Latest news with #workplaceDiscrimination
Forbes
2 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Beyond The Rainbow: 5 Essential Tips For Supporting LGBTQ+ Employees Beyond June
Protest defending the human rights fro LGBTQi people Every year, June brings rainbow logos and statements in support of LGBTQ+ employees and community, and this year is no different. Pull back the curtains on these public signals of support, you find companies are pulling back on their support for internal and external pride events – and a legal landscape rife with challenges and cultural backlash exacerbating workplace stress for LGBTQ+ employees. According to the Center on American Progress, 36% of LGBTQI+ adults experienced discrimination in 2024, compared with 17% of non-LGBTQI+ adults, while almost half (47%) of LGBTQ employees reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work during their lifetime. For transgender employees, the situation is even more dire. The legal landscape has become downright hostile for transgender communities. This year alone, over 900 anti-trans bills have been introduced across 49 states, with over 100 signed into law. Legislative action's impact has also seeped into work, with 47% reporting workplace discrimination or harassment in the past year and 75% of transgender employees having experienced workplace discrimination at some point in their careers. These laws, many of which employers need to be in compliance with, target everything from gender-affirming care and bathroom access to name and pronoun use. Meanwhile, LGBTQ+ discrimination charges have surged by over 144% since 2013, creating both moral imperatives and business risks for employers who fail to act. For many LGBTQ+ employees, work may be the only place where they feel somewhat protected. This creates both a massive responsibility for employers and a real opportunity to make a difference. Here are five essential strategies for organizations serious about supporting their LGBTQ+ workforce beyond the rainbow logo. Jennifer Laurie, a former Chief People Officer and founder of the Equitable HR Guild, offers five recommendations to employers, noting 'organizations have both a responsibility and an opportunity to become sources of genuine protection and support.' LGBTQ+ workplace safety starts with explicitly naming protections and enforcing organizational policies. Laurie says, 'The goal is not just to say the right things, but to build workplaces where people can exhale and feel safe being fully themselves.' Companies have to go beyond generic diversity or anti-harassment statements to establish clear, specific policies that protect employees based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. This is increasingly important as federal interpretations shift and state-level laws create new threats. At a minimum, effective infrastructure includes robust reporting mechanisms, swift response protocols, and consistent accountability measures - regardless of sector and size of organizations. The true measure of the efficacy of good policies and practices according to Laurie is, 'when harm occurs, LGBTQ+ employees know they will be believed, protected, and not penalized for speaking up.' For their peers in the HR world, this means training people and culture teams on LGBTQ+-specific issues, establishing clear investigation procedures, and ensuring follow-up care for affected employees. Ernst and Young's research highlighted in Harvard Business Review shows that 97% of participants who rated their organization highly on LGBTQ+ inclusion expect to remain with their employer for the next year, while organizations with poor inclusion face higher turnover, reputational damage, and legal risks. Access to safe and dignified healthcare remains a critical concern, particularly in states with bans on gender-affirming care and adult anti-trans legislation that seeks to make this care unavailable. Organizations need to anticipate and address gaps in coverage, especially when insurers deny claims or employees navigate hostile state laws. This might include offering out-of-network reimbursements, travel stipends for care access, or hands-on support navigating insurance claims. Beyond healthcare, Laurie suggests, 'benefits packages should reflect diverse family structures and relationship types'. This may look like recognizing chosen family arrangements, providing inclusive parental leave policies, and ensuring that all employee assistance programs are LGBTQ+-affirming. HR leaders can ask themselves if policies meet people's specific needs without requiring them to advocate for themselves constantly. 'While the burden shouldn't fall on LGBTQ+ employees to drive change', Laurie notes that 'when organizations create a culture of trust and safety, employees may be willing to share feedback or flag gaps - especially when it's clear that leadership will take action. HR leaders can use that input to evolve support systems in response to changing needs and legal landscapes.' People managers have an outsized influence over employee experience, and the extent to which LGBTQ+ employees feel safe at work - even in fully remote teams. 