Author: Shaun Pichler, Michigan State University-  School of Labor & Industrial Relations

Date: April 3, 2007

Introduction

Before defining heterosexism and describing the extant research literature related to heterosexism in the workplace, it is important to briefly describe the scope of this entry and its boundary conditions. Given that the study of heterosexism in the management and organization literature is relatively nascent, it has yet to develop a fully international perspective. The scope of this review, therefore, is generally limited to research on heterosexism in U.S. workplaces. While a major purpose of this review is to link research on heterosexism in the workplace to work-family research, the intent of this review is not to comprehensively analyze the literature on gay and lesbian families from the family studies domain.

As an encyclopedic entry, the purpose of the following exposition is to introduce readers to key concepts, definitions, and research literatures related to heterosexism in the workplace, as well as to synthesize this information in order to make recommendations to researchers and organizational managers. The review below will cover the following topics: 1) an introduction to the concept of heterosexism in the workplace, as well as related concepts of importance to the Encyclopedia 2) the relevance of heterosexism to work-family research 3) existing research on heterosexism in the workplace and 4) potential directions for future research.

The following section is definitional in nature and will introduce heterosexism and other key constructs related to heterosexism. This section is not meant to be a comprehensive taxonomy of the study of sexual orientation in the workplace. Instead, I will define heterosexism and those key concepts related to heterosexism which are of immediate relevance to the Encyclopedia.

Basic Concepts and Definitions

Before defining heterosexism more formally, it is important to understand sexual orientation and gender identity more precisely . Kauth and Kalichman (1995) define sexual orientation as “the cumulative experience and interaction of erotic fantasy, romantic-emotional feelings, and sexual behavior directed toward one or both genders” (p. 82). Similarly, the American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as “an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person” (see http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html). These definitions emphasize the multidimensional nature of sexual orientation and are inclusive of all sexual orientations, i.e. heterosexual as well as homosexual. While sexual orientation can de defined in terms of fantasy, emotion or behavior, not all of these dimensions need be in accordance with one another. It is important to note, then, that one’s sexual identity may in fact not be determined by one’s actual sexual behavior. For instance, a man who has sex with men may still identify as heterosexual because of his emotional (i.e. romantic) feelings towards women. Other definitions of sexual orientation recognize that sexual orientation is perhaps best represented by two continuous scales, i.e. heterosexuality and homosexuality. That is, an individual can be high on both axes (i.e. bisexual), low on both axes (i.e. asexual), high on only one axis and low on the other (i.e. heterosexual or homosexual), or somewhere in between on both axes (for a review of this topic see Ragins, 2004). The term homosexual includes the term ‘gay’, which is generally used to refer to men who are homosexual, and ‘lesbian’, which is generally used to refer to women who are homosexual. Measures of sexual orientation in the management and organization literature typically rely on self-reports of one’s sexual orientation, i.e. whether or not a respondent considers himself or herself to be gay, lesbian, bisexual.

Estimates of the proportion of the workforce that is gay or lesbian range, in part because of different definitions and measurement protocol, but nevertheless suggest that this is a relatively large minority group. For instance, estimates suggest that perhaps one in every fifty workers in the U.S. is gay or lesbian (Michael, Gangon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994). Another estimate suggests that between 4% and 17% of the workforce is gay or lesbian (Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991).

While research on heterosexism in the workplace often includes transgender employees, it is important to note that there is a difference between sex and gender, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity. For an explanation of the differences between sex and gender, see Rothausen-Vange’s entry on Gender: Work-Family Ideologies and Roles. For the purposes of this entry, the difference between sex and gender is that the former is assigned based on one’s biology at birth, whereas the latter is comprised of one’s experience as being male or female. One’s gender identity, then, is the gender with which one self-identifies.

Gagne and Tewksbury (1998) define transgenderism “as a discursive act in which the transgendered individual is an active agent in the establishment of an alternative gender identity and the presentation of an alternatively gendered self” (p. 92). For a transgender person, one’s gender identity is discordant with one’s gender assigned on the basis of biological sex. In other words, “‘Transgender’ is a term that refers to a spectrum of individuals who express gender in ways that deviate from the gender binary…” (Gagne & Tweksbury, 1998, p. 81). For more information on identity theory, see the entry on Identity Theory by Desrouchers, Andreassi and Thompson. While the experiences of transgender employees are substantively different than homosexuals (Lubensky, Holland, Wiethoff, & Crosby, 2004), gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons are typically regarded, as a group, as sexual minorities (Bell, 2006). It is important to note, however, that some researchers exclude bisexual employees when studying sexual minorities in the workplace because of the differences in their workplace experiences as compared to gay men and lesbians (Button, 2001), whereas others exclude transgender employees (Kaplan, 2006). For the expository purposes of this entry, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people will be considered as a group (i.e. LGBT or sexual minorities).

It is important to note that gender identity and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive concepts. For example, a male (sex) can have a female gender identity (transgender), yet still be attracted to women (heterosexual). This person would be considered a sexual minority given that his gender identity is deviant from the “gender binary.” Now that a proper understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity has been established, it is important to more clearly understand workplace discrimination related to these concepts.

While the term homophobia is commonly understood to refer discrimination related to homosexuals, the term is in fact meant to reflect a fear of homosexuality (Weinberg, 1972) based on a fear of being or becoming gay (Herek, 1984). As Weinberg himself explained, he “‘coined the term homophobia to mean it was a phobia about homosexuals… It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion’” (Herek, 2004, p. 7). The problem with the usage of this word is that feelings among heterosexuals about sexual minorities do not typically constitute a phobia per se, and the existing research evidence indicates that homophobia does not typically reach the level of a pathology in general (Herek, 2004). Of course, this term also limits the conceptualization of anti-gay attitudes (i.e. prejudice) or behaviors (i.e. discrimination) to deviant, individual-level psychopathology, ignoring the broader cultural and societal sources and implications of discrimination against sexual minorities (Herek, 2004).

