What is Sexual Preference Discrimination?

Sexual preference discrimination is a serious threat to safe work environments. Simply put, sexual preference discrimination (also called “sexual orientation discrimination”) occurs when an individual is treated unfairly because of his/her sexual orientation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin, age, disability, genetic information, color, race, religion or sex. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), transgender discrimination sexual orientation discrimination may be included in this list as well.

If you believe that you suffered unjust discrimination at work, contact Crary Buchanan, Attorneys at Law today.

Are you a victim of sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace?

Sexual orientation discrimination can take many forms. Generally speaking, employment discrimination can involve the following situations: hiring, job termination, promotions, training opportunities, benefits, retirement privileges, etc. Discrimination occurs when an employee is treated less favorably regarding these situations because of his/her sexual preference. For example, an employer cannot refuse to hire a prospective employee or give a current employee a job promotion simply because of his/her sexual orientation.

If an employer receives two job applications from equally qualified individuals, he/she cannot hire one employee simply because he/she is biased against the other’s sexual orientation. Additionally, an employer cannot refuse benefits, retirement options or job training because an employee is gay, lesbian or bisexual. Under Title VII, this behavior may be considered a type of employment discrimination. If you believe that you were treated unfairly at you job because of your sexual preference, contact a Stuart employment law lawyer from Crary Buchanan today.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (EDNA)

EDNA was originally introduced to the United States Congress in 1994 and has been proposed to every Congress since then – except for the 109^th. Legislation that is similar to EDNA has been introduced to Congress since the 1970s, but all any attempt to pass the bill and others like have been thwarted. EDNA came close to being successful in 2006 after the Democratic Party broke the Republican’s 12-year Congressional rule. At one time, President George W. Bush almost vetoed the measure. In 2007, the bill was altered to include transgender discrimination as well as sexual orientation discrimination. Today, President Barak Obama supports EDNA.

Sexual Preference Discrimination Statistics

The University of California, Los Angeles School of Law estimates that 7 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals are employee in the U.S. private sector. Additionally, one million state and local employees and approximately 200,000 federal employees are LGBT. Although it is possible for heterosexual individuals to suffer sexual preference discrimination in the workplace, LGBT employees are subject to discrimination more often. According to the Williams Institute, 30% of LBGT employees live in California and New York. One study concluded that openly gay men had a 7.2% chance of receiving job interviews, while heterosexual male applicants had an 11.5% chance of landing an interview. In some states, the gap between these percentages was significantly larger. Among these states were Texas, Ohio and Florida.

Stuart Employment Law Attorney

Have you suffered discrimination at work because of your sexual orientation? Our Stuart employment attorneys are passionate about helping our clients fight for an unbiased work environment. We believe that all Stuart employees deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Our firm has offered clients on the Treasure Coast legal representation since 1927 – making us one of the oldest law firms in the area. If you need an attorney who cares and is ready to fight aggressively for your rights, contact our office today and let us put our experience to work for your discrimination case.