Study on the Legal Implications of Workplace Discrimination of the

Queer Community in US

Zhaorui Wu

College of Arts & Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Keywords: Queer, Workplace Discrimination, Law, Culture.

Abstract: This essay explores the legal implications of workplace discrimination against the queer community in the

United States, reviewing the legal historical regarding the legit-imisation of non-binary gender identities and

non-heterosexual sexual orientations. It analyses the consequences of evolving legal interpretations of the

Supreme Court and the presidential executive order of the Trump administration protect—or fail to pro-tect—

queer individuals from systemic bias and unequal treatment. This essay further outlines common forms and

causes of workplace discrimination targeting queer em-ployees in the United States. Addressing this

inequality, the essay specifies the respon-sibilities assigned to the government and individual forms to

advocate for workplace equality of queer employees despite the conservative political circumstance. Through

a critical evaluation of legal frameworks and real-world practices, this essay highlights the urgent need for

the implementation of stronger, more inclusive protective measures to restore and advance for workplace

equity for the queer community in the United States.

1 INTRODUCTION

The queer community refers to a diverse and

inclusive collective of individuals whose sexual

orientations, gender identities, and/or gender

expressions fall outside of heterosexual and cisgender

norms. "Queerness" is generally seen as a form of

self-identification to remedy the inadequate

representation of narrower LGBT identities, an

umbrella term signifying any non-hetero-cis-

normative or deviantized gender/sexual identity or

experience (Worthen, 2021). The queer community

characterises the concepts of sex and gender as non-

essentialist, fluid, and non-binary, specifically

rejecting binary categories of gender and sexuality

(Ruberg & Ruelos, 2020). An individual could use

"queerness" to describe their sexual identity, gender

identity, perspectives and connections relating to the

established LGBT community.

For a long time, queer has been labelled a slur, an

empowering identity, a theoretical framework, and a

catchall term among its more significant definitions.

Originally a pejorative term expressing contempt and

disapproval at its designated demography, the term

"queer" was later reclaimed by activists and

intellectuals in opposition of all absolute and

definitive categorization of sexual identity and

attraction (Kunzel, 2018). The term not only

challenges the socially normalised heterosexuality

and cis-gendered identification but also opposes

society's attempt at defining and labelling human

gender and attraction; it is confrontational and

defiant, significant both politically and in terms of

activism (Kunzel, 2018).

Today, the queer community in the US is very

much still a marginalised population and seen as the

minority. Within the US queer community, the

majority would specify their gender identity as being

non-binary (Ruberg & Ruelos, 2020). The US queer

demography is younger and more highly educated in

comparison to other demographics that are

categorised by their respective sexual orientation and

identity (Ruberg & Ruelos, 2020). Compared to the

sexual orientation of homosexuality, queer people are

exposed to more discrimination due to a lack of

understanding from the public.

Discrimination targeting the queer community's

gender identity and sexual attraction experienced by

the queer community is common. It could be

classified according to its form and the particular

setting where it occurs. Queer discrimination can be

132

Wu, Z.

Study on the Legal Implications of Workplace Discrimination of the Queer Community in US.

DOI: 10.5220/0014298200004859

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science (ICPLSS 2025), pages 132-137

ISBN: 978-989-758-785-6

verbal harassment, microaggression or physical

violence occurring under circumstances of bathroom-

seeking, healthcare application, job application,

political participation and legal involvement (Nadal

et al., 2016). Discrimination in the workplace is one

of the most predominant forms of discrimination

faced by the queer community.

Queerness has been a cause of discrimination that

affects negatively job application processes and

claims of equal pay and promotions along an

individual's career developmental path. More than

half of the queer community have reported

experiences of workplace discrimination. More

specifically, of the discriminated demography, 13%-

56% were fired, 13%-47% were denied employment,

22%-31% were harassed, and 19% were denied a

promotion due to their gender identity (Badgett et al.,

2007).

There are currently no specific US federal law that

prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation

or gender identity, but Title VII of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act forbids employers with 15 or more

employees from discriminating on the basis of sex

(American Civil Liberties Union, 2020). More

contemporary court interpretations of Title VII have

incorporated the banning of discrimination based on

sexual orientation or gender identity. This position is

also upheld by the US Supreme Court and the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) through legal precedents. However, recent

executive orders by the U.S. president declare a

tightening of governmental recognition of gender

identities to the binary male and female as assigned

biologically at birth (Trump, 2025). This official

denial of non-binary self-identification of gender may

reverse previous efforts at correcting queer

discrimination and further aggravate workplace

hostility towards the queer community.