Given the problems and limitations inherent in the term homophobia, heterosexism is more appropriate when referring to anti-gay attitudes (i.e. prejudice) and behavior (i.e. discrimination) (Herek, 2004). Whereas some authors conceptualize heterosexism as inclusive of prejudice and discrimination directed towards sexual minorities (Sears, 1997), Herek (2004) defines heterosexism as “the cultural ideology that perpetuates sexual stigma by denying and denigrating any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community” (p. 16). In this sense, then, the source of discrimination and its perpetuation are social and cultural forces and institutions. While this definition applies easily at a macro-societal level, this definition can apply, and has been applied, to organizational systems. That is, heterosexism in the management and organization literature is typically measured as an individual-level perception about features of an one’s employing organization, e.g. organizational climate (Button, 2001).

It is important to note, as such, that discrimination towards sexual minorities can be studied at multiple levels of analysis. Since heterosexism refers to a macro-level construct, Herek (2000) argues that negative attitudes and behaviors about sexual orientation held by individuals are most appropriately labeled sexual prejudice. Herek (2004) defines sexual prejudice as “negative attitudes based on sexual orientation” (p. 16). Prejudice, of course, is an individual-level phenomenon, and is operable at the interpersonal or social-psychological level (Herek, 2004). (For more information on discrimination at the interpersonal level of analysis, see Deitch, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief, & Bradley, 2003).

Heterosexism and sexual prejudice should not be confused with heterocentricism, which refers to the assumption that someone is heterosexual, or heteronormativity, which is “the privileging of heterosexual relationships and identities… as the norm by which all others are evaluated” (Hylton, 2005: 61). That is, heterosexism refers to discrimination, whereas heterocentricism and heteronormativity refer to assumptions and normative evaluations of heterosexuality, respectively.

Since there has been a considerable amount of controversy surrounding the use of the term homophobia to describe anti-gay attitudes and behaviors, this taxonomy is important to prevent confusion among both scholars and laypeople.

Stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) is often used as a framework for understanding heterosexism in the workplace. This theory proposes that attributes about individuals are devalued in certain social or cultural contexts and are, therefore, stigmatized (Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998), which can lead to stereotyping and discrimination. That is, sexual minorities may or may not be stigmatized in a particular environmental context; this context is dependent upon shared norms and beliefs. An invisible stigma is one that is concealable, i.e. is not readily visible (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, 2005). Sexual orientation is considered an invisible stigma since it is not readily observable (Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott, 1984). Transgenderism, too, can be considered an invisible stigma depending on its manifestation. (Link & Phelan, 2001). Sexual minorities, therefore, can, in most circumstances, decide to conceal or reveal their stigma at work.

As many researchers have previously noted (Jones et al., 1984), individuals with invisible stigmas face a different set of challenges in the workplace than do individuals with visible stigmas, or stigmas that are readily observable, such as race (c.f. Woods, 1994; Ragins, in press). This is because employees with invisible stigmas must decide whether or not to disclose their identity to others at work. In the context of the present discussion, disclosure is the decision to reveal one’s sexual minority status at work. Disclosure is typically not an all or nothing concept. Since there are obvious negative consequences associated with disclosure, or “coming out”, in the workplace, sexual minorities are often strategic about who to come out to at work, when and under what circumstances (Frable, Blackstone, & Sherbaum, 1990), and this decision process is often repeated over multiple social interactions (see Friskopp & Silverstein, 1995). That is, instead of making an organization-wide announcement, LGBT employees often disclose to those work colleagues whom they trust and feel will be supportive of them. 

As Clair, Beatty and Maclean (2005) explain thoroughly in their integrative review of disclosure in the workplace, there are a variety of passing and revealing strategies that persons with an invisible stigma may employ when choosing to conceal or disclose, respectively. (see also Button 2004; Woods, 1994). For instance, an LGBT employee can pass by concealment, which involves suppressing and keeping hidden information about one’s identity, or by fabrication, which involves actively constructing a false identity at work, such as by pretending to be in an opposite-sex relationship or even bringing opposite-sex friends to company events as dates. Revealing, on the other hand, can take the form of signaling, or dropping clues about one’s identity, or by normalizing, which involves minimizing the significance of one’s stigma by talking about it in heterosexual terms or by drawing parallels to heterosexual experience. While the ability to conceal one’s sexual orientation or gender identity may seem like an advantage compared to being unable to hide a stigmatized identity, suppressing one’s true self can be extremely challenging - and stressful (Button, 2001; Scully & Creed, 2000; Goffman, 1963; Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998; Woods, 1994).

Since part of the review below addresses how heterosexism is related to work-family research, it is important to define what a gay and lesbian family is here. As Allen and Demo (1995) note, assigning labels to families is oftentimes counterproductive; labeling a family as “gay and lesbian” is no exception. Nevertheless, it is important to be able to define the population briefly for purposes of clarity here. The authors contend that a gay and lesbian family is “defined by the presence of two or more people who are a same-sex orientation (i.e. a couple), or by the presence of at least one lesbian or gay adult rearing a child” (p. 113). Following Laird’s lead (1993), a dual-orientation family is defined as “families involving one or more lesbian or gay member(s)” (p. 113). Thus, for instance, a family characterized by heterosexual parents and a gay or lesbian child would be a dual-orientation family.

