Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 07:56:10 GMT From: stonewal@georgej.demon.co.uk (Support) *************************************************** * * * Less Equal than Others * * * * A survey of Lesbians and gay men at work * * * * By: Anya Palma * * * * Stonewall - Working for lesbian & gay equality * * * * (c) Stonewall 1993 * * * *************************************************** NOTE: A printed copy of this survey can be obtained from Stonewall at a cost of GBP 5.00 and postage. Their address can be found at the end of this survey. This survey has been divided into three parts for e- mail transmission. Please check that you have all three parts. The total size is over 120k. CONTENTS -------- Acknowledgements Introduction Research method Discrimination Harassment Avoidance and concealment Equal opportunities Equal pay for equal work The law Recommendations Good practice guidelines Further information ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ---------------- This survey would not have been possible without the hard work and support of many people, in particular Linda Blake, who worked on the survey for most of her year out from the University of North London, and Antonia Bunnin and Gavin Gilligan, who also helped with interviews and data processing. Thanks are also due to Terry Harding, Angela Mason and Suad El-Amin for help and support throughout the project; to Darren Kaye, Heidi Scanlon, Lee Badgett, and Marc Burke PhD for advice on questionnaire design; to Gill Smith for help with the piloting; to Michael Howarth, for help with computer programming; to Robin Allen and Terry Munyard for help with the chapter on the law; and to David Benedict, Roger Goode, Barry Creasey, Tony Hutt, Phil Greaseley and Maggie Holgate of LAGER, and Douglas Slater for comments on the text. Special thanks are due to Gay Times, the Drill Hall, Gay West, NALGO, Kenric, Black Lesbian and Gay Centre, Outright Scotland and many other groups for help in distributing the survey; and of course to everyone who took place in the survey. This research was carried out with the financial assistance of The Isis Trust. We are also grateful to Kingfisher plc who helped pay for the report to be printed. INTRODUCTION ------------ When we decided to carry out this survey we knew, just from the phone calls and letters we get, that lesbians and gay men still face serious discrimination and harassment at work. But most of these cases could not be publicised, and besides we had no evidence of the scale of the problem. We also wanted to know more about how discrimination affects people -- not just how many people face discrimination and harassment, but how many more feel obliged to remain in the closet in order to avoid these problems. RESULTS We were overwhelmed by the response to the survey. Nearly 2,000 people replied, and the findings show that the calls and letters we get are just the tip of the iceberg: * DISCRIMINATION: 16% of respondents (1 in 6) had at least one experience of discrimination; a further 21% (1 in 5) suspected they had. 8% had actually been dismissed because of their sexuality. * HARASSMENT: 48% of respondents (nearly 1 in 2) said they had been harassed because of their sexuality. The harassment described ranged from mild to very serious, and included unwanted jokes, innuendo and loaded comments, verbal abuse, being sent to Coventry, malicious gossip, name-calling, bullying and victimisation, being "outed", false accusations of child abuse, graffiti, abusive phone calls, anonymous mail, damage to property, blackmail, violence and even death threats. * AVOIDING DISCRIMINATION: 24% of respondents (1 in 4) had avoided certain jobs, careers or employers for fear of discrimination because of their sexuality. * CONCEALMENT: Two thirds of respondents who were working concealed their sexuality from people they worked with. 19% concealed their sexuality from everyone at work, and 49% concealed it from some people. Only 11% of all respondents had never concealed their sexuality at work. These figures show that discrimination by employers is only part of the problem facing lesbians and gay men in the workplace. Harassment is probably the most serious problem. And discrimination avoidance, such as being in the closet, is the most common experience, affecting even those who have not actually suffered discrimination or harassment but fear they might if they were to "come out". Together these three factors -- discrimination, harassment, and the closet -- combine to keep the problem underground, where it is difficult to deal with. You cannot confront discrimination if you need to stay in the closet to avoid harassment. You cannot complain that you are being harassed if you fear discrimination from management should you come out to them. If you are in the closet, you cannot go to management and ask for sexuality to be included in the equal opportunities policy. But without inclusion in the policy, few are prepared to risk coming out. This survey - the biggest ever of its kind - clearly demonstrates the existence and scale of discrimination and harassment. The question now is, what can we do about it? The title of this report refers to both the position in law and, arguably, the attitude of the present government. Discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, colour, ethnic or national origin is unlawful, but discrimination on other grounds is ignored or even condoned. The legal position can be summarised by saying that the law does not yet regard prejudice against lesbians and gay men as always unacceptable. We turn now to the government position. GOVERNMENT POLICY Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is actually practised as a matter of policy by the Ministry of Defence, which refuses to employ lesbians and gay men in the armed forces, yet describes itself as an equal opportunities employer. The MoD is probably the only employer left in this country to admit it sacks people because of their sexuality. Neither the law as it stands nor the government prevent this. In other departments there has been some progress. In 1991, the Prime Minister announced that homosexuality would no longer be a bar to receiving a security clearance in positive vetting. But the fact that the MoD is allowed to continue to dismiss lesbians and gay men regardless of their service record or exemplary conduct is seen by many as a signal that the government does not take discrimination against lesbians and gay men seriously, even in its own ranks. Nor is there any mention of lesbians and gay men in Department of Employment guidelines on equal opportunities for employers. Many Conservatives are opposed to using legislation to tackle discrimination, believing it is better and more effective to encourage good practice by education and persuasion. We do not agree with this, but it is a valid argument, if it were consistently applied. However, while the Department has -- to its credit -- brought out guidelines and sponsored work to encourage good practice in employing people with HIV and AIDS, and recently launched a 5-point action plan to combat age discrimination, so far it has done nothing to encourage good practice in the employment of lesbians and gay men. The government must be called upon to state whether it considers discrimination on the grounds of sexuality to be acceptable, and if not, to indicate what steps it intends to take against it. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES All this serves to underline the importance of action by lesbians and gay men themselves, and by employers, managers and trade unions, to ensure that lesbians and gay men are included on the equal opportunities agenda. The survey findings were quite hopeful in this respect. 79% of respondents who were working (4 out of 5) said their employer had an equal opportunities policy. And 58% of these said the policy included sexuality. Clearly equal opportunities have now gone mainstream, and many lesbians and gay men have already succeeded in ensuring that they are included in this trend. However, much is yet to be done. Many lesbians and gay men are still not covered by an equal opportunities policy. The survey findings suggest that a good equal opportunities policy can make a difference. Trade unions can take much of the credit for the spread of equal opportunities policies. It is hardly accidental that we found equal opportunities policies to be much more widespread in the public sector and voluntary sector than in the private sector. However, equal opportunities policies are increasingly being recognised as good management practice, good for business as well as employee relations, and we can expect to see a rapid growth in the number of private sector employers adopting equal opportunities policies in the 1990s. As Nigel Whittaker, Corporate Affairs Director of Kingfisher, expressed it, "We need to recruit and retain a highly motivated employee base if we are to succeed as a business. That means harnessing the talents and commitment of everyone, wherever we operate, irrespective or race, sexual orientation or any other aspect of the wealth of human diversity. The same goes for our customers -- we need to attract, rather than alienate them." EQUAL PAY Finally, of course, equal opportunities policies must be put into practice. Only 14% of respondents to our survey said their partners were treated equally with heterosexual partners in terms of their pensions and other benefits. This amounts to unequal pay for equal work. If it were based on sex it would be unlawful; because it is based on sexuality it is not only lawful, but taken for granted. It often comes as a revelation to managers when we point out that if you make travel concessions (for example) available to heterosexual partners of employees, but not to same sex partners, you are not paying all staff equally. Yet once we explain the point it is clearly seen as discrimination. And unlike individual cases of discrimination -- which are often difficult to prove -- unequal pay packages cannot be denied or explained away. That is why we believe equal pay for equal work will soon become a major issue in lesbian and gay workplace campaigns. Many unions have already taken this issue up, and a number of employers have now acted to end unequal pay -- including British Airways, London Underground and the BBC. These employers have shown it can be done. There can be no excuse for others not to follow. THE NEED FOR CHANGE We believe there is increasing awareness of the impact on productivity of social factors in the workplace. Workplaces are social environments, and need to reflect changing attitudes in society. The reality is that with increasing numbers of lesbians and gay men choosing to be open about their relationships and sexual orientation, a working environment that does not take this into account can cause real problems for these people and affect performance and productivity. Whether you are a politician, an employer, a manager, a trade unionist or an activist, and whether you are gay or straight, we hope this report makes you think about the evil of discrimination and what you can do to end it. After all, no one can be equal while some are less equal than others. RESEARCH METHOD --------------- The aim of our research was to investigate the extent and effects of discrimination and harassment experienced by lesbians and gay men at work and in seeking work, the extent to which they feel obliged to conceal their sexuality at work, and whether equal opportunities policies can help. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON DISCRIMINATION To date there has been virtually no large scale research on discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the workplace. The NCCL (now Liberty) carried out two surveys of local education authorities and social services committees in the mid 70s, asking about their attitudes towards employing homosexuals. They found some evidence of discrimination, but the research is probably too dated now to be relevant. Lesbian and Gay Employment Rights (LAGER) conducted two surveys in the mid 80s, one of lesbians and one of gay men, exploring their experience of discrimination in the workplace. Both surveys had a small sample size and the findings were inconclusive in some respects. In the survey of gay men ("Gay Men at Work", LAGER 1986) 12 out of 200 respondents (6%) said they had been sacked because they were gay, and 51 (25%) said that being gay had led to trouble at work. In the survey of lesbians ("All in a Day's Work", LAGER 1986) 151 out of 171 respondents had experienced problems at work because of being lesbian, including 12 cases of dismissal. The only similar survey carried out in recent years appears to be a survey of 465 workers in Milan, reported in "La Repubblica" on 5 February 1993, which found that one in four had been dismissed because of their sexuality. 39% of traders, 41% of managers, 43% of clerical workers, 46% of labourers, and 65% of teachers said that they had suffered discrimination at work. There has been no testing of employers to see how many would discriminate given the opportunity (a method that has often been used in the past to test for racial discrimination, and has recently been used to test for discrimination against people with disabilities). Nor has there been any research since the NCCL surveys into employers' attitudes towards employing lesbians and gay men. Stonewall is currently planning a survey of large private sector employers to find out how many include lesbians and gay men in their equal opportunities and harassment policies. THE QUESTIONNAIRE We drew up a questionnaire on two sides of A4 which addressed: * experience of discrimination and suspected discrimination * experience of harassment * avoiding discrimination * concealment of sexuality at work * equal opportunities policies * recognition of same-sex partners in fringe benefits Questions were also asked about age, sex, sexuality, race, job, income and employment sector, to provide a social profile of respondents and to allow us to explore any differences in experience of discrimination between different groups. Respondents were also invited to "Tell us your stories" by attaching written accounts of problems they had faced. Many did so, and some of these personal accounts have been included in this report. (All names have been changed except where permission has been obtained to use a person's real name.) THE SURVEY An important feature of the survey was that we circulated the questionnaire very widely in order to reach as many sections of the community as possible. Since it was not possible for us to select a representative sample -- no one knows what a representative sample of lesbians and gay men would look like -- we decided to look for a very large sample instead. This was only possible because in recent years the lesbian and gay community has expanded to the point where there are large mailing lists held by gay businesses and social groups. Many of these supported the aims of the research project and helped us to distribute the questionnaire. The mailing lists we used included Gay Times, the Drill Hall Arts Centre, Kenric, Black Lesbian and Gay Centre, OutRight Scotland, GayWest, NALGO lesbian and gay section, and various other lesbian and gay groups. A total of 20,000 copies of the questionnaire were distributed between August 1992 and May 1993. By June 1993 nearly 2,000 responses had been received, a response rate of 10%. We did not process questionnaires received after that point. THE SAMPLE 1,975 completed questionnaires were received. 