This essay will focus on workplace discrimination

as experienced by the queer community in the US,

analysing the manifestation of discriminatory

prejudices and stigmatised notions on "queerness"

into workplace inequality, and evaluating the

measures implemented by the US government against

this form of discrimination. This research becomes

more significant and pertinent with the recent drastic

shifts in society's perception and acceptance of the

queer community, as signified by an increase in

media representation of queerness and online

activism that deepens society's understanding of the

queer community.

2 WORKPLACE

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST

THE QUEER COMMUNITY:

REALITY AND CURRENT

DEVELOPMENT OF

REGULATIONS

2.1 Current Situation and Its

Manifestation

Societal devaluation and stigmatisation of the queer

identity justifies the dehumanisation of queer

employees in the workplace. Homophobic and

heterosexual beliefs establish the superiority of

heterosexuality and binary gender constructs in

comparison to non-heterosexual attraction types and

non-binary gender theories, which are recognised as

discredited and inferior (Torres‐Castro & Morales-

Villena, 2025). Such beliefs legitimised the

ignoration of basic human rights, dignity and respect

of a queer employee. Such fixated impressions of the

queer community are reinforced through the use of

derogative language and adherence to certain

religious ideologies.

Workplace discrimination of the queer community

stems from the social construction of binary gender

and sexuality classification. Any defiance is in turn

seen as a violation of societal moral values and is

therefore penalised by economic barriers (Worthen,

2021). The queer community is constantly victimised

and pathologised for their nonconformity (Worthen,

2021). Queer people are often unable to comply to

gender-specific workplace regulations such as dress

codes due to the ambiguity of their gender expression

(Mishel, 2016). This will cause significant

incomprehension from their colleagues, leaders and

clients in workplace exchange, leading to increasing

instances of discriminatory misgendering and forced

gendering of queer employees.

Workplace discrimination of the queer community

starts at the hiring stage, targeting affiliations and

self-identifications of queerness in the resume.

Consequently, discriminatory employers will refuse

to consider such resumes on equal ground with their

counterparts conforming to the societal expectations

of sexual attraction and gender identity (Mishel,

2016). Multiple studies have shown that of

substantively identical resumes, the copy indicating

an identification of queerness is less likely to progress

to the interview stage (Mishel, 2016). This holds for

Study on the Legal Implications of Workplace Discrimination of the Queer Community in US

133

both queer men and women, with queer women

getting 30% less callbacks if their resume contained a

queer indicator, in contrast with the likelihood of

receiving callbacks from the submission of the

resume that is rid of queer inclinations but otherwise

unaltered (Mishel, 2016). The queer community also

faced differential treatment in the assignment of

earnings. The queer community faces a smaller

labour market with the extra constraint of

discriminatory employers that refuse to hire them

(Torres ‐ Castro & Morales-Villena, 2025).

Therefore, the remaining enterprises could exploit

this asymmetry between labour supply and demand

by lowering wages for queer employees and still

receive applications simply because of their

willingness to hire.

Stereotypical placement into professional fields

based on the queer sexual identity and orientation is a

common occurrence. Ironically, women who do not

comply with traditional societal expectations of

heterosexual attraction or binary self-identification of

gender are better able to initiate breakthroughs in

conventionally male-dominated industries and

receive a higher income than cisgender, heterosexual

women because of the stereotypical impression of

them being "more masculine" (Black et al., 2003).

The advantages of such misconceptions are quickly

subverted by the creation of a prejudiced and toxic

workplace environment accustomed to misogynistic

misgendering and denial of the feminine qualities of

those queer women employees (Black et al., 2003). In

comparison, queer men experience marginalisation

and contempt for their lack of masculinity and are

therefore shut off from job opportunities (Black et al.,

2003). Queer men taking up the domestic role within

homosexual marriages are therefore unable to work

(Black et al., 2003). The queer community, in its

ability to reverse traditional societal roles and detach

qualities of "domesticity", "breadwinner" from

assignments via gender faced wide incomprehension

from the wide public, leading to marginalisation and

a lack of accommodation in their chosen professional

field.