Despite the fact that LGBT employees represent a relatively large proportion of the workforce, they remain an understudied minority group. There has been a noticeable increase in attention paid to the workplace experiences of LGBT employees in recent years, however (for reviews see Ragins, 2004; Welle & Button, 2004). The vast majority of this literature focuses on heterosexism and disclosure (Badgett, 1995; Button, 2001; Scully & Creed, 2000; Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Hebl, Foster, Mannix & Dovidio, 2002; Horvath & Ryan, 2003; Ragins, in press; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Waldo, 1999). Accordingly, the concepts of heterosexism and disclosure deserve special attention in this entry. Before specifically reviewing the research literature on heterosexism, it is important to understand how this literature is related to work-family research.

Now that the reader is equipped with an understanding of heterosexism and related concepts, the following section will explain how heterosexism is related to the study of work and family. This is not meant to be an exhaustive review. Instead, the purpose of the next section is to 1) highlight important connections between the study of heterosexism and work-family research 2) briefly consider the family lives of sexual minorities and how this might be related to heterosexism in the workplace.

Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies

Work-family conflict is a type of role conflict that occurs when the demands of one’s work role conflict with the demands of one’s family role or vice versa. For a review of the work-family conflict construct, see the entry on Work-Family Role Conflict by Hammer and Thompson. Greenhaus & Beutell (1985) outlined three types of work-family conflict: time-based, strain-based and behavior-based. Time-based conflict occurs when the time spent in the work (family) domain makes it difficult to fulfill one’s obligations in the family (work) domain. Strain-based conflict occurs when the strain experienced in one life domain makes it difficult to meet role demands in the other domain. Behavior-based conflict occurs when the behaviors expected in one domain conflict with the behaviors expected in the other domain.

Given that heterosexism in the workplace is a significant source of stress and strain for LGBT employees (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), one would expect that heterosexism would be related to strain-based work-family conflict. One would also expect that the stress and strain associated with concealment at work would also lead to strain-based work-family conflict. Of course, concealment at work may also be related to behavior-based work-family conflict when passing at work is incongruent with one’s behavior outside of work. That is, an LGBT person may experience a disclosure disconnect (Ragins, in press) if he or she is non-disclosed at work, for instance, but disclosed outside of work. Different levels of disclosure in one’s work and family lives, then, may lead to role conflict (Ragins, in press).

Despite these rather obvious connections, work-family researchers have generally ignored how heterosexism is specifically related to work-family conflict, or how the experience of work-family conflict among LGBT employees may differ from heterosexual employees, with some important exceptions. 

The limited existing empirical research tends to suggest that LGBT employees experience similar levels of work-family conflict as heterosexual employees, but for different reasons. For instance, in a unique study which compared same-sex couples to heterosexual couples, Hammer, Brockwood, Huang and Nice (2004) found that levels of work-family conflict did not differ by couple type. For instance, family involvement was a significant predictor of work-family conflict only for gay and lesbian employees. Moreover, crossover effects for work-family conflict were found between heterosexual partners and employees only. These results suggest that there may be important differences in how same-sex couples experience work-family conflict as compared to heterosexual couples.

In an initial investigation of the relationship between work-family conflict and satisfaction with work and family roles among gay and lesbian employees, Huffman and Watrous (2005) surveyed gay and lesbian conference attendees to determine if a model of work-family conflict which typically holds for heterosexual employees similarly applied to homosexual employees (see Kossek & Ozeki, 1998 for a description of the types of relationships studied by these authors). This model did not represent a good fit to the data, but the model was generally a good representation of the data when workplace climate was included as a moderator variable. These results suggest that frameworks used to understand work-family conflict among heterosexual employees can be applied to LGBT employees, but only under certain boundary conditions.   

While this research indicates that LGBT employees may experience work-family conflict for different reasons or under different circumstances than heterosexual employees, it is important to more fully understand why this is the case. Disclosure seems to be an important explanatory variable here. For instance, Day and Schonerade (1997) found that while there were no differences in work-family conflict between heterosexual employees and disclosed lesbian and gay employees in their sample, non-disclosed lesbian and gay employees experienced significantly more work-family conflict than disclosed employees.

Chung (1995) suggested that disclosure may be related to the relative importance an LGBT employee places on certain aspects of work and life domains in that disclosed employees may prefer a work environment that allows them to express their sexual orientation whereas non-disclosed employees may place a greater emphasis on traditional indicators of career success. In support of this proposition, Trau and Hartel (2006) found that gay men who emphasized quality of work life and relationship quality with their partners were more likely to disclose at work than those who emphasized job security or career success. However, the cross-sectional nature of their data did not allow them to make causal, i.e. directional, conclusions.

Prince (1995) posited that while dual-career gay couples face the same challenges of balancing two careers that heterosexual couples do, they must grapple with additional concerns such as the decision to include partners at company events, which requires the employee to be disclosed. Of course, bringing partners to company-related events is not universally supported by organizations (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). In support of this, Trau and Hartel (2004) found that the gay men in their qualitative study reported a loss of career opportunities due, in part, to difficulties in social networking because of their family status.

In summary, theory and research suggest that LGBT employees experience tensions between work and family roles, but for different reasons than heterosexual employees. Clearly, then, if researchers are concerned about reducing work-family conflict among LGBT employees as well as heterosexual employees, more research is needed.

While this exposition is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of family diversity, it is important to at least understand the unique family circumstances of sexual minorities, as well as how these circumstances might be related to heterosexism in the workplace. As such, this literature will be briefly reviewed further below. (For a review of the topic of family diversity, see the entry on Family Diversity by Rothausen-Vange.)