102 of these identified themselves as heterosexual; these were excluded from the analysis. This left a sample of 1,873 who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. AGE The vast majority of respondents (96%) were aged between 21 and 60, i.e. of an age where they would currently be in the employment market. 72% were aged between 21 and 40, probably because older gay men and lesbians are less likely to have their names on a gay mailing list. This suggests that the levels of discrimination and harassment reported are representative of younger people who are relatively new to the employment market, and not just older respondents who could have experienced problems a long time ago. This was confirmed by analysis of the sample by age -- older groups had not experienced significantly more problems. over 60 3% 41-60 24% 31-40 41% 21-30 31% 16-20 1% SEX 40% of respondents were women and 60% were men, probably because it was easier to reach gay men using mailing lists than it was to reach lesbians. The female sample, 750 respondents, is still fairly large. When we analysed the results by sex, we found virtually no difference between the level of problems experienced by women and by men. For that reason we have not given breakdowns in the results published here. Female 40% Male 60% SEXUAL ORIENTATION 59% of respondents identified as gay; 36% identified as lesbian and 5% identified as bisexual. A higher number of women (7.5%) identified as bisexual than men (3.4%). The experiences of bisexual respondents were not found to deviate significantly from the experiences of lesbian and gay respondents, so we have not published breakdowns here. Bisexual (m) 2% Bisexual (f) 3% Gay 58% Lesbian 36% RACE 97% of respondents were white, 2% were Black and 1% were Asian. The sample is therefore under-representative of the ethnic minority population in the UK as a whole (5.5%). We found no significant differences between the levels of discrimination and harassment reported by different ethnic groups. This is perhaps not surprising as we were asking very specifically about discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Black 2% Asian 1% Jewish 3% Irish 4% White 97% EMPLOYMENT STATUS A large majority of respondents, 72%, were working full time, with a further 16% either working part time or self employed. Retired 3% Unemployed 4% Student 5% Employed p-t 6% Self Employed 10% Employed f-t 72% INCOME Respondents came from a broad range of income brackets, as indicated below. It was not possible to correlate current income with lifetime experience of discrimination or harassment, but analysis of those who were employed suggested that those who earned more found it less easy to be open about their sexuality (36% of those earning under œ10,000 were completely out at work, compared with 23% of those earning over œ30,000.) Not Stated 1% Over œ30,000 10% œ25,000 - œ29,999 8% œ20,000 - œ24,999 16% œ15,000 - œ19,999 25% œ10,000 - œ14,999 19% Less than œ10,000 21% EMPLOYMENT SECTOR Of the 1,603 respondents who were working full time, part time, or self-employed, nearly half were in the public sector. This is probably over-representative of the public sector, but still leaves substantial samples from the voluntary sector and the private sector. Voluntary Sector 10% Public Sector 49% Private Sector 41% Analysis of responses by employment sector showed significant differences between sectors in the extent to which respondents felt it necessary to conceal their sexuality, and the extent of equal opportunities policies. For details see the chapters on Avoiding Discrimination and Equal Opportunities. DISCRIMINATION -------------- It is unlawful in Britain for an employer to treat someone less favourably than others on the grounds of their sex, race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin. It is not unlawful to treat someone less favourably on the grounds of their sexuality. Employers are quite within their rights to decide not to hire someone because they are lesbian or gay, or not to promote them, or even in many cases to fire someone because they are lesbian or gay. The person dismissed would have to have been employed full time for two years with that employer before he or she could make a claim for unfair dismissal, and even then there would be no guarantee of such a claim succeeding (see chapter on the law for details). We asked about four kinds of discrimination: discrimination in recruitment, discrimination in granting promotion, attempted or threatened dismissal, and actual dismissal. We had to recognise that, in some cases, people may suspect discrimination, but not know for sure. For this reason we asked about known discrimination and suspected discrimination. 22% of respondents said they either knew or suspected they had been discriminated against in applying for work. Have you ever been denied a job because you were known or suspected to be lesbian or gay? (Base: all respondents) No 78% I suspect so 17% Yes, I know I have 5% A relatively small number of respondents felt sure they had been discriminated against in applying for a job, but rather more suspected this to be the case. Many people do not "come out" at interview (in the LAGER survey of 200 gay men in London, 78% said they did not) so employers would not always have the opportunity to discriminate at this stage. It should also be remembered that people do not always know that they have been discriminated against. The following examples illustrate cases where discrimination was known to our respondents. SIMON I occupy a relatively senior position in local government... I have only been out at work for one year and, although during that period I have been promoted within the organisation, I have been openly told that I would not have been appointed to my previous job within the organisation were it known at the time that I was gay. The line which my immediate supervisor takes is that I earned my respect during the time I was closeted but that I would not otherwise have been given the opportunity to earn that respect. A heterosexual respondent who works as a recruitment consultant sent us the following account: BRONWYN A former colleague refused to offer work to a gay candidate who had declared his HIV positive status to us, despite the fact that the candidate had been personally requested by the client company, was in good health, and had an above average work record. The candidate's HIV status was not given as the reason for the refusal to offer the candidate work (reasons given were "difficult to contact", "not right for the job" and "won't fit in to the team") but I am quite convinced this was the reason. * * * We then asked about discrimination in promotion. 24% of respondents either knew or suspected discrimination had affected their chances of promotion. Have you ever been denied promotion because you were known or suspected to be lesbian or gay? (Base: all respondents) No 76% I suspect so 19% Yes, I know I have 5% One respondent provided a graphic illustration of how, as a gay man, he was denied the chance of promotion to senior management: JOHN I was interviewed for internal promotion within X Bank [a major high street bank], but was not offered the post. I had more relevant qualifications and experience than the successful candidate, and better performance assessments. At interview I was asked questions like "I see you are not married -- is there any particular reason?" I evaded that one only to be asked "Aren't you interested in women then?" I remember responding that women played a big part in my life both at work and among my friends. I asked the director for the reasons why I was not offered the job. The reasons provided verbally by the director were: a) I was not seen as having a strong enough personality to manage a large number of people (40 staff). (I already managed 27 and had an "A" assessment for staff management for the previous two years.) They said I came across as a weak individual at the interview, yet my superior wrote on my reference that I had a strong personality and a firm management style. b) The job was a high pressure role requiring long hours. As a single man I did not have the domestic support system (i.e. a wife) to be successful in the role. All others at this grade are married. "It would help a lot, you know, John, if you were married. How would you cope at social engagements attended by couples? It's just not done you know." In short, I believe I was discriminated against because I am gay and the rest of senior management at X Bank are not. I do not fit their model of a senior manager. It's all rather odd as my relationship has survived whereas I can think of several colleagues who have been through unpleasant divorces and have re-married. * * * Being denied promotion because of your sexuality is bad enough, but even worse is to lose your job because of it. 10% of our respondents had faced attempted dismissal; half of these had also been dismissed. 8% of all respondents had been dismissed because of their sexuality. There was some overlap between these groups. Altogether 12% of respondents -- one in eight -- had been threatened with dismissal and/or dismissed because of their sexuality. Have you ever faced attempted or threatened dismissal because you were known or suspected to be lesbian or gay? (Base: all respondents) No 90% Yes 10% Have you ever been dismissed (or forced to resign) because you were known or suspected to be lesbian or gay? (Base: all respondents) No 92% Yes 8% For these questions we did not offer the option of "I suspect so", as we assumed that by the time people came to be dismissed or threatened with dismissal they would know the reason. The following stories sent in with survey returns suggest that in many of these cases respondents were forced to resign rather than be dismissed. We received similar stories from other respondents: MATTHEW I had a partner, Paul, from 1962-1974. We lived together and were accepted as partners by the regional staff of a large multinational for whom I was a senior sales rep (having worked there since 1960). Paul was killed in an air disaster in 1974 whilst returning from holiday. I had to take additional time off work to attend to identification, funeral etc. This brought matters to the attention of company HQ. I was sent down for an interview, ostensibly for promotion. They asked a key question "We see you are single, do you have a girlfriend?" "No, I'm gay" -- end of interview. On each sales reorganisation thereafter I was downgraded until I ended up filling shelves in supermarkets. I obtained another job and resigned. I took them to industrial tribunal for constructive dismissal. They didn't defend. RICHARD I worked in a job where the bosses were a nationally elected council with a President and two Vice presidents. After 7 years in the job, the last two of those as the Chief Executive, my briefcase mysteriously disappeared at the annual conference. Apart from work documents, there was a copy of "Gay News" in the briefcase. I knew who had taken the briefcase but I had no concrete evidence. A month or so later, anonymous letters were sent to the president and various other honorary officers of the organisation about me being "queer". The president was very good about it and the ploy did not work. A few months later, the person who I suspected gained a position of authority within the organisation and started giving me impossible tasks. A couple of months passed and I was then summoned to a special meeting of the officers of the organisation and told to "pack my bags". I threatened them with an industrial tribunal and as much adverse publicity as possible. They eventually agreed to pay me a very tidy sum as severance pay -- far more than I would have got from an industrial tribunal. I took the money and left because working with the person concerned would have been absolutely impossible. Although my gayness was never mentioned once during severance discussions, there was no doubt in my mind that it was the evidence in the stolen briefcase which triggered the whole affair. MICHAEL I work in computers, as a software engineer. In 1985 I obtained a job with [a well-known oil company]. Some months later, a colleague asked whether a particular name meant anything to me. It didn't; but I subsequently heard that it was a woman who had apparently met me when, as a student, I founded the college Gaysoc. Not long after, I was forced to resign. The reason was expressed in the meaningless phrase: "You have failed to mesh with the company." As I had worked there for only 7 months, I had no legal protection. I then got a job with [another company]. In the meantime I had also found a lover, and the following year we set up a joint household. The secretaries knew this, and when one of them was trying to cajole me into attending the firm's Christmas do (with spouses), she suggested I should take my partner. I did, and within a couple of weeks I was made "redundant". Was this a coincidence? JIM I worked for a voluntary organisation providing supported accommodation for people with mental illness. I was put under severe pressure as the organisation was concerned about me working with male clients. No such pressure