Discrimination Against Homosexuals in the Workplace Essay

Discrimination Against Homosexuals in the Workplace - Essay Example Outline The main argument of the paper concerns a mythic nature of federal acts, prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace. On the one hand, the Acts of 1975 and 2000 are focused on homosexuals’ rights protection in the workplace, but in reality, a few companies have been acting in compliance with the principles propagated by these Acts. Moreover, a straight society is not ready to accept homosexuals to the fullest extent. Social norms, moral underpinnings and stereotypes have always caused a negative impact on homosexuals in different spheres of their activity. Introduction From the historical perspective, the world’s governments were not too much enthusiastic about hiring gays or lesbians. This group of people was restricted from their rights’ protection, the grounds for dismissal were also found in homosexuality and many other negative impacts were caused by homosexuality until 1975. After 1975 a gradual shift of legal policies protecting rights of homosexuals emerged. Further on this tendency was developed in the Acts of 2000 (Dipboye & Colella, 2005). Nevertheless, it is relevant for the government not only to introduce regulations against homosexuals’ discrimination in the workplace, but also implement them in practice. Legal aspects In 1975 the Sex Discrimination Act was approved. Nevertheless, there are many arguments concerning interpretation of this Act: â€Å"†¦the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of ‘sex’ does not include a prohibition against discrimination on grounds of ‘sexual orientation† (Estlund, 2003). Therefore, an intrusion in the sexual life of homosexuals has been practiced by the majority of the companies. A so-called lavender ceiling for homosexuals was invented in some companies. Courts have taken different paths in spite of adopted federal regulations: â€Å"Although the courts rejected immorality as grounds for dismissing gay employees, the ir deference to administrative expertise and administrators' reliance on a common sense standard meant that distaste for homosexuals bolstered national security concerns† (Estlund, 2003). Thus, it is necessary not only to implement Acts against discrimination in the workplace, not only â€Å"on the paper†, but also in practice. The government has to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace in accordance with the Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation (27 November 2000). By December 2003 these legal regulations had to be implemented to the fullest extent. Unfortunately, many homosexuals come across oppressing policies in their workplaces. The courts are not much concerned about sexual discrimination in the workplace. Very often legal regulations and rules are not efficient in practice. There is an interesting quotation concerning legal regulations on homosexuals’ discrimination in the workplace: â€Å"They [courts] treat disc rimination against women with small children as actionable sex discrimination, along with discrimination against aggressive women and effeminate men. Yet, for reasons not fully articulated, they refuse to treat discrimination against men in dresses as actionable† (Yuracko, 2003). It is evident that courts’ actions are full of inconsistencies. These decisions may at first look intricate and unprincipled. There is a need to propagate social policies directed on development of homogenized workplace. Employers’