Just like LGBT employees are relatively understudied in the mainstream management and organization literature (Ragins, 2004; Welle & Button, 2004), so too are their families in the family studies literature (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993). As scholars have previously noted (Allen and Demo, 1995), the lack of research on gay and lesbian families has limited the development of family systems theory as well as related empirical research. Citing figures from the Federation of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), Allen and Demo (1995) note that estimates indicate that one of every four families in the United States has a gay or lesbian member. Thus, to exclude this population from family studies research is to exclude a very large proportion of American families. However, in their review of three leading family studies journals from 1980 to 1993, the authors found that only between 1% and 3% of the articles concerned lesbian and gay families, issues related to sexual orientation, or related content.

Existing research on gay and lesbian families is often influenced by heterosexist assumptions and fails to capture the full diversity of these families (Allen & Demo, 1995). The American Psychological Association’s recent Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (See http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html) outlines major heterosexist assumptions about gay and lesbian parents, e.g. that they are unfit to parent, and provides a summary of research which documents the similarities, as opposed to dissimilarities, between gay and heterosexual parents. Patterson’s (n.d.) review of the APA’s report, Lesbian and Gay Parenting, summarizes the existing empirical research on this topic (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc). As the author explains, prejudice regarding sexual orientation is associated with a variety of negative outcomes for gay and lesbian families; particularly important perhaps are the limits to parental rights that gay and lesbian parents must sometimes grapple with simply because of their sexual orientation. As the author explains further, beliefs that lesbian and gay men are unfit to parent, and concerns among the courts that their children will face developmental or social challenges are simply unfounded. Patterson (n.d.) concludes that by noting that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc). Despite the fact that gay and lesbian families face rampant discrimination, Patterson (2000) concluded from her review of the family studies literature that children raised in gay and lesbian families have not been found to differ systematically from children raised in heterosexual families in terms of: sexual identity, social relationships or other aspects of development such as psychiatric disorders.

In fact, existing research on gay and lesbian families tends to indicate that these families are in fact quite healthy. For instance, research indicates that, in contrast to heterosexual couples, which are often characterized by a “second shift” for employed mothers, lesbian couples tend to share household work evenly (see Peplau & Fingerhut, 2004). (For more information on this topic, see the entry by Trask on Traditional Gender Roles.) For instance, in their study of lesbian and heterosexual couples raising elementary school-aged children conceived of through donor insemination, Chan, Brooks, Raboy and Patterson (1998) found that lesbian couples shared childcare and family decision making more evenly than heterosexual couples, and that satisfaction with the division of family responsibilities among lesbian nonbiological mothers was related to increased psychological functioning among their children.

Very little research has examined if and how heterosexism in the workplace is related to family diversity, e.g. same-sex couples raising children. While it is clear that hostile attitudes about gay and lesbian families are not uncommon in American society (Kite & Whitely, 1998), work-family researchers have yet to examine how, for instance, raising a child in a gay or lesbian family, and being disclosed about this at work, might be related to workplace hostility or discrimination.  Of course, this represents an opportunity for work-family researchers who are interested in exploring the full range of family diversity and how family diversity might affect individuals at work.

State of the Body of Knowledge

Now that we have reviewed connections between the study of heterosexism in the workplace and work-family research, we can move to a fuller treatment of heterosexism in the workplace. Existing research suggests that heterosexism in work organizations is pervasive. Regional estimates indicate between 25 and 66% of sexual minority employees have experienced work-related discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation (Croteau, 1996), whereas 37% of gay and lesbian employees in a national study reported that they had been discriminated against (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Indeed, gay and lesbian employees are significantly more likely to report being terminated from their jobs due to discrimination than are heterosexual employees (Mays & Cochran, 2001).

A recent review by Beatty and Kirby (2006) sheds light on reasons behind heterosexism in the workplace. According to the authors, stigmatization of invisible minorities is influenced by four major dimensions: responsibility, course, moral threat and performance. To the extent that sexual orientation and gender identity are perceived to be controllable or determined by preference, responsibility is attributed and LGBT employees are blamed for their sexual orientation or gender identity, which of course leads to decreased acceptance and increased stigmatization. When a stigma’s course is perceived to be reversible or changeable, it is less stigmatizing. Beatty and Kirby note that while sexual orientation is perceived to be changeable, and should therefore be less stigmatizing, the powerful belief that sexual orientation is controllable ultimately suppresses this dimension. Moral threat signals that stigma is determined by socialization and group beliefs, not the stigma itself, meaning that LGBT employees will be perceived more or less favorably by groups with different value systems; for instance, persons with various religious affiliations have been found to have negative attitudes towards gay men and lesbians (Herek, 1994; Horvath & Ryan, 2003). When a stigma is less likely to affect performance, it is thereby less likely to affect acceptance among coworkers.  In summary, since sexual orientation and gender identity are often perceived to be controllable, reversible, and morally threatening, these combined factors explain why being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is stigmatized.

Given that the aforementioned survey research indicates that perceived heterosexism is pervasive, it is important to compare these data to indicators of statistical discrimination in the econometric literature. Econometric data tend to indicate that gay men, but not necessarily lesbian women, experience discrimination in earnings. That is, gay men earn less than heterosexual men (Badgett, 1995), which could be due to their being tracked into low-paying “gay ghettos” (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Lesbian women, conversely, tend to earn more than heterosexual women (Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000), perhaps because lesbian women are more likely to gain entry into high-paying positions of authority than are heterosexual women (Blanford, 2003). These data indicate that while lesbians and gay men perceive heterosexism in their workplaces, gay men are differentially disadvantaged in the labor market compared to heterosexual men, whereas lesbian women are advantaged in the labor market compared to heterosexual women. (see also Badgett, 2001).