was put on heterosexual workers working with the opposite sex. I was "forced" to give up my involvement with a gay helpline and attendance at local gay venues. The "force" was by means of very subtle but concealed psychological pressure. I eventually resigned with reactive depression. * * * FACTORS THAT LEAD TO DISCRIMINATION We asked about two possible factors which we suspected to be common triggers to discrimination. Both relate to men rather than women. The first factor we asked about was conviction for a consenting sexual offence such as soliciting or gross indecency, offences which have no heterosexual equivalent. Of the 194 male respondents who said they knew they had faced discrimination of one kind or another, 25 (13%) said the discrimination followed a conviction for a consenting sexual offence. This seems quite high and underlines the need for a review of the law on gross indecency and soliciting. The second factor we asked about was whether the discrimination was AIDS or HIV related (regardless of whether the respondent actually had HIV). Of the 194 respondents who had faced known discrimination, 14 (7%) said the discrimination was AIDS or HIV related. It was not possible to work out what kind of discrimination had been faced in these cases, since many respondents had experienced more than one kind of discrimination. For details of the law as it concerns gay men who face discrimination following convictions for sexual offences, or in relation to HIV/AIDS, see the chapter on the law. SUMMARY In this chapter we have looked at respondents' experience of discrimination in four areas: applying for work, achieving promotion, threatened dismissal and actual dismissal. Defining discrimination to include all four areas, we looked at the number of respondents who said they had experienced discrimination or suspected discrimination in at least one instance. Taking all four areas together, 37% of respondents either know or suspect that they have faced discrimination in the workplace. Of these, 16% have had at least one experience of known discrimination, and 21% suspect they have been discriminated against at least once. Yet it cannot be assumed that the 63% who have never to their knowledge experienced discrimination on the grounds of their sexuality are not affected by the existence of discrimination. They may have experienced harassment; they may be in the closet; or they may be taking other steps to avoid discrimination and harassment, as the following chapters will show. HARASSMENT ---------- Discrimination from employers is only part of the problem for lesbians and gay men at work. They can also face all kinds of unpleasant behaviour from people they work with. We call this kind of behaviour harassment, although it can take many different forms. If they are "out" at work, or they are found out, it can mean hostile treatment, being sent to Coventry or being threatened with exposure. If they are not out, but suspicion falls on them, it can mean being the target of persistent questions or other attempts to test them. If they are not suspected, it can mean having to listen to anti-gay abuse or jokes which are not directed at them but which they feel powerless to challenge. Perhaps the most shocking finding of our survey was that 48% of respondents considered they had been harassed because of their sexuality. Have you ever been harassed at work because you were known or suspected to be lesbian or gay? (Base: 1,845 respondents) No 52% Yes 48% With harassment, unlike discrimination, you always know when you have experienced it. This may help to explain why more respondents said they have experienced harassment than discrimination, but the very high number of people saying they have been harassed also suggests that harassment is the major problem for lesbians and gay men at work. If you have been harassed at work, please indicate the form this harassment took: (Base: 881 respondents who had been harassed) Physical Violence 5% Threats 14% Aggressive Questions 41% Homophobic Abuse 51% Jokes or Teasing 79% Other 17% Descriptions of what people mean by harassment emerge from a number of sources. Bronwyn, the recruitment consultant mentioned above, sent us the following account of a case she had witnessed: BRONWYN A gay candidate suffered great discrimination, of the petty, vindictive type, on the site where he was temporarily employed. Permanent employees sent him to Coventry, made him late for lunch, gave him false instructions, allocated him menial duties (not as specified to us), and accused him of being late for work (presumably with the intention of reducing his pay). The supervisor, after two weeks, asked us to withdraw this candidate from the workplace on the grounds that he was "unreliable, and didn't possess the required skills". Although these grounds were disputable, the candidate himself asked us to withdraw him from the site because he "couldn't stand it any longer". Had this candidate been a permanent employee of long standing, the behaviour directed at him would surely have constituted constructive dismissal. * * * Similar descriptions emerge from those respondents who felt the categories we suggested did not match their experience. Under "Other -- please state" we found a variety of brief descriptions, sometimes in only one or two words, of the kinds of harassment people faced. We include these descriptions here as we feel they speak louder than any statistics. By far the largest group under "Other" was those who spoke of being ignored or excluded. Descriptions given included: "silence" (4 cases), "being ignored" (3), "sent to Coventry" (3), "exclusion" (3), "avoidance" (3), "isolation" (3), "being given the cold shoulder" (2), "certain colleagues do not speak to me", "shunned", "loneliness", "refusal to speak to me -- and baleful stares", "general unpleasant / unfriendly attitude", "ostracised". The next biggest group under "Other" was "sexual harassment" (20 cases). In most cases this was from men, i.e. homosexual harassment of men, heterosexual harassment of women. One man complained of sexual harassment from women, and one woman complained of harassment from a closet lesbian. Strictly speaking we would not describe sexual harassment as harassment on the grounds of sexuality (since heterosexuals also face sexual harassment) but it is interesting that so many respondents did. Some spoke of what we might call "indirect harassment" by unthinking colleagues: "ignorance of co-workers", "assumptions of heterosexuality", "indirect harassment -- I have to tolerate homophobic comments, jokes, assumptions that one is celibate or straight but not lesbian or gay", "listening to homophobia regularly", "homophobic comments in hearing but not said to me!", "homophobic atmosphere". Others spoke of more pointed behaviour: "innuendo" (2), "loaded comments in my earshot", "loaded questions", "pupils physically blocking my path asking questions" (a lesbian teacher who is not out at work). Gossip and speculation was a problem: "malicious gossip & verbal homophobic abuse", "talking behind my back" (3), "speculation about my sexuality", "good friends at work have been asked about me by superior officers and I have been told by friends that I have been discussed at higher levels", "people spreading rumours", "verbal harassment by innuendo". Two respondents had been "outed" (exposed as gay) by colleagues; one of these had been "outed" to her family. A few respondents spoke of false accusations and assumptions of child abuse: "accused of having 'touched' another employee", "prevented from working with young people in community project", "secret meeting of governors to decide if I were a paedophile" (a head teacher), "accusations to police" (a teacher), "implied sexual interest in female users" (a women's officer). Other descriptions included the following: "graffiti" (4); "abusive phone calls" (4); "anonymous mail", "death letters"; "damage to my property", "damage to my car", "damage to car, my leaflets covered with shit put in my office"; "verbal abuse", "name-calling", "homophobic remarks", "cat calls"; "some colleagues have said that they will not work with me"; "being put in a room to work alone"; "included in a practical joke letter to tabloid agony aunt"; "people filled in advertising coupons so I received mail addressed to Miss" (a gay man); "bullying & victimisation", "intimidation", "dirty tricks to get me into trouble", "behind the back moves to have me fired", "sabotaged arrangements for promotion interview"; "prayed over, offers of treatment" (a consultant psychologist); "threatened with blackmail after firing an employee"; "area manager going into my quarters and private possessions without my knowledge"; "indecent assault"; "attacked with dogs on children's playground where I worked". A lesbian in the armed forces wrote "interviewed aggressively by Special Investigation Bureau"; a former member of the US navy wrote "imprisonment". Finally there were some responses which we might class as discrimination but respondents evidently saw as harassment: "my boss said to me 'you will never be promoted because you are a lesbian'"; "inexplicable demotion"; "refused permission to represent lesbian & gay organisation in a personal capacity"; "warnings about my public profile"; "refused annual leave to look after sick partner". We conducted follow-up interviews with 8 women and 8 men who had been harassed. The following case histories are drawn from some of those interviews: LESLIE Leslie experienced harassment in a service company. It was her first job in London and she was not out at work. Most of the harassment was verbal, and was directed against another woman who was the only out lesbian working there. Leslie then became the target of speculation and jokes from her team. She became embarrassed if she had to work with the other lesbian as she felt she was being watched. Her team would talk about the woman in front of Leslie to watch her reaction and make her embarrassed. This treatment spilled over into other areas; there was lots of giggling, she was not invited to social events and she felt generally ostracised. Leslie's work was affected. She felt very vulnerable and completely alone. She was not as assertive as usual at the weekly team meetings. She became quite reticent and intimidated. She had no one she could talk to within the company, she ate her lunch on her own and felt very lonely. She would not talk about her personal life, and only ever gave "neutral" replies when asked about it. Leslie did not speak to anyone in management as she felt it would make no difference. She thinks the manager knew what was going on but she had no contact with him. She was not in a trade union. Leslie was so unhappy in this job, she only stayed eight months. She was determined to find a job where she could be out, and that is what she did. At the interview for her present job she said she was a lesbian and asked if this would be a problem. They said it would not, and if she had any problems she could take it up with them. One of the panel was a gay man. Leslie recommends being out at work. She feels it is less stressful and at the end of the day you are more your own person. JASON Jason has experienced harassment and discrimination in three jobs. The first time was when he had a summer job doing office work for an insurance company. After about a month, Jason noticed that a lesbian worker was treated with great hostility by the other workers. Jason was not out at work. One day a colleague of Jason's made an anti-gay remark. Jason confronted this man, saying he found the remark hurtful and offensive because he himself was gay, but asking him not to tell the others. The next day, Jason arrived at work to find no one was talking to him. His colleague had betrayed his confidence. From then on, the atmosphere at work was completely different. People talked about him behind his back, but no longer spoke to him directly. His supervisor, who until then had got on very well with him, now ignored him and no longer offered him overtime. He was no longer invited to socialise after work. Jason's work suffered, as he found it difficult to ask for help with nobody talking to him. Jason left after six weeks of this treatment. The next experience was during another temporary job, this time as a data inputter for a small firm of headhunters. Again, he was not out to anyone at work. Several people in his office, including his manager, frequently made offensive remarks about lesbians and gay men. Jason felt trapped: he hated the situation he was in, but couldn't afford to leave the job or to speak up and risk being sacked. "The worst thing was having to sit and listen to it, wanting to say something but being too worried about money to make myself vulnerable." Jason's third experience of harassment occurred when he was working for a large firm of accountants. Again it was a temporary job. After a few weeks, his office was visited by the firm's area manager. This man referred to another worker as "that bloody queer" and "his bloody poofter friends". The man was also racist, asking one of the office workers why she didn't have "a little black boy to make the tea". Jason immediately stood up, told the area manager that he was gay and that he found his remarks deeply offensive. The area manager asked Jason "Do you know who I am?" Jason said he didn't care who he was, and resigned on the spot. Jason believes this incident gave him the confidence to confront homophobia and prejudice. He is glad he spoke out, and says he would do so again in a similar situation, instead of keeping quiet as he used to. SUE Sue works for a travel company in a managerial position. People became "cool" with her when they first found out she was a lesbian. One man tried to use the fact that she was a lesbian to influence her in her review of his skills. He made a veiled threat to expose her. She was only out to a few colleagues at the time. Sue did not refer this incident to a trade union, nor did she speak to her manager, as this would have involved coming out to him, which she was not prepared to do. She spoke to an openly lesbian colleague who advised her to call his bluff. She did, and nothing came of it, although she worried for a week about what would happen. He never repeated the threat. She now thinks little has been affected by the incident. She is completely out now and does not think