The force of law: The effects of sexual orientation antidiscrimination legislation on interpersonal discrimination in employment.

Abstract

Except for some U.S. states and localities, gay men and lesbians are largely unprotected from employment discrimination. In debate over national legislation (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), some legislators have questioned the efficacy of antidiscrimination legislation. To address this issue, we conducted three studies. In Study 1, we documented public awareness of sexual orientation employment antidiscrimination laws by contacting 111 households in areas that do and do not offer city-wide protective laws. In Study 2, we examined the discrimination directed toward applicants who portrayed themselves as gay (lesbian) or nongay while applying for 295 retail jobs in neighboring cities with or without legislation. In Study 3, we conducted a lab experiment in which prior to interviewing a gay or lesbian confederate applicant for a management position, 229 participants were led to believe that their area either does or does not have sexual orientation antidiscrimination legislation. Our results, taken as a whole, reveal that public awareness of sexual orientation laws is heightened in communities with (vs. without) legislation (Study 1), that gay/lesbian applicants experience decreased discrimination when they have protective legislation (Study 2), and that reduced discrimination still occurs when legal awareness is randomly assigned and manipulated in a laboratory setting (Study 3). We discuss the theory behind these findings and aim to inform legislative debate with some of the first-known empirically based research estimates for the likely efficacy of pending national legislation (i.e., Employment Non-Discrimination Act).

Access to the labour market for gays and lesbians: Research review

“…Barron and Hebl (2013) observed that in areas with a larger lesbian/gay population, lesbian/gay applicants were treated more favorably than heterosexual ones (p ࣘ .05) while the opposite was true in areas with more conservative populations (p ࣘ .05). Lesbians were significantly disadvantaged in call-back rates compared to heterosexual women in socially conservative Munich, Germany (p ࣘ .05), but no such differences were detected in liberal Berlin (Weichselbaumer, 2015).…”

“…Gorsuch (2014) presented the study as a real job task so the subjects were not aware that they were taking part in an experiment. Barron and Hebl (2013) manipulated subjects' beliefs on legality of employment discrimination against gay men and lesbians in a short training. The subjects then conducted a practice job interview with a researcher disguised as a gay/lesbian job candidate.…”

“…Simultaneously, such legislation may have positive effects on the social attitudes toward gay people. Following Becker's deterrence theory, Barron and Hebl (2013) explain that prejudiced employers will discriminate less in the presence of anti-discriminatory laws because such laws create an additional cost if an employer is caught discriminating (instrumental effect). Antidiscrimination laws may also decrease interpersonal discrimination by creating social norms about what is acceptable and what is not (symbolic effect).…”

“…Unsuccessful manipulation of sexual orientation likely leads to underestimation of differences in treatment between lesbians/gay men and heterosexuals. To address this concern, Barron and Hebl (2013), Pyatt (2014), and Everly, Unzueta, and Shih (2016) eliminated subjects from the analysis if they did not successfully identify a gay candidate. Barron (2009) aimed to do the same but many subjects did not complete the questionnaire, leaving space for misclassification.…”

“…The researchers did not know which condition they represented. Barron and Hebl (2013; third study) signaled applicants' homosexuality by manipulating the résumé text and the researchers acting as job candidates wore a backpack with a rainbow pin that read "Gay and Proud. "…”