One explanation for this difference has to do with gay men and lesbian women’s reversal of gender roles as compared to heterosexuals. That is, gay men may be discriminated against for higher-paying, masculine gender-typed jobs because of their femininity, whereas lesbian women may be advantaged for these same jobs because of their masculinity (Pichler, Bruce & Varma, 2006). In this connection, research indicates that gender roles, but not gender, are predictive of leadership factors among lesbians and gay men, contrary to existing research conducted with heterosexual samples (Law, King, & Hebl, 2006). Another explanation, at least as applied to lesbian women, has to do with perceptions about heterosexual women “opting-out” of the workforce due to family-related responsibilities. The notion here is that heterosexual mothers may be discriminated against as compared to lesbian mothers because the latter are perceived as more likely to remain committed to their careers since they are less likely to rely on a partner breadwinner. In support of this, when Peplau and Fingerhunt (2004) manipulated gender, sexual orientation, and parental status in a laboratory experiment, they found that heterosexual women were perceived as less competent and career oriented when they had children, whereas lesbian women and heterosexual men were not.

Laboratory-based experimental studies tend to indicate that gay men and lesbians face discrimination in hiring situations. These studies also shed light on individual attributes that are related to discriminatory tendencies in hiring scenarios. In an experimental investigation of the effects of various stigmas on hireability, Crow, Fok and Hartman (1998) found that homosexuals were more likely to be discriminated against than women and ethnic minorities. Horvath and Ryan (2003) similarly found that gay and lesbian job applicants were discriminated against in a fictitious hiring scenario as compared to heterosexuals. The authors found that religiosity, previous contact with homosexuals, traditional gender role beliefs, and beliefs about the controllability of sexual orientation were all related to attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, which affected ratings of employability.

It should be noted that formal discrimination is not the only type of discrimination faced by LGBT employees (Croteau, 1996). For instance, in a novel field experiment, Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dividio (2002) found that confederate job applicants who were visibly gay were not discriminated against formally in terms of job availability or callbacks, but were treated less favorably interpersonally. (Deitch, et. al, 2003). In a laboratory experiment, Munoz and Thomas (2005) manipulated the sexual orientation and job level of fictitious coworker profiles and found that participants were less likely to work with homosexual than heterosexual colleagues, and that this effect was dependent upon the job level of the coworker. They also found that participants who had previous exposure to sexual minorities were more likely to partner with homosexual coworkers, and that this effect was mediated by decreased intergroup anxiety.

Since the extant research evidence, in total, suggests that sexual minorities face heterosexism in work settings, both formally and informally, it is important to consider the legal protections that are available to this population. Currently, no comprehensive federal legislation prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Proposed federal legislation, namely the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), has consistently been voted down by Congress, despite scientific support from groups such as the American Psychological Association (for related information, including testimony submitted to Congress by the APA, go to: http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/penda202.html).

While no federal legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, certain states and localities do offer some protections. These protections vary regionally and are reflective of local attitudes towards gays and lesbians (Wald, Button & Rienzo, 1999). Considering that anti-gay attitudes are not uncommon in American society (Herek, 1994; Kite & Whitely, 1998), the prevalence of legal protections is limited (Herek, 1992), and the strength of such protections is questionable. Recent estimates indicate that 53% of the U.S. population is unprotected by local legislation prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Cahill, 2005). Moreover, protection from hate crime victimization on the basis of sexual orientation is limited federally, and many state statutes do not protect sexual minorities whatsoever (Drake, 1998; Lyman, 1998). Since discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal in some, but not all, areas of the country, examining the relationship between legal protections and discrimination is an important area for future research. Ragins and Cornwell (2001) found that the existence of local anti-discrimination laws was negatively related to perceived heterosexism.  Still, anti-discrimination laws, while essential, may not be enough. Using 1990 U.S. Census data, Klawitter and Flatt (1998) found wage disparities between gay and heterosexual men even in areas with an anti-discrimination law.

Although protective legislation related to sexual orientation and gender identity is limited, research indicates that LGBT-supportive organizational policies and practices can have a dramatic impact on both organizational climate as well as perceptions of heterosexism among LGBT employees. Examples of these policies include an anti-discrimination policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, inclusion of LGBT issues in diversity training, and management support for LGBT-related resource and support groups. Using a sample of gay men and lesbians from multiple organizations, Button (2001) found that an index of supportive policies and practices was negatively related to treatment discrimination, a measure of group-level perceptions of organizational affirmation of sexual diversity. Ragins and Cornwell (2001) found that a similar index of supportive policies and practices was negatively related to perceptions of heterosexism among a national sample of gay and lesbian employees. These organizational policies were more strongly (negatively) related to heterosexism than were protective legislation or the sexual orientation of one’s immediate coworkers.

There are some importance exceptions to the above research evidence, namely that supportive policies and practices are negatively related to perceived heterosexism. For instance, results from a regional survey of gay men indicate that the presence of a non-discrimination policy is related to increased perceptions of workplace hostility regarding sexual orientation (Tejeda, 2006). Although Waldo (1999) did find a negative relationship between an LGBT-supportive workplace climate and perceived heterosexism, supportive policies were not significantly related to heterosexism. These results suggest that there may be moderators of the relationship between supportive policies and perceived heterosexism.

Survey research has consistently found negative relationships between perceived workplace heterosexism and a variety of commonly studied attitudinal variables including job satisfaction (Button, 2001; Day & Schonerade, 1997; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Waldo, 1999), organizational commitment (Button, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), and turnover intentions (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001).    