this has affected her promotion prospects either. She feels that had she been completely out, the incident would not have happened. ANDREW Andrew worked as a press officer within the public relations department of a large UK company. He was out to all his colleagues. There was a general anti-gay attitude at high level, particularly at senior board level. One attitude relevant to Andrew's position as press officer was that it was considered harmful to the company's image that an "out" gay man or lesbian should represent the company to the public. One director in particular ("Peter") held firm views about "those sort of people", and about how the company should not be "promoting those queers", comments which he made in Andrew's presence. Everyone, including directors, knew that Andrew was gay. So even if Peter was not referring to Andrew specifically, it was clear by implication that he was referring to him. Moreover, a sympathetic female colleague told Andrew that Peter had told her she shouldn't be too friendly with Andrew or "people like that". Andrew's immediate superior was more open-minded and sympathetic. However, he was in a weak position within the power structure, and when Andrew raised the problem his attitude was "there's nothing we can do about it, I'm afraid. You'll just have to grin and bear it, sorry." Andrew applied for promotion after a few years in the company. He was shortlisted along with an external candidate. The other person was chosen. Andrew's superior told him it was likely that he hadn't been promoted because he was gay. Peter and another director, also known to be anti-gay, had sat in on the interviews, and they had a say in the final decision. Andrew became convinced that he was fighting a losing battle, and that there was no future for him in that company. He spent the next six months looking for another job. He then decided to become a PR consultant. Now he alone has to face up to his clients, and doesn't have his employers breathing down his neck and worrying that he might mention he is gay to the clients. He has found that on the occasions when a client does find out he is gay, there has been no negative effect on their working relationship. RACHEL Rachel experienced harassment from clients. She works in a drop-in centre for people with mental health problems. When Rachel started work there, homophobic remarks and abuse formed part of the everyday conversation of many clients, and indeed some of the staff. After she came out at work, the comments from staff members ceased. Rachel's problems began, however, when she tried to use the centre's equal opportunities policy to challenge the prejudices of the clients. It was widely accepted that racist or sexist remarks by clients would be challenged by staff. But Rachel's colleagues refused to confront clients who made homophobic remarks, despite the equal opportunities policy. When she raised this with her supervisor, he said she was "asking for it", that it was "unprofessional" to be out to clients, and that if she kept quiet about her sexuality she would not be faced with this problem. Rachel became increasingly depressed about her job, and her performance was affected. The situation took its toll on her health and she found herself taking sick leave as a result of the stress. Rachel eventually raised the issue with the director of the centre. Only then was the problem taken seriously by management. The issue was raised with her supervisor in his supervision sessions, and since then, she feels that his attitude has improved. Other staff have recognised that they have an obligation to challenge homophobia, just as they do racism and sexism. Rachel now feels much happier about her job. She feels that the equal opportunities policy was helpful. Her attempt to challenge the harassment was made "much easier, because it was all already there on paper". * * * AVOIDANCE AND CONCEALMENT ------------------------- Whenever a group faces discrimination and harassment, members of that group will take steps to avoid discrimination. This reduces the incidence of discrimination directly experienced by the group, which may give the impression that discrimination is not a great problem. However the need to take steps to avoid discrimination is itself another part of the problem faced by that group. Even in groups whose characteristics are self-evident e.g. ethnic minorities or women, steps are taken to avoid discrimination (for example avoiding certain areas, not going out alone after dark). With lesbians and gay men, there is much more scope for avoiding discrimination, as it is often possible to keep quiet about one's sexuality. This is probably the most common strategy for avoiding discrimination among lesbians and gay men. We examine the use of concealment below. The other way to avoid discrimination is to choose carefully who you work for. We asked respondents whether they had avoided certain jobs or fields in order to avoid discrimination. 24% of our respondents -- one in four -- said they were affected by such considerations in their choice of career or employer. Have you ever refused or avoided applying for work in a particular job or field (e.g. the armed forces) because you were lesbian or gay? (Base: all respondents) No 76% Yes 24% We asked those who replied yes to this question what jobs they avoided. The question was open but many of the replies fell into similar categories. The most common replies were: armed forces (13% of those who replied yes); teaching and other jobs working with children or young people (12%); homophobic fields or companies (12%); the police (9%), jobs requiring a security clearance (9%). 4% said they avoided the private sector and 3% said they avoided employers who had no equal opportunities policy. Some of these jobs need no longer be avoided. For example it used to be the case that homosexuality was seen as a security risk. Lesbians and gay men working in certain parts of the civil service risked losing their clearance if their sexuality became known. However in 1991 following lobbying by the First Division Association (a trade union for senior civil servants) the Prime Minister announced that homosexuality would no longer be a bar to receiving a security clearance. The armed forces, however, continue to maintain that homosexuality is "incompatible" with military service, so it is hardly surprising that many lesbians and gay men avoid this career. And working with children or young people can still be problematic, as we shall see. We also asked respondents whether they had ever avoided applying for promotion because of their sexuality. A much smaller number of people -- 6% -- said they had avoided applying for promotion. This may be partly because promotion is not something one necessarily applies for. Of those who did avoid promotion, the most common occupation was teaching, with 14 respondents saying they avoided promotion as teachers. 7 people working in sales and retail, 6 civil servants and 6 social workers had also avoided promotion. It should however be noted that these numbers are so small that they are not necessarily significant. One respondent pointed out an obvious gap in our questions. We had not asked whether respondents had ever left a job because of their sexuality: HELEN I have filled this survey in with reference to the teaching job I did for 3 years til June of last year. One important reason for leaving this job was the difficulty of coming out in a school environment even to close colleagues, plus the homophobia amongst the pupils (based on ignorance) and the lack of will amongst staff to tackle this homophobia. It's a shame there isn't a section on the questionnaire about why lesbians and gay men leave jobs -- I think you'd get some interesting responses. CONCEALMENT Probably the single most important difference between discrimination based on race or sex, and discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, is that for most people it is possible to hide their sexuality in an attempt to avoid discrimination and/or harassment. In some ways this may be seen as an advantage, yet the closet carries its own costs, imposing a burden of secrecy and silence. The very high level of concealment we found speaks volumes about the extent to which lesbians and gay men feel they risk discrimination if they do come out. Have you ever felt it necessary to hide or keep quiet about your sexual orientation at work? (Base: 1,847 respondents) No, never 11% Yes, in some jobs 56% Yes, in all my jobs 33% We also asked about concealment in people's current job. Only one in three said they were completely out at work. One in five were completely closeted. If you are employed, do you hide your sexual orientation in your current job? (Base: 1,592 respondents who were employed or self-employed) No 32% Yes, from some people 49% Yes, from everyone 19% This question allowed us to look at other known factors about the current job such as employment sector and whether the employer has an equal opportunities policy that includes sexual orientation, to see whether any differences emerged. We found significant differences in the responses given by people working in different sectors. 26% of respondents in the private sector said they conceal their sexuality from everyone, compared to 17% in the public sector and 4% in the voluntary sector. 26% of respondents in the private sector were out to everyone, compared with 31% in the public sector and 59% in the voluntary sector. If you are employed, do you hide your sexual orientation in your current job? (Base: 628 people working in the PRIVATE SECTOR) No 26% Yes, from some people 49% Yes, from everyone 26% (Base: 789 people working in the PUBLIC SECTOR) No 31% Yes, from some people 52% Yes, from everyone 17% (Base: 153 people working in the VOLUNTARY SECTOR) No 59% Yes, from some people 37% Yes, from everyone 4% There were also significant differences between respondents whose employers had an equal opportunities policy including sexual orientation, and those whose employers didn't. The latter were significantly more likely to conceal their sexuality at work (see chapter on Equal Opportunities for details). The majority of respondents, 68%, concealed their sexuality from some people or all people at work. Most of these people were out to some people but not all. We asked those who did conceal their sexuality who they concealed it from. If you hide your sexual orientation in your current job, from whom do you hide it? (Base: 1,086 respondents who do hide their sexuality) Clients/Customers 69% Employers/Superiors 65% Other Employees 62% Children/Young People 34% Other 10% The number of people feeling it necessary to conceal their sexuality from children or young people (34%) is quite high, considering that not all respondents would work with children or young people. Certain jobs appeared particularly difficult to be out in. The worst was teaching, where only 10 out of 126 respondents (8%) felt no need to hide their sexuality; 79% said they were concealed their sexuality from the pupils. Only 8% of those in banking felt no need to hide, but this was out of only 13 cases. A number of respondents sent in personal accounts of being in the closet and/or how they felt about having come out. CAROLINE I lead a bizarre and stupid double life - out to family, friends and neighbours and firmly in the closet at work. I am a gynaecologist and have only loved one woman, with whom I am in a long term relationship (7 years). I know there is no contradiction between being a lesbian and being a gynaecologist - in fact my personal traumas have enriched my practice as a doctor. I spent several years of agony believing that maybe I shouldn't do both if society disapproved. I denied my sexuality. Then, I gave up obstetrics and gynaecology which I adore. Eventually I decided I could do both, but as I achieve more professionally my fear of ending up on the front page of the "Sun" increases. I've recognised that I can't live in fear and so I'll brave it out if it ever happens. I'm happy to be discreet - after all private lives are supposed to be private - only the necessary deception depresses me. I have to shroud my social life in mystery, avoid awkward questions and often tell lies. I am not paranoid; I'm quite sure that a majority of my colleagues (90% male and largely with sexist views of women) would strongly disapprove and a small minority would be extremely hostile. I have enough trouble being "a sassy woman", let alone "a dyke". JESS For the past 13 years I have worked in a textile factory. It's a good job and I enjoy the work. I have always been openly gay at work. When I was 18 with pink hair I would wear my Glad to be Gay badge or some other badge, or my pink triangle. I was so at ease with my sexuality, it didn't even occur to me that my workmates or boss might not understand my sexuality. If anyone gave me any lip, I would get comments like "Are you queer?" and quick as a flash I would reply, "Why, do you fancy me?" and most of the time it worked. Other times I have had to educate people very slowly. All my gay friends can't believe how open I am at work. In the textile trade we have fluctuations with our work so we always have lots of people coming and going, and they always find out that I am gay from everybody else, and so it goes on. Sometimes I wish there was another gay boy at work as I do get down sometimes, but I NEVER let anybody at work see. These days things are pretty quiet. Nobody says anything to me because I stand up to them. In general it is good at work. Finally I am going to see my union rep next week to ask for help in having "sexuality" included in the equal opportunities clause. NICK I have been in the same job since I left school at 16, having moved around various departments and had one promotion (there's not any prospect of more in my line of job). Until the age of 28 I was totally closeted to all my workmates and family, having a few gay acquaintances that I saw fairly irregularly. I was terrified to admit to being gay, I was afraid of the stigma attached to it and how it could destroy my life, such as it was, by admitting the fact. I never socialised, and kept a quiet life with my parents, pursuing hobbies of one sort or another, and just occasionally went off to meet someone, usually an older guy that I felt safe with. Young gays seemed not to be very friendly or understanding in my