A Kinder, Gentler Workplace for Lesbians and Gay Men

Abstract

The 1991 decision by a federal district court in Kansas declaring that the homosexual classification is suspect is supported in this article [1]. The court's decision requires strict scrutiny of the homosexual classification with respect to employment. The treatment of the homosexual classification in other lower courts, and in the Supreme Court, which has declined to address the equal protection rights of homosexuals, is also discussed. Employment protection for lesbians and gay men, which exists in several states, is noted, and the possible impact of the evidence regarding a biological connection to sexual orientation on the individual employment rights is addressed. The article suggests that protection for sexual orientation could be effected with little disruption in the workplace through an amendment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, extending the law against sexual harassment, and by apply­ ing the narrowly-defined bona fide occupational qualification. In its quarterly publication, Issues in Human Resources, the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) reported in January, 1991 that although dis­ crimination laws have historically sought to protect groups with immutable physical characteristics, "The next wave of civil rights protections could be for what may be termed 'lifestyle disabilities.' " [2, p. 8]. The article included sexual preference under this frontier umbrella. The inference was that homosexuality is not based on an immutable physical characteristic [2]. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychobiologists have long puzzled over the cause of homosexuality; there has been less agreement on its cause than on its 1 Some prefer the term sexual orientation because "the word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice . . . that has not been demonstrated in psychological research" [3, p. 973].