Recent research has investigated the causal mechanisms whereby heterosexism is related to employee attitudes such as job satisfaction. Lyons, Brenner and Fassinger (2005) found that person-organization fit partially mediated the relationship between heterosexism and job satisfaction in a large national survey of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals; these results were cross-validated in a second sample. These results suggest that heterosexism leads to feelings of misfit among LGBT employees, which then leads to decreased job satisfaction. Future research should similarly investigate the causal mechanisms that explain heterosexism-attitudinal relationships as to better understand the unique workplace experiences of LGBT employees. Research should also examine behavioral outcomes of perceived heterosexism. For instance, Tejeda (2006) found that the presence of a non-discrimination policy was positively related to self-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Future research should attempt to examine theoretically relevant behavioral outcome measures from multiple respondents; of course, given the sensitivity of the topic and the methodological problems associated with obtaining representative samples of LGBT employees, i.e. samples that include non-disclosed employees, this is a difficult task. (For more research on sampling issues with LGBT respondents, see: Harry, 1986; Phillips, Ingram, Smith & Mindes, 2003).

While research has established that perceived heterosexism is negatively related to important job attitude variables, the relationship between heterosexism and disclosure is less clear (Croteau, 1996). Croteau & Lark (1995) surveyed members of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Awareness Committee of the American College Personnel Association and found that disclosure was positively related to perceived heterosexism, suggesting that openly gay employees will face more discrimination than those that are non-disclosed. In contrast, using structural equation modeling techniques, Ragins and Cornwell (2001) found that while perceived heterosexism was negatively related to disclosure, disclosure did not predict heterosexism. These results suggest that the level of heterosexism experienced in an organizational environment predicts whether or not an LGBT employee will disclose, whereas being open about being lesbian, gay or transgender does not necessarily predict increased heterosexism. However, other survey research has found that disclosure to one’s supervisor is related to increased perceptions of a hostile work environment, decreased promotion opportunities, and increased turnover intentions, indicating that disclosure to superiors can have adverse career consequences (Tejeda, 2006). In a more refined examination of the disclosure-discrimination relationship, Waldo (1999) found that disclosure was positively related to direct experiences of heterosexism, but negatively related to experiences of indirect heterosexism. Given that all of this research is cross-sectional in nature, a longitudinal design would more definitively establish the nature of the causal relationship, if any, between disclosure and discrimination.  

Implications for Research and Practice

Early reviews of the literature on the workplace experiences of LGBT employees criticized the domain for a lack of theory and rigorous empirical research (Croteau, 1996; Lonborg & Phillips, 1996). While scholars in the field have increasingly used established theoretical frameworks to guide and inform their research (Creed, Scully & Austin, 2002), and while others have made a commitment to advancing theories of disclosure and heterosexism in the workplace (King & Hebl, 2005; Ragins, 2004, in press), scholarship in the domain is nascent and open to many new avenues of research.

For instance, work-family scholarship could be greatly enhanced by more fully investigating work-family issues among gay and lesbian families since the domain almost universally either studies heterosexual families or assumes heterosexuality (i.e. heteronormativity). (See Rothausen-Vange’s entry on Gender: Work-Family Ideologies and Roles). As a potential example, heterosexism experienced in the workplace may spillover into the family domain, which could cause stress and strain not only for employees, but for their loved ones as well. This is an important area of research that has yet to be investigated.

Similarly, work-family scholarship could also be advanced by investigating heterosexism in the workplace specifically related to family status. Researchers have previously investigated how formal support for sexual diversity is related to perceptions of heterosexism in the workplace (i.e. Button, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Waldo, 1999). Extending this line of research, scholars could investigate more specifically how a lack of same-sex partner benefits, e.g. health insurance benefits, is related to financial pressures among LGBT couples. Alternatively, scholars could investigate the experiences of gay and lesbian families who work for supportive organizations that provide health benefits to their adopted children. Research on informal discrimination in the workplace, i.e. sexual prejudice, related to being in a gay or lesbian family and raising children is another uninvestigated area of potential research.

While some researchers have begun investigating related issues (Day & Schoenrade, 1997; Huffman & Watrous, 2005) there is currently very little clarity on how the unique workplace experiences of LGBT employees relate to work-family issues. It is important to note here that extending benefits to gay and lesbian families can create conflict in terms of perceptions of organizational justice in the workplace. For instance, Scully and Creed (1999) note that there is an inherent tension between equality and need in the distribution of employee benefits. That is, while providing equal benefits for all families has the advantage of acknowledging different notions of what a family is, redistribution of benefits based on an equality principle can sometimes lead to unequal treatment towards larger families.

Employers must be prepared, then, to manage competing interests when adopting LGBT-supportive policies, as has been made evident by backlashes against corporations such as Proctor and Gamble and the Walt Disney Company for doing just that. Very little research has examined how heterosexual employees react to the adoption of LGBT-supportive policies and practices among organizations, making this another important area for future research. For instance, diversity programs that include topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity are subject to backlash among employees due to religious convictions and other belief systems (Kaplan, 2006). In certain instances, employers have been subject to claims of religious discrimination due to this inclusiveness. Summarizing three court cases involving claims of religious discrimination due to inclusive diversity training, Kaplan (2006) delineated three major factors that, in part, were related to the court’s judgments; namely, the level of participation required of employees, the content of the training program, the employee’s response and the employer’s response. In total, these cases highlight the need to carefully balance the business case for inclusive diversity training with individual rights to religious freedom and accommodation. 

Organizational-level research is needed to understand why organizations adopt LGBT-supportive policies and practices, and how differences across organizations are related to differences in reactions among affected parties. U.S. organizations are increasingly offering LGBT-supportive policies and practices; the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy group, recently announced that more companies than ever before are offering employment protections and benefits to LGBT employees (For a copy of the full report see www.hrc.org/cei). It is important, therefore, to understand what predicts adoption, why backlash occurs and under what circumstances, and what impact this has on employers who adopt these policies and practices.