opinion at the time. I never went to a gay club or pub except once or twice with one of these older guys. A lot of my fears were bound up with my lack of self-esteem and paranoia about self-image. I totally lacked confidence of any kind to go out and try and find places and friends. Curiously I worked with a boss who was gay, not completely open, but obviously was and it was known to all staff. That seemed to make things all the more difficult. When I did come out, I did not care what he thought as by that time I felt I had to do things for myself and take risks. So much is bound up in our lives with being gay and how we use our time and energy. If we are out and proud, we do more for ourselves and have more enjoyment out of our lives. I do believe everyone who is gay should be able to say so without fear. I wish I had come out at 16 or even at 21... I came out at the time AIDS was a very controversial issue, with screaming headlines in the "Sun". I am still not sure if I was brave or stupid, but I have not only survived coming out but have grown up and changed my life considerably because of it. It was the best thing I ever did to own up to being gay. CLARE I have worked in the training department of social services for the past three years. Over this time I have increasingly come out, firstly to colleagues then to my management team and finally to groups I work with -- where this seems appropriate -- somehow my sexuality is not that relevant in the middle of a course about filling in Child Care Law applications! My coming out is never of the "I'm a lesbian, how are you going to deal with it" kind, but it is instead integrated into my conversations about my lifestyle. I am now able to joke about my sexuality with the other workers including the admin team who at first were apprehensive about my lesbianism. Having experienced the pleasure of an "out" environment I realise the problems of my previous work where I felt unable to come out. Some of it was fear of people's reaction, some of it was fear about losing my job -- especially when I worked with young people. It was in residential child care that I felt most threatened by people discovering I was a lesbian. I couldn't go back to being closeted, the loss is too much because you can never fully share your life at work in a way that is natural, like the pain of a relationship that is ending -- I never again want to have to pretend that I don't have a love life. So maybe I will be discriminated against. But being out is a great experience! EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ------------------- There has been a growing tendency in recent years for employers to adopt equal opportunities policies. Typically these commit the employer not to discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, or various other grounds which vary from employer to employer. The grounds most commonly included are sex and race since discrimination on these grounds is unlawful, but a good equal opportunities policy (EOP) will also commit the employer not to discriminate on other grounds such as age, disability, religion - or sexual orientation. We asked respondents who were currently employed whether their employer had an equal opportunities policy, and if they did, whether it included non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. A large majority - 79% - said their employer did have an equal opportunities policy. If you are currently employed, does your employer have an equal opportunities policy? (Base: 1,423 respondents working full-time or part-time) Don't Know 9% No 12% Yes 79% People working in the private sector were much less likely to be covered by an equal opportunities policy. 54% of private sector employees said their employer had an EOP, compared with 93% of public sector employees and 87% of voluntary sector employees. Private sector employees were also less likely to know if there was a policy. It is possible that some of the private sector employees who didn't know the answer were in fact covered by a policy, but not enough to bring the private sector into line with the public sector or voluntary sector. Besides, one of the most important ways of putting an EOP into practice is to make sure all employees know that the policy exists and are aware of what it says. If you are currently employed, does your employer have an equal opportunities policy? (Base: 462 people working in the PRIVATE SECTOR) Don't Know 19% No 27% Yes 54% (Base: 786 people working in the PUBLIC SECTOR) Don't Know 4% No 3% Yes 93% (Base: 153 people working in the VOLUNTARY SECTOR) Don't Know 2% No 11% Yes 87% We then asked those whose employer did have an equal opportunities policy whether it included sexual orientation. Again a majority - 58% - said that it did. If yes, does it include non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation? (Base: 1,128 respondents whose employer had an EOP) Don't Know 11% No 31% Yes 58% Private sector policies were much less likely to include sexual orientation. Of respondents whose employer did have an EOP, 27% of private sector employees said the policy included sexual orientation, compared to 63% of public sector employees, and 87% of voluntary sector employees. Again, a high proportion of private sector employees replied "Don't know" to this question. If yes, does it include non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation? (Base: 246 respondents working in the PRIVATE SECTOR whose employers had an EOP) Don't Know 30% No 43% Yes 27% (Base: 725 respondents working in the PUBLIC SECTOR whose employers had an EOP) Don't Know 10% No 27% Yes 63% (Base: 132 respondents working in the VOLUNTARY SECTOR whose employers had an EOP) Don't Know 6% No 7% Yes 87% All in all 46% of respondents in full-time or part-time employment were covered by an equal opportunities policy which included sexual orientation; 36% were not covered and the remainder didn't know. Overall, the voluntary sector emerged as the best place for lesbians and gay men to work, with 76% of respondents working in the voluntary sector saying their employer had an equal opportunities policy that included sexual orientation, compared to 58% of respondents in the public sector and 14% of respondents working in the private sector. Proportion of respondents whose employer had an EOP including sexuality: comparison by sector (Base: 1,401 respondents working full time or part time) Voluntary Sector 76% Private Sector 14% Public Sector 58% DO EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES POLICIES HELP? We asked respondents who were employed whether they concealed their sexuality in their current job. In this section we look at whether respondents whose employers have an EOP that includes sexual orientation are less likely to conceal their sexuality at work. If you are employed, do you hide your sexual orientation in your current job? (Base: 643 respondents whose employer had an EOP covering sexual orientation) Yes, from everyone 11% Yes, from some people 47% No 42% (Base: 571 respondents whose employer did not have an EOP covering sexual orientation) Yes, from everyone 29% Yes, from some people 50% No 21% Where there was an EOP that included sexuality 42% were completely "out"; where there wasn't, only 21% were completely out. This could suggest that a good EOP helps make it easier for lesbians and gay men to come out at work. Alternatively it could be that in a more accepting environment it has been easier for lesbian and gay workers to lobby for inclusion in the equal opportunities policy. Or it could be a combination of both. Certainly from the point of view of a lesbian or gay man considering working for a given employer, it suggests they would be justified in looking at whether there was an EOP that included sexuality, and taking that as some indication of how easy it would be for them to be out at work with that employer. Some of the personal stories we were sent expressed opinions about the effectiveness of equal opportunities policies, with some saying an EOP had helped, others expressing scepticism. One respondent expressed the opinion that EOPs do not work unless backed up by political will, which may not always extend to sexual orientation even if it has been included in the policy: JANE I found some questions a bit difficult to answer, particularly the one about harassment. I experienced "second hand" harassment e.g. as a result of being in earshot of someone sounding off about how "disgusting queers are" having watched a TV programme the night before. I've no idea if she suspected my lesbianism or not, but the experience was painful and puts me off coming out any further. I remain concealed except to individuals I can trust. All this happens within the context of X County Council, who have an equal opportunities policy that includes sexual orientation. After the incident above, I went and spoke to someone in the equal opportunities department, but I would have had to take out a formal complaint, which would involve me in coming out in a clearly unsafe environment. The equal opportunities unit receive no formal political instruction to implement equal opportunities with regard to sexual orientation, whereas there are detailed policies and strategies about race and disability. If the woman had been talking in derogatory terms about black or disabled people there would probably have been another solution or at least a feeling of being supported -- but regardless of that, the implementation of policy for black and disabled people seems to create a culture in which people at least keep their prejudice to themselves for fear of their own jobs. This simply doesn't happen around sexual orientation. So I stay half in and half out -- civil rights legislation for lesbians and gays could only improve our situation. KEVIN I have not come out to my colleagues at work, though I strongly suspect they know that I am gay. Although I would like to be open with them about my sexuality, I very strongly suspect that this would prevent my being promoted and that my career would suffer in consequence. No one would ever be so open as to explain that this was going on (after all, the company's mission statement says that it does not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation) but I continue to be very sceptical, and to stay in. MARK My employer has an equal opportunities policy including sexual orientation. This is implemented in a sensible way: it is mentioned alongside other types of discrimination (sex, race, disability) in management courses. The atmosphere is generally relaxed in the offices. As far as day to day matters are concerned, I would not introduce myself as a gay man. I am not sure I have ever said "I'm gay" at work, but then nor do I socially. At the same time I have never felt I could not openly refer to "my boyfriend" which I do in the same way others talk of their husband, wife etc. A particular example of how the policy works successfully was when I was responsible for organising a senior level residential conference. I openly arranged for my partner to travel to the venue for the weekend and he was invited by the conference chairman to take part in social activities to which partners were invited. Because of the attitude of direct colleagues, those from overseas appeared comfortable with the situation. So it does work! EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK ------------------------ The principle of equal pay for equal work was one of the major achievements of the women's movement. The principle is now enshrined in law and it is unlawful for an employer to pay a woman less than a man for the same job, or for work of "equal value". Equal pay now extends to all elements of a pay package including pensions and other benefits. But lesbians and gay men, because their relationships are not seen as equal value to heterosexual relationships, are often paid less in terms of pensions, health insurance, expenses and other benefits than their heterosexual colleagues. The value of these lost benefits can be substantial. In effect, lesbians and gay workers do not enjoy a right to equal pay with heterosexuals. We asked about these issues both to try and find out how widespread this financial discrimination is, and to find out how many respondents were aware of it. We asked two questions, one about pension schemes and one about other benefits. The results on both counts show that a great many lesbians and gay men do not even know if their contract entitles them to equal pay or not; of those who did know, very few said that it did. Only 14% of those in pensionable employment said their pension schemes did not discriminate between their relationships and heterosexual relationships. Even this figure seems suspect, as it seems likely in retrospect that the question was not clear enough, and that some respondents replied yes meaning that they could nominate a beneficiary for the lump sum part of their pension (it is usually possible to nominate whomever you please for this) rather than meaning they could nominate a dependent to receive the widow's or dependent's pension (for which it is often not possible to nominate anyone other than a spouse). It is clear that there was some confusion on this point, because 14% of public sector employees said they could nominate a spouse or heterosexual partner, and 8% said they could nominate a partner of either sex, yet the rules for public sector superannuation schemes are clearly laid down in government regulations and do not allow a widow's pension to pass to anyone other than a spouse. If your pay package includes a pension or superannuation scheme, whom can you nominate as a dependent? (Base: 1,127 respondents whose pay package includes a pension) Don't Know 46% Partner of Either Sex 14% Partner of Opposite Sex 13% Spouse Only 27% Because of the problems with this question, it was not possible to draw conclusions about whether one sector was better than the other, or whether equal opportunities employers were more likely to have overhauled their pension schemes. The answers to the question on other benefits showed a very similar picture. Nearly half of respondents did not know the answer, and only 18% said the benefits were extended to same-sex partners. If your package includes other benefits, e.g. travel expenses, travel discounts, or special leave, who are they available to? (Base: 874 respondents who receive such benefits) Don't Know 48% All Couples 18% Heterosexual Couples 16% Married Couples Only 18% There was a clear tendency for the voluntary sector to be less likely to discriminate, with 59% of respondents saying that same-sex couples were treated equally, compared to 14% in both the public sector and the private sector. 