2000). Gender stereotyping: Courts open the door to Title VII claims by
homosexuals. Journal of Employment Discrimination, 3(1), 25-43.
Center for American Progress (CAP). (2011a). Gay and transgender people face high rates of
workplace discrimination and harassment: Data demonstrate need for federal law. A
report by Burns and Krehely. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/06/02/9872/gay-andtransgender-people-face-high-rates-of-workplace-discrimination-and-harassment/
Center for American Progress (CAP). (2011b). A history of the Employment NonDiscrimination Act. Report by Jerome Hunt. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/07/19/10006/a-history-of-theemployment-non-discrimination-act/
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
9
Center for American Progress (CAP). (2012). A state-by-state examination of nondiscrimination
laws and policies. Report by Jerome Hunt. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from
http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/06/pdf/state_nondiscrimination.pdf
Clancy, S. (2011). The queer truth. Journal of Legislation, 37, 119-141.
Fluke, S. & Hu, K. (2011). Twelfth annual review of gender and sexuality law: Employment law
and health care access chapter: Employment discrimination against LGBTQ persons. The
Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 12, 613-*.
Gallop. (2009). State of the states: The importance of religion. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx#2
Gallop. (2012). Gay and lesbian rights. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/Gay-Lesbian-Rights.aspx
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
10
Griffith, K. H. & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians:
“Coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Hetersexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender
differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477.
Human Rights Campaign (HRC). (n.d.) Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Retrieved
September 28, 2012 from http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federallegislation/employment-non-discrimination-act
Lambda Legal. (2007). Out at work: A toolkit for workplace equality. Retrieved September 30,
2012, from http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/out-at-work_ch1.pdf
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Task Force). (2012). Nondiscrimination laws in the U.S.
Retrieved September 30, 2012, from
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/issue_maps/non_discrimination_1_12_co
lor.pdf
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
11
Out and Equal Workplace Advocates (OEWA). (2008). Out and equal workplace culture report:
Survey of workplace attitudes 2002-2008. http://www.witeckcombs.com/pdf/out-equalworkplace-culture-report-2008.pdf
Pitts, D. W. (2011). A little less conversation, a little more action: Using empirical research to
promote social equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i77i82.
Reeves, E. J. & Decker, L. D. (2011). Before ENDA: Sexual orientation and gender identity
protections in the workplace under federal law. Law & Sexuality, 20, 61-78.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (PEW). (2012). Religion and attitudes toward samesex marriage. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from http://www.pewforum.org/GayMarriage-and-Homosexuality/Religion-and-Attitudes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx
Thompson, F. J. (2003). The Classics of Public Personnel Policy. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
12
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.-a) Federal laws prohibiting job
discrimination questions and answers. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.-b). Facts about discrimination
in federal government employment based on marital status, political affiliation, status as a
parent, sexual orientation, or transgender (gender identity) status. Retrieved September
30, 2012, from http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
Whitley, B. E. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A meta-analysis.
The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 21-38.
Wood, P. B. & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004). Attribution style and public policy attitudes toward gay
rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 58-74.
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
13
Table 1: State-by-State Religiosity and Laws Regarding LGBT Employees
Sexual
Orientation
Gender
Identity
Employer Sector
Coverage
LGBT
Protection
Score
Religiosity
Category
Alabama
No
No
N/A
1
1
Alaska
Yes
No
State Employees
2
3
Arizona
Yes
No
State Employees
2
2
Arkansas
No
No
N/A
1
1
California
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Colorado
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Connecticut
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Delaware
Yes
Yes
SO-ALL / GI-Exec
3
2
DC
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
2
Florida
No
No
N/A
1
2
Georgia
No
No
N/A
1
1
Hawaii
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Idaho
No
No
N/A
1
2
Illinois
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
2
Indiana
Yes
Yes
State Employees
2
2
Iowa
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
2
Kansas
Yes
Yes
State Employees
2
1
Kentucky
Yes
Yes
State Employees
2
1
Louisiana
No
No
N/A
1
1
State
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
14
Maine
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Maryland
Yes
No
All Employees
3
2
Massachusetts
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Michigan
Yes
Yes
State Employees
2
2
Minnesota
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
2
Mississippi
No
No
N/A
1
1
Missouri
Yes
No
Executive Branch
2
2
Montana
Yes
No
State Employees
2
3
Nebraska
No
No
N/A
1
2
Nevada
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
New
Hampshire
Yes
No
All Employees
3
3
New Jersey
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
2
New Mexico
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
2
New York
Yes
No
All Employees
3
3
North Carolina
No
No
N/A
1
1
North Dakota
No
No
N/A
1
2
Ohio
Yes
Yes
State Employees
2
2
Oklahoma
No
No
N/A
1
1
Oregon
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Pennslyvania
Yes
Yes
State Employees
2
2
Rhode Island
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
LGBT WORKPLACE POLICIES AND RELIGIOSITY
15
South Carolina
No
No
N/A
1
1
South Dakota
No
No
N/A
1
2
Tennessee
No
No
N/A
1
1
Texas
No
No
N/A
1
1
Utah
No
No
N/A
1
1
Vermont
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
Virginia
No
No
N/A
1
2
Washington
Yes
Yes
All Employees
3
3
West Virginia
No
No
N/A
1
1
Wisconsin
Yes
No
All Employees
3
2
Wyoming
No
No
N/A
1
3