2.2 Development of Legal Regulations

There has been a void in specific and targeted federal

measures against discrimination based on sexual

orientation or gender identity. Proposals to amend the

1964 Civil Rights Act have not been addressed and

responded to formally (Eskridge, 2017). Proposed

federal protections ensuring workplace equality for

the queer employee have a history of repeated failure,

and no proposals have been successfully materialised

on the federal level. Historical attempts include the

Equality Act of 1974 and the Civil Rights

Amendment of 1975 (Eskridge, 2017).

The regulation of workplace discrimination

against the queer community also seems to have

returned to its starting point. Initially, judicial practice

did not recognise the applicability of the relevant

provisions of the Civil Rights Act to queer

individuals. Legal precedents of Holloway v. Arthur

Andersen and Company (1977), as well as Desantis

v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (1979)

have seen the Supreme Court's rigidity in abiding

strictly the "traditional sex notion" and defining

narrowly the causes of sex discrimination as "on the

basis of gender", refusing any judicial extension to

include the cause of "sexual preference". Marginal

softening of the Supreme Court's stance and attitude

slowly proceeded with the legitimisation of same sex

harassment in the legal precedent of "Oncale v.

Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. " (1998).

Into the 21st century, a more extended

interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has

been gradually accepted by the legislative authorities

including the US Supreme Court and the EEOC. The

more contemporary judicial interpretation includes

certain categories of non-binary sexual orientation

and gender identity in "the protected class......by sex"

as stated in the Act (Civil Rights Act, 1964). The US

Supreme Court officially established this

understanding in its 2020 ruling of R.G. & G.R.

Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whereby the

employer is penalised for terminating employment on

the basis of transgender or transitioning status of the

employee and her refusal to conform to sex-based

stereotypes. Below the federal level, 22 states, 3

territories and D.C. areas have explicit state laws

forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation

and gender identity (Movement Advancement

Project, 2020).

However, an executive presidential order in

January 2025 "defines sex as an immutable binary

biological classification" and replaces "gender

identity" with "gender ideology" to represent "a

spectrum of gender separate from one's sex" (Trump,

2025). The executive presidential action has not only

imposed restrictions upon occasions where an

individual's self-proclaimed gender identity will be

recognised in place of their biological sex, but also

introduced new vocabulary in defining the queerness

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

134

description (Trump, 2025). The additional

requirement that the government avoid actions to

"promote gender ideology" have created confusion in

uncertainty in affirmation and acknowledgement of

the queer self-identification, further detaching

societal views of the queer community from their

self-identification.

In conclusion, the fight against workplace

discrimination towards the queer community in the

United States has historically faced the challenge of

systemic resistance, where the legislative efforts to

advocate for queer workplace equality are repetitively

ignored and suppressed. Despite legislatively

progressive advancements acknowledging the

punishable nature of workplace discrimination on the

basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, a lack

of codified federal legislation, as well as the absence

of a unified legal framework incorporating both

federal and state regulations continue to expose queer

individuals to legal uncertainty and vulnerability. The

recent presidential executive order reinstating the

state's exclusive recognition of sex by birth, and

framing gender identity inaccurately as “gender

ideology”, marks a significant setback not only by

eroding institutional recognition of queer self-

identification, but also increases public confusion and

misunderstanding regarding the queer community. As

such, the pursuit of equal rights for the queer

community remains a critical challenge for US.

3 MEASURES TO PROMOTE

WORKPLACE EQUALITY FOR

QUEER GROUPS

3.1 Legislative Measures

To counteract the effects of workplace discrimination

of the queer community that have been aggravated

with the empowerment of the Trump administration,

further legislative clarification is required. The

enactment of President Trump's presidential

executive order disregards decades of medical

science and legal precedent that established

protective measures for transgender and non-binary

Americans by erasing the legitimacy of their

existence (Trump, 2025). This threat has prompted

the constitutional reintroduction of the Equality Act,

amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act and enshrining

federal protections against discrimination based on

sexual orientation and gender identity in employment,

housing, education, public accommodations, jury

service, and federally funded programs (Keller,

2025).

Furthermore, to counter traditional stigmatization

of queer employees, legislative measures should

repeal the normalisation and justification of the

discriminatory selection process of employees, based

on religious means. The government has traditionally

allowed certain federal contractors and

subcontractors to establish a hiring procedure

following their religious beliefs (Medina et al., 2021).