Comparative international research on the workplace experiences of LGBT employees is also lacking despite the notion that the international landscape towards sexual minorities is changing. For instance, the Human Rights Committee decided in Toonen v. Australia that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in this case criminal sanctions of homosexual activity, equated to discrimination on the basis of sex and violated the rights to privacy and equality provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Sanders, 2002). The European Court of Human Rights decided in two recent cases brought forth by former officers of the British Armed Forces that homosexuality in and of itself was not a justifiable reason for terminating the employment of the complaintants (Smith & Oxman, 2000).  The European Court of Justice similarly decided in 1996 that discrimination on the basis of sex reassignment was illegal as it is tantamount to sex discrimination (http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=17797&theme=print). Moreover, countries without a noticeable “gay movement” have witnessed cultural and legal advances that help support and protect sexual minorities. Gamson (1999) notes, for instance, that despite the fact that gay men and lesbians in Israel are not very visible culturally or politically, the state has witnessed dramatic advances in gay rights in recent years such as a ban on workplace discrimination and court decisions that recognize same-sex relationships and call for same-sex partner benefits.

In summary, the study of heterosexism in the workplace is a relatively recent area of interest in the management and organization domain. Existing research is typically conducted at individual level of analysis, and is usually restricted to U.S. employees. The literature on heterosexism in the workplace has traditionally been criticized for lacking a strong theoretical foundation and empirical rigor; scholars have addressed these criticisms through integrative theoretical work as well as empirical research reports. This research suggests that heterosexism is common in work organizations, and that legal protections prohibiting heterosexism are limited. Organizational-level protections seem helpful in the sense that they seem to reduce perceptions of heterosexism and related adverse psychological sequelea (Mays & Cochran, 2001).

While this body of research would suggest that employers should adopt LGBT-supportive policies and practices in order to more effectively recruit and retain employees from this relatively large minority group, organizational-level and cross-level research is still needed to help explain reasons for, and the broader ramifications of, policy adoption among organizations in both the U.S. and abroad.

References

Allen, K. R., & Demo, D.H. (1995). The families of lesbians and gay men: A new frontier in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(1), 111-127.

American Psychological Association (n.d.). Answers to your questions about sexual orientation and homosexuality. Retrieved November 10, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

American Psychological Association (2002). APA testimony on the nondiscrimination employment nondiscrimination act (ENDA). Retrieved November 10, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/penda202.html

American Psychological Association Council of Representatives (2004). APA policy statement on sexual orientation, parents, & children. Retrieved November 10,
2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

Badgett, M.V. L. (1995).  The Wage Effects of Sexual-Orientation Discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726-739.

Badgett, M.V. L. (2001). Money, myths and change: The economic lives of lesbians and gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Beatty, J. E., & Kirby, S. L. (2006). Beyond the legal environment: How stigma influences invisible identity groups in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(1), 29-44.

Bell, M. P. (2006).  Diversity in organizations. Mason, OH: Thomson-Southwestern.

Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data
sources. Demography, 37(2), 139-154.

Blanford, D. (2003). The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(4), 622-642.

Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 17-28.

Cahill, S. (2005). The glass nearly half full. Washington, D.C.: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30, 78-95.

Chung, Y. B. (1995). Career decision making of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 178-190.

Chan, R.W., Brooks, R.C., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C.J. (1998). Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children’s adjustment.
Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 402-419.

Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M. A., & Austin, J. R. (2002). Clothes make the person? The tailoring of legitimizing accounts and the social construction of identity.
Organization Science, 13(5), 475-496.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 504-553). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Croteau, J.M. (1996).  Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An integrative Review of methodology and findings. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 48, 195-209.

Croteau, J., & Lark, J. (1995). On being lesbian, gay, or bisexual in student affairs: A national survey of experiences on the job. Naspa Journal, 32(3), 189-197.

Crow, S. M., Fok, L. K., & Hartman, S. J. (1998).  Who is at greatest risk of work-related discrimination - Women, blacks or homosexuals? Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 11(1), 15-26. 

Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships between communication about sexual orientation and work
attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 147-163.

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003).  Subtle yet significant: The existence of everyday racial discrimination in the
workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299-1324.

Doherty, W., Boss, P., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W., & Steinmetz, S. (1993). Family theory and methods: A contextual approach. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.
Schumm, & S. Stein. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 3-30). New York: Plenum Press.

Drake, J. (1998, October 16). Sexual orientation not in federal hate legislation. San Francisco Examiner, p. A4.

Equal Opportunities Commission (n.d.). Celebrating 30 years. Retrieved on March 1, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=17797&theme=print

Frable, D., Blackstone, T., & Sherbanm, C. (1990). Marginal and mind-ful: Deviants in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Behavior, 59, 140-149.

Frable, D., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self- perceptions: Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 909-922.

Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1995).  Straight jobs, gay lives: Gay and lesbian professionals, the Harvard Business School, and the American workplace. New
York: Scribner.

Gagne, P., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Conformity Pressures and Gender Resistance Among Transgendered Individuals. Social Problems, 45(1), 478-508.

Gamson, J. (June, 1999). The officer and the diva: Despite a still-powerful closet, Israel has granted gay civil rights. The Nation.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Gonsiorek J. C., & Weinrich J. D. (Eds.). (1991). Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

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.

Hammer, L. B., Brockwood, K. J., Huang, Y. E. , & Nice, M. (2004). Work and family issues among gay and lesbian dual-earner couples. Paper Presented at the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology.

Harry, J. (1986). Sampling gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 22(1), 21-34.

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002).  Formal and informal interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 815-825.

Herek, G. M. (1992).  The social context of hate crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism. In G. M. Herek & K. Berrill (Eds.), Hate Crimes (pp. 89-104). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and ay men: A review of the empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M.
Herek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in lesbian and gay issues in psychology (pp. 206-228). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19-22.