40% of LGBTQ+ workers report having to withhold their identity at their job due to fear of being stigmatized or facing violence, often based on their immediate supervisor's behavior and competence. Even in spaces where they should feel safe, they do not. Kimfer Flanery Rye, the founder of Inclusion Equals, is increasingly hearing 'employees fearful of associating with an Employee Resource Group (ERG) or affinity group because they worry it might 'out' them.' Can we imagine accepting an abysmal score and a patent lack of employee safety in any other aspect of enterprise? Laurie is deeply aware of the cultural shifts. 'There is less visible allyship, more tolerance of homophobia and transphobia, and a widespread feeling that the protections we thought we had are not as solid as we believed. People are feeling exposed, isolated, and unsure of who will stand with them if something happens, at work or beyond.' In their opinion, managers don't need to become identity experts, but they must know how to create respectful environments, respond to harm, and support their teams without placing the burden back on affected employees. We need to keep normalizing inclusive language, correcting missteps immediately, and avoiding the temptation to freeze or avoid uncomfortable situations. The best training is one that covers practical scenarios: What do you do when you witness harassment? How do you create team norms that include everyone from day one? According to Laurie, 'inclusion isn't an extra responsibility—it's a core management competency that organizations must develop systematically.' Queer and transgender people's bathroom use has been used to create division by conservative bad actors. Here's the thing, no employee should be left to negotiate basic dignity on their own. Clear, affirming policies for bathroom and facility access are a must, even for organizations with remote or hybrid teams. Physical safety extends to everyday workplace design: Do name badges and ID systems reflect chosen names? Are company events and gatherings designed with diverse attendees in mind? These details matter enormously for daily comfort and inclusion. Kirk Mead, the founder of Carrington Group invites us to think about 'social safety' when planning for LGBTQ+ employees. He says, 'Social safety is a negotiated set of conditions cultivated and cared for through community with those we wish to experience it.' He adds, 'I cannot make something safe for you if I have not made it safe with you.' Organizations can no longer assume domestic travel is safe and need to proactively think proactively about travel accommodations for LGBTQ+ employees. With varying state laws and some locations such as Texas and Florida pose real safety risks. Laurie shares, 'offering travel opt-outs, additional safety planning, or alternative arrangements demonstrates genuine care for employee wellbeing.' Planning should also extend to virtual spaces, including video call etiquette, name display protocols, and digital platform accessibility. Silence is never the neutral choice. Especially when employees' rights and safety are under attack. Organizations that benefit from LGBTQ+ talent and leadership have a responsibility to speak up when harmful laws and rhetoric target these same communities. Laurie notes, 'this doesn't mean issuing statements about every political development, but it does mean recognizing when legislation directly affects your workforce and choosing not to look away.' Public advocacy can take many forms: supporting advocacy organizations, opposing discriminatory legislation, joining business coalitions for equality, or simply making internal statements that acknowledge current challenges. In the past year, 35% of LGBTQ+ workers have heard negative comments about LGBTQ+ people at work, making visible leadership support even more crucial. If public advocacy isn't feasible, organizations can still acknowledge what's happening internally through thoughtful communications to staff, leadership modeling in meetings, or creating space to discuss the impact of current events. Employees notice who speaks up and who only shows support when it's convenient. Elyse Gordon, Director of Programs at Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, says this can occur in a myriad of ways, "For managers, it could mean tracking the news and being proactive with messaging to your team so they know you're paying attention; for leaders, it can mean offering a supportive lunch and learn or processing space for employees who are navigating the current political environment. LGBTQ+ employees and allies notice when these are missing. The silence is