This harms the working conditions of the queer

community, as it will be possible for the company to

use religion as a facade to mask their discrimination,

and to deny queer job applicants job opportunities

while suffering no negative consequences. Rather, the

government should maintain that traditional

interpretations of religious beliefs should not be a

criterion to evaluate job applicants, restoring

workplace professionalism.

3.2 Corporate Initiatives

To appropriately address any discomfort experienced

by the queer community in workplace due to a lack of

consideration for their gender identity and

physicality, firms need to construct facilities to ensure

their occupational safety and health. The inclusion of

unisex or non-gendered bathrooms not only provides

an alternative option for non-binary and gender fluid

employees, rather than forcing them to conform to a

system of gender identification that conflicts with

their self-identification but also reflects the

company's supportive and inclusive stance (Medina et

al., 2021). Queer workers are therefore relieved all

pressure and negative emotions that may arise when

they are forced to misgender themselves.

To ensure workplace equality for the queer

community, the employers must restructure the

company's welfare system. Increased workplace

participation of the queer community prompts the

firms to adopt more inclusive definitions of family

when providing employees with the opportunity and

access to support paid family leaves and medical

leaves (Medina et al., 2021)

. Restrictive interpretation of gendered roles and

composition within a familial unit creates

unnecessary barriers for queer employees that prevent

them from securely and certainly accessing

workplace accommodations. Queer employees are

more likely to seek employment, prolong their

professional life and push through potentially work-

Study on the Legal Implications of Workplace Discrimination of the Queer Community in US

135

disrupting personal issues when they are entitled to

clearly and broadly defined measures in consideration

of their sexual orientation and gender identity

(Medina et al., 2021).

Allowing the freedom of expression for queer

employees, encouraging their participation in

discussions of family and personal life is also an

effective strategy to enhance their work experience.

Policies allowing queer disclosure, visibility, and

recognition relieves the psychological burden of

"being different", "having to hide your difference",

that is often feeled by queer employees when they

initially participate in work (Medina et al., 2021).

Simple measures such as encouraging queer

employees to decorate their office with family photos,

and warmly compliment their family when making

small talks in the workplace can ease the initial

discomfort and nervousness of queer employees, as a

welcoming corporate message has been sent (Medina

et al., 2021). The removal of such psychological

barriers will not only improve a queer employee's

motivation and enthusiasm for work, but also increase

the collective spirit of the workplace.

3.3 Mutual Regulation and Oversight

Additionally, the firm should actively seek out

clarification and achieve coordination with legislative

accommodations to fight for equal treatments for its

queer employees. Firms should advocate that

programs managed by the US Department of Labour

and Department of Commerce acknowledge the

gender identity of transgender individuals and use

their self-identification to assess eligibility, revoking

the currently effective presidential executive order

that only admits citizens' gender at birth (Medina et

al., 2021). By clarifying the criteria for participation

in programs such as Women’s Bureau programs,

Small Business Administration women and

disadvantaged workers programs, the Minority

Business Development Agency programs to include

the queer community, the state will be able to

adequately address discrimination faced by this

population, marginalised because of their sexual

orientation and gender identity (Medina et al., 2021).

The effectively addressment of workplace

discrimination against the queer community demands

a joint effort between government regulation and

firms. Mutual supervision and monitoring between

the two forms of authority determining the working

conditions of a queer employee is necessary to

prevent the overconcentration of influence to one

party, avoiding the inflation of queer workplace

discrimination that stems from the imbalance and a

lack of checks and balances on the overly powerful

authority. Through collaboration, both entities can

implement equitable policies and ensure

accountability. This dual approach strengthens the

institutional framework needed to protect queer

individuals from systemic bias and exclusion.

4 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the legal implications of workplace

discrimination against the queer community in the

United States reveal a complex and evolving struggle,

corresponding to the alternating claims to the power

to make political decisions between progressive and

conservative parties. Indeed, the extension of federal

protections to encompass sexual orientation and

gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

has been successfully achieved through the Supreme

Court's updated legal interpretation of discrimination

cases. However, this judicial progress conflicts in its

political intent with the recent presidential executive

order that denies state acknowledgment of non-binary

gender identities.