33% of those in the voluntary sector didn't know and only 8% said the benefits were available to married couples only or heterosexual couples only. This may be because voluntary sector employers are more likely to have equal opportunities policies covering lesbians and gay men, and/or because lesbians and gay men in the voluntary sector are much more likely to be out at work, and therefore in a position to raise the issue. However the voluntary sector is probably the least likely to provide a wide range of benefits to which this question would apply. We also asked whether people would take up such benefits if the situation arose. We wondered if many people would be put off taking up benefits relating to their partner if this involved coming out to their employer. However of the 1,303 people who responded to this question, a large majority -- 75% -- said they would avail themselves of these benefits if they were available. The problem is in most cases they are not. If you are entitled to any of these benefits, would you take them up if the case arose? (Base: 1,303 respondents) Don't Know 19% No 6% Yes 75% The same banker who told above of being denied promotion because he was gay (see chapter on Discrimination) set out in detail the difference in treatment between himself and his partner, and married colleagues. JOHN The bank moved me from A to B. They refused to treat me as "married" for the purposes of relocation even though my partner and I had been living together for 10 years. I lost several thousand pounds in relocation allowances paid to married couples without children but not to single people or cohabiting couples. My partner's life and employment were severely disrupted by the move. His existence and our relationship were denied or largely ignored by the bank. I was offered temporary accommodation in a hotel. They refused to pay for him. The bank refused to allow us a joint staff mortgage (at reduced interest rates). It had to be in my name only and my partner was classed as an occupier on the mortgage agreement with no legal rights. My solicitor ensured via legal agreements that my partner gets all of my estate in the event of my death and an interest in the property in the event we split up. My partner is excluded from the staff benefits package. Married couples are automatically covered. This means: a) He is not insured by the bank to drive my company car. A wife or husband automatically is. b) He is excluded from the bank's private health insurance. A wife or husband is automatically covered at no cost. c) He is not entitled to a partner's pension in the event of my death. (I have been able to nominate him as the recipient of a death lump sum payment -- but married couples get the pension on top of it.) d) He is excluded from all other staff benefits such as free financial advice, cheap share dealing, preferential insurance terms, lower fees and charges for bank services etc. Wives or husbands are automatically extended these facilities. I could go on and on but I think this provides a good indication of what it's like to be a gay senior manager for X Bank. I am looking to move on and am attending interviews at the moment. I used to work in the public sector in the early 80s and my experience there was rather better. * * * Another respondent had a happier story to tell, although even so it was not clear whether equality extended to a dependent's pension for his partner: STEVEN My boss is an incredible woman. Although the company has an equal opportunities policy including sexual orientation, Rank Xerox hadn't come across "out" gays. She made sure my partner is covered under my BUPA. Also he will receive my lump sum from Xerox should I die, although my pension is paid at the discretion of the trustees. Rank Xerox also pay for my partner at all of our functions such as Christmas etc. THE LAW ------- Under British law employers are free to decide the terms of employment of their employees except where legislation or case law provides otherwise. There is a prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex or race, but no law which specifically bans discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Thus employers are free to discriminate against lesbians and gay men in recruiting staff and in their treatment of existing staff, and even to sack people for being lesbian or gay provided they do not fall foul of the law against unfair dismissal. Since this legal protection only applies to employees who have been with the same employer for two years full time (or five years part time) this leaves considerable scope for discrimination. Where an employer has an equal opportunities policy which deals with discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, an employee's legal position may be stronger. If it can be argued that the policy is incorporated in the contract of employment, a lesbian or gay man who has been discriminated against will be in a stronger position to argue either unfair dismissal or wrongful dismissal for breach of contract. In an unfair dismissal claim the failure of an employer to have regard to their own procedure on equal opportunities would be relevant in demonstrating that the dismissal was unfair. APPLYING FOR WORK As noted above, there is nothing in law to stop an employer deciding not to hire someone who is lesbian or gay. Of course, many lesbians and gay men would not come out to a potential employer at application stage (in the LAGER survey 78% of gay men said they would not) but others do, perhaps because they would rather be open from the start than feel they have something to hide. There are two other ways in which an applicant's sexuality may be guessed at by a prospective employer: health checks and criminal record checks. Employers often ask applicants to consent to a health check. For anyone whose sexuality has been noted on their medical record, this can alert the employer to it. Additionally it is not unlawful for an employer to require applicants to undergo an HIV test, and some employers do. Such employers may choose not to employ someone who tests positive either because they assume that person is gay and/or because they assume the person will become sick. It is not uncommon for employers to ask applicants whether they have any criminal convictions. For many gay men this means they are required to declare convictions for gay sex offences such as gross indecency which are entirely consensual and for which there is no heterosexual equivalent. To employers who know what gross indecency means, this gives away that the applicant is gay; to those who do not know what it means, they may well think from the sound of it that it means something much worse. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, "spent" convictions need not be disclosed. (A conviction for gross indecency would be spent after five years if the sentence was a fine.) However, there are a number of occupations to which the Act does not apply: doctors, lawyers, accountants, dentists, nurses, midwives, opticians, chemists, employees of the courts and prison services or insurance and trust companies, civil servants subject to positive vetting, some social workers and childcare workers have to declare all convictions, even spent ones. There are additional checks for anyone working with children or youth. The Department for Education maintains a list (called List 99) of people not allowed to work anywhere in Britain as a teacher or youth worker. The list is not confined to people with convictions; it also includes people who merely have allegations of misconduct made against them. While there are obvious reasons why such a list is maintained, the unequal status of gay sexuality means that gay men in particular are more likely to find themselves on the list. For example, Stonewall recently heard from a gay teacher who had been forced to resign over his consenting relationship with a young man who was under 21 but over 16 (and was not a pupil). In addition to losing his job and being cautioned the police told him his name would go on List 99. In an equivalent heterosexual relationship no offence would have been committed and the police would never have been involved. It is open to anyone whose name is placed on the list to make representations to have it removed if it is not relevant to their suitability as a teacher or youth worker. This is recommended, as it may otherwise be assumed that a conviction for gross indecency, for example, is an indication of unsuitability. UNEQUAL TREATMENT There is little in law to prevent an employer treating lesbian or gay employees unfairly, for example by not promoting them because of their sexuality, or by not paying them the full pay and benefits package that heterosexual workers are paid. This is in marked contrast to the law on discrimination on grounds of sex or race. Employers are prohibited from treating any employees less favourably than others on the grounds of sex or race. They are also required to ensure that women are paid equally with men for work of equal value, and that no term in the contract is less favourable to one sex than to the other. If an employer were blatantly discriminatory, for example demoting or victimising an employee because of his or her sexuality, it might be possible for the employee to resign and claim "constructive dismissal". We would stress that this is a risky course and anyone considering it should take legal advice before resigning. Employers however should note the possibility. UNFAIR DISMISSAL There is no specific ban on dismissing someone because of their sexuality, but lesbians and gay men do have the same rights as other workers to take their employer to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. However this Act (unlike the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act) only applies to employees who have two years' continuous employment full time with the same employer, or five years part time. This leaves a great many people with no protection whatsoever against dismissal on the grounds of their sexuality. Where unfair dismissal is established, an industrial tribunal may order re-employment and/or it may award compensation. Orders for re-employment are very rare, and cannot be enforced, although an employer may have to pay extra compensation for refusing re-employment. The maximum compensation for unfair dismissal is currently œ11,000 plus the equivalent of a statutory redundancy payment; the average award tends to be lower than this. So unless the employee finds another job fairly quickly, the chances are they will not be properly "compensated" by such an award. In cases of sex or race discrimination, extra compensation can be awarded for injury to feelings; this does not apply to unfair dismissal cases. Employers faced with a claim for unfair dismissal must show that the employee was dismissed for reasons which the law considers fair. These include: conduct; capability of the employee (skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality); redundancy; and "any other substantial reason". "Conduct" is often used as a reason in cases where an employee has been dismissed following a conviction for sexual offences. "Any other substantial reason" is a good catch-all phrase. Cases are heard initially by an Industrial Tribunal; if appealed, they go to an Employment Appeal Tribunal. The decisions of one Industrial Tribunal are not binding on other tribunals, but Industrial Tribunals do have to follow the guidelines for interpreting the law set out in the decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunals. Unfortunately the case law on lesbian and gay cases is not particularly helpful. We set out below the most important cases, which paint a rather bleak picture. It should be noted however that the leading cases are quite old and that cases like Saunders v. Scottish National Camps Association have always been criticised from a legal point of view as a very unsatisfactory definition of the law which in effect gives far too much leeway to the exercise of the employer's discretion. Many cases have arisen because men have been arrested or convicted on gross indecency charges. Because these cases involve criminal prosecutions they undoubtedly colour the view of Tribunals. But in fact it is an example of the way in which discrimination in the criminal law operates to justify other forms of discrimination. (Gross indecency was added to the statute book in 1885 and criminalises all gay sex between men. It was only partially repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which legalised sexual relations between men aged 21 or over in private.) The first case to go to an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was Nottinghamshire County Council v. Bowly (1978) which concerned a teacher who was dismissed after he was convicted of gross indecency. The tribunal expressed doubt that someone who is gay and convicted on a cottaging charge is in fact a risk to children. The tribunal found unfair dismissal, but the decision was overturned on appeal. The EAT did not find that Mr Bowly was a risk to children, but that the facts fell into a "grey area" and so the school was entitled to decide as it did. The case of Saunders v. Scottish National Camps Association (1980) was even worse. John Saunders, a maintenance man at a children's camp, had not committed any offence. The police informed his employers that he was gay after he reported being robbed by a man he had met in a gay pub. Mr Saunders was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld both at tribunal and by the EAT. The EAT noted that there was "a considerable proportion of employers who would take the view that the employment of homosexuals should be restricted, particularly when required to work in proximity and in contact with children. Whether that view is scientifically sound may be open to question, but there was clear evidence from the psychiatrist that it exists as a fact." In other words the employer was entitled to dismiss on the basis of a genuinely held belief which was widely shared, whether or