deafening." Organizations should understand that consequences of inadequate action are not only severe for employees, but will be harmful in the long run for the organizations themselves; for individuals , it means showing up to work in survival mode, constantly scanning for threats, and often hiding essential parts of their identity leading to burnout, isolation and talented people opting out of leadership opportunities or leaving entirely. For organizations, the costs include broken trust, higher turnover, reputational damage, and missed opportunities for innovation. More fundamentally, workplaces that fail to protect LGBTQ+ employees become sources of harm rather than safety—a reputation that's difficult to repair once established. Creating truly inclusive workplaces for LGBTQ+ employees requires sustained commitment that extends far beyond Pride Month proclamations. It demands policy changes, skills development, resource allocation, and leadership courage. Most importantly, it requires recognizing that in this moment, doing nothing is not neutral—it's a choice that employees notice and remember. Angie Nuevacamina, Redmond City Councilmember emphasizes, 'Culture change doesn't happen at the margins—it starts at the top. When executive leaders visibly engage in a meaningful way, allocate resources, and hold themselves accountable, it signals that LGBTQ+ inclusion isn't optional or seasonal—it's a core organizational value.' The organizations that step up now, when support matters most, will not only protect vulnerable employees but also build the kind of workplace culture that attracts and retains top talent regardless of identity. In an era of mounting challenges, employers have the opportunity to become trusted sources of safety and affirmation. The question isn't whether you can afford to act—it's whether you can afford not to.
Daily Mail
25-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
More than a third of white men fear they're being held back at work because of their race and gender - with 'millions walking on eggshells' in the office 'too scared to speak freely'
More than a third of young white men in Britain fear they are losing out on promotions because of their race and gender, a new poll has revealed. The survey by JL Partners found 36 per cent of white men held concerns about being held back at work. It also found two-fifths (41 per cent) of white men feel anxious that they can be sacked for doing or saying the wrong thing. And almost half of white men (46 per cent) now censor jokes or give honest, but respectful, feedback to colleagues because of a fear it could affect their careers. It was claimed the findings showed how 'millions of men are walking around on eggshells at work too scared to speak freely'. There were also warnings that male despondency about their futures was 'pushing men towards populism' and social media 'influencers' such as Andrew Tate. JL Partners polled a nationally representative sample of 823 white adult men across the UK. The survey was commissioned as part of a new YouTube and podcast series called 'White Men Can't Work'. It also showed that nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of white men think they are discriminated against because of their race or gender. More than one in three (34 per cent) of white men now think that white men are the least valued workers in their workplace. And nearly one in three white men (31 per cent) said they think their sons will have fewer opportunities because of their race or gender, the survey found. Award-winning documentary-maker Tim Samuels, the former host of the BBC show Men's Hour, has created the 'White Men Can't Work' series. He said: 'Millions of men are walking around on eggshells at work too scared to speak freely - whilst knowing that being male can now be a disaster for your career. 'The scale of discrimination, self-censorship and anxiety is staggering. 'White Men Can't Work has spoken to guys who've been sacked literally just for being men, or pushed out over crazy micro-aggression such as talking about the male and female ends of cables. 'Younger men are very despondent about their futures. All this is pushing men towards populism and the likes of Andrew Tate. 'Of course racism and sexism have to be stamped out but our biggest companies and institutions have implemented a very divisive and ideological form of DEI that demonises white men, disregards free speech and, when you look at the data, doesn't even help those it was meant to. 'We need smarter ways to tackle discrimination that actually work.' Tate, a self-described misogynist, has amassed millions of social media followers in recent years, often with expletive-laden rants about women. Police chiefs have cautioned about the impact of male 'influencers' such as him. The first episode of White Men Can't Work will be released tomorrow on YouTube, Apple podcasts and Spotify.