Historical contempt and belittling of the queer

community resurfaces with an increasingly

conservative political atmosphere influenced by the

newly elected Trump Administration. Recognition

and acknowledgement of non-binary gender

identities and gender identities different from what is

specified at birth, adopted later by the queer

community are revoked as a consequence. It is

therefore anticipated that conceptual

misunderstanding of the queer community will be

deepened with this governmental refusal to refer to

their queer identity under all official circumstances.

The queer community will endure enhanced

psychological pressure and literal marginalisation

with blatant societal ignoration of a crucial makeup

of their personality.

Workplace discrimination against the queer

community occurs in forms of hiring bias, wage

suppression, and exclusion due to nonconformity in

gender expression and identity. Queer employees are

frequently forced to misgender themselves,

conforming to gender norms to secure their

employment. Stereotypes also lead to unequal access

to industries—queer women may enter male-

dominated fields but face toxic environments, while

queer men are excluded for lacking perceived

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

136

masculinity. These systemic biases reinforce

marginalisation and hinder equal participation,

dignity, and economic opportunity for queer people

in the workplace.

True workplace equality demands not only the

repeal of discriminatory exemptions but also

proactive corporate reforms—such as inclusive

facilities, broader definitions of family benefits,

support for queer visibility, and alignment with

inclusive federal programs. A fully equitable and

affirming professional environment can only be

achieved when both legal frameworks and workplace

cultures are reshaped to recognize, protect, and

celebrate the diversity of the queer community.

Collectively, these measures promote a genuinely

equitable and affirming workplace for all.

REFERENCES

American Civil Liberties Union. 2020. LGBTQ

Rights. Know Your Rights.American Civil

Liberties Union.retrieved from

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/lgbtq-

rights.

Badgett, L., Lau, H., Sears, B. & Ho, D. 2007. Bias in

the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual

orientation and gender identity discrimination.

Chicago-Kent Law Review 84: 1-27.

Black, D.A., Makar, H.R., Sanders, S.G. & Taylor,

L.J. 2003. The earnings effects of sexual

orientation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review

56(3): 449–469.

Civil Rights Act. 1964. U.S.C.

Desantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph

Company (1979) 608 F.2d 327.

Eskridge, W.N. Jr. 2017. Title VII's statutory history

and the sex discrimination argument for LGBT work

place protections. Yale Law Journal 127(2): 322–

405.

Holloway v. Arthur Andersen and Company (1977)

566 F.2d 659.

Keller, J. 2025. As Congressional Champions

Reintroduce Equality Act.Civil Rights Groups

Call for its Urgent Passage, HR. Retrieved from

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/as-

congressional-champions-reintroduce-equality-

act-civil-rights-groups-call-for-its-urgent-passage

Kunzel, R. 2018. The power of queer history.

American Historical Review 123: 1560–1582.

Medina, C., Gruberg, S., Mahowald, L. & Santos, T.

2021. Improving the lives and rights of LGBTQ

people in America. Center for American Progress.

Retrieved from

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/improvi

ng-lives-rights-lgbtq-people-america/

Mishel, E.2016.Discrimination against queer women

in the U.S. workforce: A resume audit study.

Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic

World 2: 1-13.

Movement Advancement Project.2020.Movement

Advancement Project.Employment

Nondiscrimination. retrieved from

https://www.lgbtmap.org/.

Nadal, K., Whitman, C., Davis, L., Erazo, T. &

Davidoff, K. 2016. Microaggressions toward

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and

genderqueer people: A review of the literature.The

Journal of Sex Research 53: 1–21.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998)

523 US 75.

Ruberg, B. & Ruelos, S. 2020. Data for queer lives:

How LGBTQ gender and sexuality identities

challenge norms of demographics. Big Data &

Society 7: 1-12.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

(2020).

Torres‐Castro, T. & Morales-Villena, A. 2025.

Transgender discrimination in Puerto Rico: An

analysis from a queer perspective of labor

experiences. Gender, Work & Organization (2025,

00): 1-14.

Trump, D. 2025. Defending women from gender

ideology extremism and restoring biological truth

to the federal government. The White House.

Worthen, M. 2021. Categorically queer? An

exploratory study of identifying queer in the USA.

Sexuality Research and Social Policy 3: 1090-

1113.

Study on the Legal Implications of Workplace Discrimination of the Queer Community in US

137