not there was any basis for that belief. There was a similar judgment in the case of Wiseman v. Salford C.C. (1981) which concerned a lecturer in drama therapy who was convicted for gross indecency. The EAT said that the question was not whether someone who had been convicted of gross indecency was a threat to the young adults he taught, but whether the argument that he was not a risk was a "self evident proposition". In the EAT's judgment, "the disciplinary bodies, and the majority of the Industrial Tribunals, are not making an error of law if they... conclude that there was a risk." They also said that the employer was entitled to take into account the possible prejudiced reactions of the young people's parents. The dismissal was upheld. These cases leave a worrying precedent for lesbians and gay men whose work brings them into contact with children or young people. An employer may get away with dismissing them on the basis of a belief that they are a danger to children whether or not there is any basis for that belief, even if there is no complaint about their actual conduct. The EAT's comments on the possible reactions of parents raise another point about public prejudice. It has been established in cases not involving gay workers that customer prejudice and fears can legitimately be taken into account by an employer if they are likely to have a strong impact on the employer's business, provided considerations of the impact on the business are weighed against the degree of unfairness to the employee. The employer does not have to provide any evidence that any customers actually were alienated. Again, this is in contrast to the law on sex discrimination and race discrimination. Possible customer prejudice against ethnic minorities, for example, is not a legitimate excuse for an employer to discriminate on the grounds of race. Despite the bad precedents described above, it must be pointed out that tribunals are required to judge each case on its particular facts and merits, so it is not guaranteed that a similar judgment would follow, even in what might, on the face of it, look like a similar case. Lesbians and gay men who experience discrimination should not be deterred from taking cases on the assumption that they will lose. There is a problem getting good precedents, however, because where an applicant has a strong case the employer will often offer a settlement, and in such cases, with a successful outcome at tribunal not guaranteed, it is often in the applicant's interest to settle. This tends to militate against good precedents. It also means that employers should beware, because despite the apparently bad precedents on record, most of these go back some years now and it may be that the ground is shifting underfoot without showing in the case law. Two recent cases illustrate this point. Ray Moore was sacked from his job as a training officer in May 1988 after he was convicted of gross indecency. His employer attempted to argue that he was a danger to the young people he worked with, but settled out of court for a "substantial" sum after one day's evidence in the tribunal. A case in Scotland earlier this year saw a lesbian couple try a new line of argument. Maria O'Rourke and Simone Wallace both worked for BG Turnkey Services, a packing company. They claimed they were dismissed without warning because they were lesbians. They took a case under the Sex Discrimination Act, arguing that their employer had treated them less favourably than others on the grounds of sex, i.e. it would not have dismissed them if one of them had been a man. The company denied dismissing them because they were lesbians but argued that in any event the Sex Discrimination Act only prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, not sexuality. According to the employer, Ms O'Rourke was dismissed because she had a "bad attitude" and Ms Wallace was dismissed because she passed on confidential company information. Ms Wallace said the only "confidential information" she had passed on was to tell her colleagues about the dismissal of her partner. At an initial hearing it was decided that the full arguments should be heard, but before the case went to a full hearing the employer decided to settle out of court for an undisclosed figure. This case raises an interesting line of argument which, if it were successful, would bring some cases of discrimination against lesbians and gay men within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. Since the Act also applies to discrimination in the provision of goods and services, a similar line might be tried if a same-sex couple were refused a hotel room, for example. However, because a settlement was reached, the argument has yet to be tested. HARASSMENT There is no legislation on workplace harassment, only case law. The case law on harassment of lesbians and gay men is worrying, because there have been cases where employers have sacked gay men facing hostility from colleagues and the dismissal was upheld at tribunal. Two recent cases illustrate this point. In the case of Cormack v. TNT Sealion (1986), Mr Cormack, a ship's cook, was selected for redundancy because fellow workers objected to his presence on the grounds that they might "catch AIDS" from him. There was no evidence that Mr Cormack was HIV positive, let alone that this was a health risk if he were. The tribunal said that to dismiss someone purely on the basis of an unfounded complaint like this would be plainly unfair, and a good employer would act promptly to lay at rest all unfounded suspicions. However the degree to which a worker got on with the rest of the workforce was a relevant consideration in deciding who should be selected first for redundancy, so the dismissal was upheld. In Buck v. The Letchworth Palace Ltd (1986) Michael Buck, a cinema projectionist, was sacked following two convictions for gross indecency, on the grounds of colleagues' refusal to work with him for fear he might have AIDS. The industrial tribunal found the dismissal to be fair. Mr Buck appealed and the employer settled out of court at the last minute. This reversal came about because the employer had not followed the proper procedure laid down in the House of Lords decision in Polkey v. Dayton (1987). In that case (decided after the original hearing of Mr Buck's case, but before the appeal) it was established that if an employee is dismissed without the proper consultation procedures, this will almost certainly lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, even if the employer shows that it was likely that such a meeting would have made no difference. It should be noted however that the strongest argument in Mr Buck's favour was not that his employers had acted unfairly prima facie in dismissing him because of his colleagues' fears, rather that they had not followed the correct procedure for co-worker pressure to dismiss. In a contrasting case, Philpott v. North Lambeth Law Centre (1986), an employer's decision to sack two employees for (amongst other things) victimising a gay employee as an "AIDS carrier" was upheld as fair. Thus it seems that where a lesbian or gay employee is harassed or colleagues refuse to work with them, dismissal of either the victim or the perpetrator could be grounds for fair dismissal in law. As noted above, however, the victim could only take a claim for unfair dismissal if he or she had been working for the employer for two years. This is in contrast to the situation regarding harassment on the grounds of sex or race. Sexual or racial harassment can constitute unlawful discrimination if the tribunal considers it is serious enough. This applies to harassment from colleagues as well as the employer, if the tribunal decides the employer did not do enough to prevent it or deal with it. Dealing with the harassment by dismissing the victim would not be an option. And victims of sexual or racial harassment do not need to have two years' service with an employer before they can take such a claim. Finally, we should add that it is not just the employer who may take the initiative in harassment cases. An employee could resign and claim constructive dismissal if he or she were being harassed and the employer was not offering sufficient support. As noted above we would recommend that anyone in this situation take legal advice before they resign. Employers, however, should note the possibility. EC RECOMMENDATION AND CODE OF PRACTICE ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT In 1991 the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work, and a Code of Practice on measures to combat sexual harassment. The Recommendation expressly places responsibility on employers to ensure that the work environment is free from sexual harassment. It is not binding, but tribunals would be expected to use it as an aid to interpreting the law where appropriate. The Code of Practice specifically identifies lesbians and gay men as being among the groups of workers who are particularly vulnerable to harassment, and adds: "It is undeniable that harassment on grounds of sexual orientation undermines the dignity at work of those affected and it is impossible to regard such harassment as appropriate workplace behaviour." The Code of Practice, and the continuing development of case law on sexual harassment and racial harassment under British law, have led to a new trend for employers to adopt harassment policies covering all kinds of harassment, often making harassment a disciplinary offence. A model harassment policy produced by the Institute of Personnel Managers includes harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. Employers who have adopted such policies (including sexual orientation) include British Rail, British Gas, and the BBC. SUMMARY Other than limited protection against unfair dismissal, lesbians and gay men have no protection in law against discrimination or harassment in the workplace. This is unsatisfactory because: * There is no law against unequal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation. * There is no law requiring equal pay for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. * Claims for unfair dismissal can only be taken by employees who already have two years continuous service with their employer. * Where a claim is taken, industrial tribunals may find dismissal to be "fair" on the grounds of employer prejudice, co-worker prejudice or customer prejudice, especially where the work involves contact with children or young people. * There is very little protection against harassment on the grounds of sexuality. Constructive dismissal claims can only be taken by employees of two years' standing, and may not succeed. * Where an employer dismisses the victim rather than the perpetrator of harassment, industrial tribunals may find the dismissal to be fair so long as proper procedures are followed. The overall difference between discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sex and race, and discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sexuality, is that Parliament has legislated that the former are never acceptable, whereas the absence of legislation and the case law on the latter mean that prejudice against lesbians and gay men is, fundamentally, still permissible. While some of the problems outlined above -- for example, the bad case law -- may be overcome with time and changing attitudes, others such as the lack of protection for workers of less than two years' standing, or the lack of a right to equal pay, will not change. This is why in our view only a change in the law to place discrimination on the grounds of sexuality on a par with discrimination on the grounds of sex or race can fully rectify the situation for lesbians and gay men. We believe this could be done relatively quickly and simply by amending the Sex Discrimination Act to extend the prohibition on discrimination based on sex to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. Enforcement would then be brought within the remit of the Equal Opportunities Commission. RECOMMENDATIONS --------------- GOVERNMENT/LEGISLATION 1 The Sex Discrimination Act should be amended to provide a right to equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation. 2 The amended Act should extend the right to equal pay and conditions to lesbians and gay men. 3 Pensions law and the regulations for public sector superannuation schemes should be amended to allow lesbians and gay men to nominate a partner for their dependant's pension. 4 The Department of Employment should include equal opportunities for lesbians and gay men in its work to encourage employers to adopt equal opportunities practices. 5 The government should follow the example of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and nearly every other country in Europe by lifting the ban on lesbians and gay men serving in the armed forces. EMPLOYERS 6 Employers should explicitly include the right to equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation in their equal opportunities policies and training. 7 Employers should explicitly include harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation in their harassment policies. 8 Employers should completely review the terms and conditions on which they employ people to ensure that they do not discriminate against lesbians and gay men and their partners. 9 Employers should encourage the development of lesbian and gay groups in the workplace, and consult with such groups in assessing the effectiveness of their equal opportunities policies. TRADE UNIONS 10 Trade unions should recognise the right of lesbians and gay men to equal treatment and equal pay and conditions and campaign for these objectives. 