Irish Times
09-05-2025
- Irish Times
Hotel manager fired for bullying gay colleague wins compensation for lack of appeal
A hotel night manager sacked for bullying a gay colleague has won €3,000 for unfair dismissal because his employer missed an email from him attempting to appeal his firing. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found the hotel operator, Cantarini Limited 'acted reasonably' by sacking the worker, Omar Mohammed Osman – but breached the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 when it missed his email asking to exercise his right of appeal, and failed to respond. Mr Osman, who was a night manager at the City Quay aparthotel in Dublin city Centre, was sacked on foot of findings that he was bullying a gay colleague, Mr D, because of his sexuality. However, Mr Osman argued that he was accused of homophobia in a 'thinly veiled attempt to penalise him' for raising concerns about how he was being treated by managers. READ MORE Mr D had complained that Mr Osman called him 'a big homosexual' and 'princess', the WRC noted. Mr D further alleged that Mr Osman called him by a nickname that 'sounded like he was being referred to as an animal' – as well as whistling at him and mocking his accent. Mr Osman's evidence to the WRC was that he has 'no issue with homosexuals' and is 'not homophobic', the adjudicator hearing the case noted. He stated that he couldn't have whistled at his former colleague, because he did not 'know how to whistle'. He also told the tribunal that when he used the word 'princess', he had been referring to a female colleague, the decision recorded. His position was that none of the allegations made against him by Mr D were true. The tribunal was told that before Mr D's complaint, Mr Osman had received a written warning by his manager for 'letting the team down' by leaving work around 30 minutes into a shift in December 2023. However, Mr Osman complained to the company that his line manager and other staff had been 'in the back office when they should have been working' and that the manager was 'shouting and cursing' at him, the tribunal heard. The tribunal heard that Mr Osman emailed the company's HR manager complaining of 'bullying' from a night duty team leader, Mr L, on March 14th, 2024, two days before he was interviewed for the first time in connection with the harassment complaint against him. He formalised the grievance later in the month, before being interviewed again in connection with the dignity at work investigation. Five days later, the disciplinary process concluded with findings that Mr Osman had been 'bullying and harassing a colleague in relation to their sexual orientation and race', and he was dismissed. After the matter was heard by the WRC in January, Mr Osman's legal team furnished the WRC with an email he had sent asking to appeal the dismissal. The respondent's head of human resources, Victoria Scrase, told the WRC there was no response because the person Mr Osman had written to had themselves left the company four days after Mr Osman's sacking. Mr Osman's position was that it was 'unfair to investigate a complaint made about him when he had been complaining for six months about how he was treated and nothing had been done'. His barrister, Joseph Bradley BL, instructed by Melissa Wynne of Ormonde Solicitors, submitted that his client had been subjected to 'aggressive and violent outbursts at work' and had been met with a 'dismissive' stance when he first complained in October 2023. 'He was accused of homophobia, in a thinly veiled attempt to penalise him for raising concerns about how he was treated by managers,' Mr Bradley submitted. Adjudicator Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision that even at the hearing before the WRC, Mr Osman seemed to be 'unaffected by the possibility that he offended his colleague'. She did not accept his explanation for his use of the word 'princess', she wrote. Will DoorDash takeover of Deliveroo mean better pay and conditions for gig economy workers? Listen | 28:33 'A simple acknowledgment of the effect that his behaviour had on his colleague may have made a difference and could have avoided his dismissal,' Ms Byrne added. She said she could see no alternative except to find the company was 'reasonable' to dismiss Mr Osman, a worker she wrote was 'unable to see the effect of his behaviour… and apologise for the distress he had caused'. 'It is very regrettable that he didn't seek some wise counsel before he engaged in the disciplinary procedure that ended with his dismissal,' she added. However, she concluded that because the company did not respond to an email from Mr Osman seeking to exercise his right of appeal, the dismissal was unfair because of this 'procedural failure'. Ms Byrne rejected further claims of penalisation in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by Mr Osman. Mr Osman's position was that he was only accused of homophobia and subjected to disciplinary action as a reaction to complaining about Mr L. Ms Byrne concluded that that Mr Osman had played a part in the conflict among staff and that his grievances were addressed by management. He 'was attempting to distract attention' from Mr D's complaint against him when he raised his grievances in March 2024, she added.