Herek, G. M. (2004).  Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1(2), 6-24.

Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003).  Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.  Sex Roles, 48(3/4), 115-130.

Huffman, A. H., & Watrous, K. (2005). Understanding employee work-life balance in a diverse workforce. In K. Watrous & W. Reichman (Chairs), Workplace
Diversity: Exploring the Work Experiences of LGBT Employees. Symposium for the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Los Angeles, CA.

Hylton, M. E. (2005). Heteronormativity and the experiences of lesbian and bisexual women as social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 67-82.

Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.

Kaplan, D. (2006). Can diversity training discriminate? Backlash to lesbian, gay and bisexual diversity initiatives. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(1), 61-72.

Kauth, M. R. and Kalichman, S. C. (1995). Sexual Orientation and Development: An Interactive Approach. In L. Diamant and R.D. McAnulty (Eds.), The Psychology
of Sexual Orientation, Behavior, and Identity: A Handbook (pp. 81-103) Westport, CT:Greenwood.

King, E. B., & Hebl, M. R. (2005). The stigma of homosexuality at work: Applying a multilevel model. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for
Industrial/Organizational Psychology in Los Angeles, CA.

Kite, M., & Whitely, M. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes towards homosexuality?. In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and Sexual
Orientation: Understanding Prejudice Against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals (pp. 39-61). London: Sage.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139-149.

Klawitter, M. & Flatt, V. (1998).  The effects of state and local anti-discrimination policies for sexual orientation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(4), 658-686.

Laird, J. (1993). Lesbian and gay families. In Walsh, F. (Ed.), Normal family practices (2nd ed.) (pp. 282-328). NY: W. W. Norton.

Law, C., King, E., & Hebl, M. (2006). Gender, gendered identities and transformational leadership. In T. Bruce & S. Pichler (Co-Chairs) Sexual Orientation in the
Workplace: Current Issues. Symposium Presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.

Lonborg, S. D., & Phillips, J. M. (1996).  Investigating the career development of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people: Methodological considerations and
recommendations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 176-194.

Lubensky, M. E., Holland, S. L., Wiethoff, C. M, & Crosby, F. J. (2004). Diversity and sexual orientation: Including and valuing sexual minorities in the workplace. In M.S. Stockdale and F.J. Crosby (Eds.), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity (pp. 206-223). Boston: Blackwell.

Lyman, R. (1998, October 18). Hate laws don’t matter, except when they do. New York Times, p. 6.

Lyons, H. Z., Brenner, B. R., & Fassinger, R. (2005). Multicultural test of the theory of work adjustment: Investigating the role of heterosexism and person-environment
fit in the job satisfaction of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 537-548.

Mays, V., & Cochran, S. (2001).  Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1869-1876.

Meyer, I. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 7, 9-25.

Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America. NewYork: Little, Brown.

Munoz, C. S., & Thomas, K. M. (2005). Anxiety and experience in heterosexuals’ responses to gay co-workers. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial-
Organizational Psychology.

Patterson, C. J. (n.d.). Lesbian & gay parents & their children: Summary of research findings. Retrieved on November 10, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc

Patterson, C. .J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052-1069.

Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. (2004). The paradox of the lesbian worker. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (4), 719-735.

Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & Mindes, E. J. (2003). Methodological and content review of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-related articles in counseling
journals: 1990-1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 25-62.

Pichler, S., Bruce, T., & Varma, A. (2006). For what job? An investigation of individual difference and job-related factors in hiring discrimination of gay and lesbian
employees.  In T. Bruce & S. Pichler (Co-Chairs) Sexual Orientation in the Workplace: Current Issues. Symposium Presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Prince, J. (1995). Influences on the career development of gay men. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 168-177.

Ragins, B.R. (2004).  Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers.  Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 23, 25-120.

Ragins, B.R. (in press). Disclosure disconnects: Understanding decisions to disclose across life domains. Academy of Management Review.

Ragins, B. R. & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(6), 1244-1261.

Sanders, D. (2002). Human rights and sexual orientation in international law.  International Journal of Public Administration, 25(1), 13-44.

Scully, M. A., & Creed, W. E. D. (1999). Restructured families: Issues of equality and need. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 47-65.

Scully, M., & Creed, W. E. D., (2000). Songs of ourselves: Employees’ deployment of social identity in everyday workplace encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(4), 391-412.

Sears, J. T. (1997).  Thinking critically/intervening effectively about homophobia and heterosexism. In J. T. Sears & W. L. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming heterosexism
and homophobia: Strategies that work (pp.13-48). New York: Columbia University Press.

Smith, R. K. M., & Oxman, B. H. (2000). International decisions. American Journal of International Law, 94(2), 382-386.

Tejeda, M. (2006). Nondiscrimination policies and sexual identity disclosure: Do they make a difference in employee outcomes? Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 18(1), 45-59.

Trau, R. N. C., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2006). Impact of career-life conflict on disclosure and attitudes towards organization among gay men. In T. Bruce & S. Pichler (Co-
Chairs) Sexual Orientation in the Workplace: Current Issues. Symposium Presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Trau, R. N. C., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2004) One career, two identities: an assessment of gay men's career trajectory, Career Development International, 9(7),627-637.

Wald, K. D., Button, J. W., & Rienzo, B. A. (1996). The Politics of Gay Rights in American Communities: Explaining Antidiscrimination Ordinances and Policies. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 1152-1178.

Waldo, C. R. (1999).  Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(2),
218-232.

Weinberg, G.  (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Welle, B., & Button, S. B. (2004). Workplace experiences of lesbian and gay employees: A review of current research. In C.L. Cooper, & I.T. Robertson (Eds.)
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 139-170). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Woods, J. D. (1994). The corporate closet. New York: Free Press.