11 Trade unions as employers should set a good example by ensuring that their own staff are guaranteed equal treatment and equal pay and conditions. GOOD PRACTICE GUIDELINES ------------------------ No two employers have the same equal opportunities policy. Each policy and the language it is phrased in will vary according to the structure and ethos of the organisation. The following notes are therefore intended as guidelines rather than hard and fast rules on how to proceed. An equal opportunities policy usually consists of two parts: a brief statement of intent, or policy statement, and the full policy, which sets out in detail what the policy means and how it will be put into practice. Implementing an equal opportunities policy may also involve updating other employment policies and procedures concerning related areas such as recruitment, harassment, and pay and conditions of service. We set out here the main aspects of typical policies which may need to be amended. We are assuming familiarity with equal opportunities practice generally, e.g. as applied to selection interviews. Employers wishing to introduce an equal opportunities policy for the first time should take specialist advice. POLICY STATEMENT The first step is to get the policy statement amended to include discrimination against lesbians and gay men in this list. The wording of this will vary from employer to employer. Most include a specific list of unacceptable grounds for discrimination, e.g: "The EOC is committed to the promotion of equality in all fields. Applications are invited from people regardless of sex, race, marital status, responsibility for dependants, age, disability or sexual orientation." If the policy includes a list of this kind, sexuality should be included in it. Finding appropriate wording may be a problem. Some policies refer to sexuality, some to sexual orientation, and some to applications being welcome from lesbians and gay men. Which wording is appropriate will depend very much on the employer. Some employers will prefer "lesbians and gay men" as it names the group presently suffering from discrimination, while others will prefer "sexuality" or "sexual orientation" on the grounds that heterosexuals and bisexuals should also be free from discrimination based on their sexuality. Lawyers tend to prefer "sexual orientation" to "sexuality" because it is argued that "sexuality" can refer to unacceptable sexual tendencies such as paedophilia or bestiality. However in spoken language people tend to use "sexuality" rather than "sexual orientation" as the latter is such a mouthful, and there have been no reports of problems from the many organisations which use "sexuality" in their policy. In our view it does not matter greatly which wording is used, so long as the policy is carried through in practice. HARASSMENT POLICY Many employers now have a policy on sexual harassment. Some have policies on racial harassment, and there is a growing trend for employers to develop general harassment policies which deal with harassment on any grounds. The Institute of Personnel Managers recently issued a model policy which covers harassment on a number of grounds, including sexual orientation. If your organisation has a harassment policy, it should include harassment on the grounds of sexuality. If not, there are strong arguments in favour of introducing such a policy. Employers who do not have an effective harassment policy risk being sued for discrimination if an employee is harassed on the grounds of their sex or race. RECRUITMENT The employer should advertise all jobs as an equal opportunities employer. If possible a brief policy statement such as the one quoted above should be included on the advertisement. The policy statement should be included in the information sent to potential applicants. If an organisation's policy of non-discrimination is not made clear, lesbian and gay applicants may be discouraged from including important relevant information on their application form (e.g. paid or unpaid work experience with a lesbian and gay organisation). Obviously any information received which does indicate a person's sexuality should be treated in confidence. If a lesbian or gay man is successful in their application, they will need to be able to decide for themselves who to tell and when, rather than arrive and find that the news has preceded them. Applicants should not be asked for information which is not relevant to the job applied for, such as (in most cases) marital status. In the rare cases where it may be appropriate to ask applicants about their family ties, a neutral word like "partner" would be preferable to "spouse". CRIMINAL RECORDS Most employers no longer ask applicants about previous convictions. However for some occupations they are legally required to do so, and applicants are required to declare even those convictions which have been "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (see chapter on The Law for details). This has implications for gay men who have convictions for consenting sexual offences which have no heterosexual equivalent. These include "gross indecency" and "soliciting for an immoral purpose". It is important to stress that these are consenting offences and do not imply the use of coercion or force or the abuse of young people. Gross indecency can simply mean consenting sex with a partner aged 16-20 -- which is not an offence at all for heterosexuals or lesbians. Soliciting for a gay man could simply mean he met someone and invited him home -- since the law regards inviting someone to have gay sex as an "immoral purpose". There have even been cases of gay couples being fined for "insulting behaviour" or "disorderly behaviour" simply for kissing or holding hands in public. Employers should be aware of these inequalities in the law and should not compound legal discrimination by allowing these kind of convictions to influence them unnecessarily. EQUAL PAY If equal opportunities policies are to be put into practice, then lesbians and gay men should be employed on the same terms as everyone else -- which means any provisions relating to a heterosexual partner should apply equally to a partner of the same sex. We include here a list of the most common provisions which may need to be amended. SPECIAL LEAVE We use this term to include all forms of special leave including bereavement leave, compassionate leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, and so on. Policies will vary, but most employers allow for special leave on the death or serious illness of some family members. The wording of these policies should be examined to ensure that same-sex partners are not excluded. If the wording of the policy includes the word "spouse" we would suggest changing this to read "partner". We cannot over-emphasise the importance of amending the policy, even if the employer would already allow such leave in practice. A lesbian or gay employee facing the loss of a partner should not need to worry about whether it is OK to tell their employer why they need time off. PENSIONS Many pension schemes discriminate against lesbians and gay men by providing greater benefits to heterosexual members. Most schemes allow members to nominate a beneficiary to receive a lump sum if they die before retirement, and it is often possible to nominate a partner of the same sex to receive this. However the main benefit from which lesbians and gay men are routinely excluded is the "widow's" or "dependant's" pension. This is payable to the pensioner's widow, widower, or "dependant" partner if the pensioner dies first. It is rarely possible to nominate a partner of the same sex for the pension. (It is sometimes not possible for an unmarried heterosexual couple to do so either.) This is clearly inequitable since lesbians and gay men scheme members pay the same contributions but receive less in return. In the case of public sector employers operating superannuation schemes it may not be possible to change the rules of the scheme since these are laid down centrally in regulations which do not allow anyone other than a spouse to receive the widow's or widower's pension. With employer schemes it may be possible to amend the rules of the scheme, although technically pensions are always paid at the discretion of the trustees. Some employers have already amended their schemes or set up schemes which do not discriminate against lesbian or gay couples. These include: the BBC, the union GMB, and the Terrence Higgins Trust. HEALTH INSURANCE If the employee's spouse is covered, the same should apply to a partner of the same sex. COMPANY CAR INSURANCE For employees who are provided with a company car, it is often the practice to insure the employee's spouse as well. If so, same-sex partners should also be insured. RELOCATION EXPENSES Where re-location expenses are paid for employees' partners, this should include partners of the same sex. (The same applies, of course, to any other expenses paid in relation to a spouse or partner.) PRIVILEGED USE OF EMPLOYER'S SERVICES These will vary from employer to employer. Examples include mortgages at special rates for bank employees and their partners, free travel for staff of public transport companies and their partners, free flights for airline staff and their partners, and so on. If your organisation provides these benefits to employees and their partners, same sex partners should not be excluded. British Airways, London Underground and several London bus companies have already extended travel privileges to the partners of lesbian and gay employees. ACCOMMODATION Some employers provide subsidised accommodation to staff, including "married couples quarters" for employees who are married. Lesbian and gay staff with partners should have the same opportunities. The Metropolitan Police (which recently added sexual orientation to its equal opportunities policy) already has same-sex couples living in "married quarters". SOCIAL EVENTS Where events such as Christmas parties are organised and staff are invited to bring their partners, lesbians and gay men should be invited to bring theirs. The easiest way to do this (given that not all lesbians and gay men will be "out") is to word the invitation neutrally (e.g. "partner"). NOTE: The above list is not exhaustive. A complete overhaul of the pay and conditions of service is needed, and wherever benefits are available to an employee's spouse, the same benefits should be extended to same-sex partners. MONITORING Equal opportunities policies as applied to sex and race often include provisions for monitoring. In organisations where there are women and ethnic minorities are under-represented, particularly at higher levels, it makes sense to monitor the working of an equal opportunities policy to see whether it is having any impact in practice. For lesbians and gay men the issues are slightly different. Despite the problems they may face, there are likely to be lesbian and gay employees at every level of your organisation. They may be deep in the closet, but they are there. For lesbians and gay men, "representation" is not really the issue. The question is, are they allowed to be themselves -- or do they have to live a double life? This makes monitoring in the usual sense impossible. It would be very difficult to ask all staff about their sexuality, and inadvisable to believe the results since you cannot force people to "come out" if they don't want to. One way of monitoring effectiveness of the policy is to see how many staff take up the issues raised above. Without doing a survey, how many lesbian and gay staff can you think of who are open about their sexuality? How many are there at senior levels? How many lesbian and gay staff feel safe enough to nominate their partner for partner's benefits, or to bring them to social events? How many complaints of harassment are received? As we saw above, harassment can be a major problem for lesbians and gay men. If no complaints of harassment are received, does this mean there is no harassment going on -- or is there a lack of confidence in the harassment policy? Another way to monitor effectiveness is to set up liaison with a group of lesbian and gay employees. This has been tried with some success in American companies and is currently being tried in a number of British companies. CONTACTS -------- Lesbian and Gay Employment Rights (LAGER) St Margarets House 21 Old Ford Road Bethnal Green London E2 9PL Tel 081 983 0696 (lesbians) 081 983 0694 (gay men) Advice and support for lesbians and gay men facing problems at work. Gay and Lesbian Legal Advice (GLAD) 2 Greycoat Place London SW1P 1SB Tel 071 976 0840 (Mon-Fri, 7pm-10pm) Advice line run by lesbian and gay lawyers. Rank Outsiders c/o Stonewall 2 Greycoat Place London SW1P 1SB Tel 071 222 9007 Support group for lesbians and gay men in and out of the armed forces. UNISON Lesbian and Gay Group c/o UNISON 71 Mabledon Place London WC1 9AJ LAGIM (Lesbians and Gays in MSF) c/o 39B Pentonville Road London N1 9LP Tel 071 738 5469 Lesbians and Gays in NAPO 3-4 Chiwalty Road Battersea London SW11 1AT ACTT Lesbian and Gay Working Party c/o 111 Wardour Street London W1 Tel 071 437 8506 ABOUT STONEWALL --------------- Stonewall is a national lobbying organisation working for legal equality and social justice for lesbians and gay men. Established in 1989, Stonewall has grown into a respected and effective organisation that voices lesbian and gay concerns to a range of influential social groups, including Parliament and the media. Stonewall currently comprises a management committee, four staff, 150 volunteers and thousands of supporters. Stonewall's guiding principle is equality. Lesbians and gay men should have the same rights and responsibilities under the law and in public policy as heterosexuals. This means * equality in the criminal law * legal protection from discrimination * legal recognition for same-sex relationships * the same parenting rights as heterosexuals. Current priorities include an equal age of consent, revised sex education guidelines, equal opportunities at work, equal treatment in immigration rules, and equal treatment in adoption law. We ensure the media has a lesbian and gay perspective on issues that affect all our lives. We research the issues to ensure the facts are clear and the case for lesbian and gay equality is presented rationally and convincingly. The results of our next survey, on the age of consent and sex education, will be published in early 1994. For more information on how to get involved in Stonewall, or for briefings on any of the above issues, please contact us at the following address: Stonewall 2 Greycoat Place London SW1P 1SB Tel 071 222 9007 Fax 071 222 0525 -- This message was sent by: George Gardiner, Stonewall Volunteer E-mail to: stonewall@georgej.demon.co.uk or george@georgej.demon.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stonewall Lobbying Group - lobbying the UK Parliament for changes in the law. 2 Greycoat Place, London, SW1P 1SB. Tel: (071) 222-9007 Fax: (071) 222-0525 ==============================================================================